Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

in Bonneville County, Idaho

Final Report

Appendices A through I

Office of Federal and State Materials and

Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1945, Vol. 2
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

in Bonneville County, Idaho 

Final Report 

Appendices A through I 

Manuscript Completed: February 2011 

Date Published: February 2011 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

 Environmental Management Programs 

NUREG-1945, Vol. 2

 iii 

1 ABSTRACT 

2 

3 On December 30, 2008, AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) submitted an application to 

4 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct, operate, and 

5 decommission the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). The proposed EREF 

6 would be located in Bonneville County, Idaho, approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) west of 

7 Idaho Falls. Revisions to the license application were submitted by AES on April 23, 2009, and 

8 April 30, 2010. If licensed, the proposed facility would enrich uranium for use in commercial 

9 nuclear fuel for power reactors. AES would employ a gas centrifuge enrichment process to 

10 enrich uranium to up to five percent uranium-235 by weight, with a planned maximum target 

11 production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. AES initiated preconstruction 

12 activities (e.g., site preparation) in late 2010 under an exemption approved by the NRC to 

13 conduct such activities prior to licensing. If its license application is approved, AES expects to 

14 begin facility construction in 2011and commence initial production in 2014, reaching peak 

15 production in 2022. AES’s license would be for a term of 30 years. Prior to license expiration in 

16 2041, AES would seek to renew its license to continue operating the proposed facility or plan for 

17 the decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed facility per the applicable licensing 

18 conditions and NRC regulations. The proposed EREF would be licensed in accordance with the 

19 provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. Specifically, an NRC license under Title 10, “Energy,” of 

20 the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70 would be required to 

21 authorize AES to possess and use special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct 

22 material at the proposed EREF site. 

23 

24 This Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1945) (EIS) was prepared in compliance with 

25 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the NRC regulations 

26 for implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 51). This EIS evaluates the potential environmental 

27 impacts of preconstruction activities and of the proposed action, which is to construct, operate, 

28 and decommission the proposed EREF near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho. Also, this 

29 EIS describes the environment potentially affected by AES’s proposal, evaluates reasonable 

30 alternatives to the proposed action, describes AES’s environmental monitoring program and 

31 mitigation measures, and evaluates the costs and benefits of the proposed action. 

32 

33 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

34 

35 This NUREG contains and references information collection requirements that are subject to the 

36 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were 

37 approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014, 3150-0017, 

38 3150-0020, 3150-0009, 3150-0002, 3150-0123, and 3150-0047. 

39 

40 Public Protection Notification 

41 

42 The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

43 information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

44 currently valid OMB control number. 

45 

NUREG-1945 has been reproduced from 

the best available copy.

 v 

1 CONTENTS 

2 

3 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii 

4 

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xxvii 

6 

7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... xlvii 

8 

9 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

10 

11 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-1

12 1.2 The Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 1-1

13 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................ 1-3

14 1.3.1 The Need for Enriched Uranium to Fulfill Electricity Requirements .............. 1-4

15 1.3.2 The Need for Domestic Supplies of Enriched Uranium for National 

16 Energy Security ............................................................................................. 1-7

17 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Analysis ...................................................................... 1-8

18 1.4.1 Scope of the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1-8 

19 1.4.2 Scoping Process and Public Participation Activities ...................................... 1-11

20 1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail ................................................................................. 1-11

21 1.4.4 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................................................... 1-12

22 1.4.5 Issues Outside the Scope of the EIS ............................................................. 1-12

23 1.4.6 Draft EIS Public Comment Period and Public Participation Activities ........... 1-14 

24 1.4.7 Changes from the Draft EIS .......................................................................... 1-14 

25 1.4.8 Related Relevant Documents ........................................................................ 1-17 

26 1.5 Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ................................................ 1-19

27 1.5.1 Applicable State of Idaho Requirements ....................................................... 1-19

28 1.5.2 Permit and Approval Status........................................................................... 1-19

29 1.5.3 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................... 1-19

30 1.5.4 Consultations ................................................................................................ 1-19

31 1.5.4.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation ............................. 1-24

32 1.5.4.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 

33 Consultation ................................................................................... 1-25

34 1.6 Organizations Involved in the Proposed Action ....................................................... 1-27

35 1.7 References .............................................................................................................. 1-27

36 

37 2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................. 2-1

38 

39 2.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 2-1

40 2.1.1 Location and Description of the Proposed Site and Vicinity .......................... 2-2

41 2.1.2 Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Process ............................................................. 2-4

42 2.1.3 Description of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility ....................... 2-5

43 2.1.3.1 Major Facility Buildings and Structures .......................................... 2-7

44 2.1.3.2 Utilities ........................................................................................... 2-12

45 2.1.3.3 Local Road Network ....................................................................... 2-12

46 
 vi 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 2.1.4 Description of the Phases of the Proposed Action ........................................ 2-13

4 2.1.4.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities ................................... 2-14

5 2.1.4.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 2-15

6 2.1.4.3 Decontamination and Decommissioning ........................................ 2-21

7 2.1.5 Depleted Uranium Management ................................................................... 2-24

8 2.1.5.1 Conversion of Depleted UF6 .......................................................... 2-25 

9 2.1.5.2 Disposal of Depleted Uranium ....................................................... 2-26 

10 2.2 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-26

11 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ................................................................... 2-27

12 2.3.1 Alternative Sites ............................................................................................ 2-28

13 2.3.1.1 Identification of Regions and Sites ................................................. 2-28

14 2.3.1.2 Screen Candidate Sites (Phase I) .................................................. 2-29

15 2.3.1.3 Site Evaluation (Phase II) .............................................................. 2-29

16 2.3.1.4 Preferred Site Identification ............................................................ 2-29

17 2.3.2 Alternative Sources of Low-Enriched Uranium .............................................. 2-32

18 2.3.2.1 Re-Activate the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Facility at 

19 Piketon ........................................................................................... 2-32

20 2.3.2.2 Downblending Highly Enriched Uranium ....................................... 2-33

21 2.3.2.3 Purchase Low-Enriched Uranium from Foreign Sources ............... 2-33

22 2.3.3 Alternative Technologies for Enrichment ....................................................... 2-39

23 2.3.3.1 Electromagnetic Isotope Separation Process ................................ 2-39

24 2.3.3.2 Liquid Thermal Diffusion ................................................................ 2-40

25 2.3.3.3 Gaseous Diffusion Process ............................................................ 2-40

26 2.3.3.4 Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation ........................................ 2-41

27 2.3.3.5 Molecular Laser Isotope Separation .............................................. 2-41

28 2.3.3.6 Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation .................................... 2-42

29 2.4 Summary and Comparison of Predicted Environmental Impacts ............................ 2-42

30 2.5 Staff Recommendation Regarding the Proposed Action ......................................... 2-65

31 2.6 References .............................................................................................................. 2-65

32 

33 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 3-1

34 

35 3.1 Site Location and Description .................................................................................. 3-1

36 3.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 3-1

37 3.2.1 Bonneville County and Proposed EREF Property ......................................... 3-3

38 3.2.2 Bingham County ............................................................................................ 3-5

39 3.2.3 Jefferson County ........................................................................................... 3-5

40 3.2.4 Special Land Use Classification Areas .......................................................... 3-5

41 3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 3-6

42 3.3.1 Prehistoric ..................................................................................................... 3-6

43 3.3.2 Protohistoric and Historic Indian Tribes ......................................................... 3-6

44 3.3.3 Historic Euro-American ................................................................................. 3-7

45 
 vii 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 3.3.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources in the Vicinity 

4 of the Proposed Site ...................................................................................... 3-7

5 3.4 Visual and Scenic Resources .................................................................................. 3-8

6 3.5 Climatology, Meteorology, and Air Quality ............................................................... 3-15

7 3.5.1 Climatology ................................................................................................... 3-15 

8 3.5.1.1 Idaho .............................................................................................. 3-15

9 3.5.1.2 Proposed EREF Site ...................................................................... 3-15

10 3.5.2 EREF Site Meteorology ................................................................................. 3-15

11 3.5.2.1 Temperature .................................................................................. 3-16

12 3.5.2.2 Precipitation and Relative Humidity ............................................... 3-16

13 3.5.2.3 Winds, Atmospheric Stability, and Temperature Inversions .......... 3-21

14 3.5.2.4 Severe Weather Conditions ........................................................... 3-24

15 3.5.2.5 Mixing Heights ............................................................................... 3-27

16 3.5.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3-28

17 3.5.3.1 Regional Air Quality ....................................................................... 3-30

18 3.5.3.2 Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................................... 3-30

19 3.5.3.3 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas ......................................... 3-33

20 3.5.3.4 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ........................................... 3-34

21 3.5.3.5 Conformity ...................................................................................... 3-34

22 3.6 Geology, Minerals, and Soil ..................................................................................... 3-34

23 3.6.1 Regional Geology .......................................................................................... 3-35

24 3.6.1.1 Seismic Setting, Earthquakes, and Volcanic Activity ..................... 3-38

25 3.6.1.2 Mineral and Energy Resources ...................................................... 3-42

26 3.6.2 Site Geology .................................................................................................. 3-44

27 3.6.3 Site Soils ....................................................................................................... 3-45

28 3.6.4 Soil Radiological and Chemical Characteristics ............................................ 3-45

29 3.6.4.1 Soil Radiological Characteristics .................................................... 3-45

30 3.6.4.2 Soil Chemical Characteristics ........................................................ 3-48

31 3.7 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-48

32 3.7.1 Surface Water Features ................................................................................ 3-48

33 3.7.1.1 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes ........................................................... 3-48

34 3.7.1.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................ 3-51

35 3.7.1.3 Floodplains ..................................................................................... 3-51

36 3.7.2 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................... 3-55

37 3.7.2.1 Regional Hydrogeology .................................................................. 3-55

38 3.7.2.2 Site Hydrogeology .......................................................................... 3-56

39 3.7.2.3 Groundwater Use ........................................................................... 3-57

40 3.7.2.4 Groundwater Quality ...................................................................... 3-60

41 3.8 Ecological Resources .............................................................................................. 3-61

42 3.8.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................ 3-61

43 3.8.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 3-63

44 3.8.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ................................................ 3-70

45 3.8.4 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 3-73

46 
 viii 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 3.8.5 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ................................................................... 3-73

4 3.9 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 3-73

5 3.9.1 Expected Sound Propagation Characteristics at the Proposed EREF Site ... 3-74

6 3.9.2 Existing Sound Sources and Potential Receptors at the Proposed 

7 EREF Site ..................................................................................................... 3-74

8 3.9.3 Noise Regulatory Controls ............................................................................ 3-75

9 3.9.4 Noise Analyses Performed for the Proposed EREF ...................................... 3-76

10 3.10 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 3-77

11 3.10.1 Roads ........................................................................................................... 3-77

12 3.10.2 Rail ................................................................................................................ 3-82

13 3.10.3 Air ................................................................................................................. 3-82 

14 3.10.4 Water ............................................................................................................ 3-82

15 3.11 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................................... 3-82

16 3.11.1 Background Radiological Exposure .............................................................. 3-83

17 3.11.1.1 General Background Radiation ...................................................... 3-83

18 3.11.1.2 Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................. 3-84

19 3.11.2 Background Chemical Exposure ................................................................... 3-85

20 3.11.3 Public Health Studies .................................................................................... 3-85

21 3.11.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Public and Occupational 

22 Exposure ........................................................................................ 3-85

23 3.11.3.2 Health Effects from Radiological Exposure .................................... 3-86

24 3.11.3.3 Health Effects from Chemical Exposure ........................................ 3-87

25 3.12 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 3-88

26 3.12.1Population Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-88

27 3.12.1.1 Major Population Centers .............................................................. 3-88

28 3.12.1.2 Population Growth Trends ............................................................. 3-89

29 3.12.1.3 Transient and Special Populations ................................................ 3-89

30 3.12.2Economic Trends and Characteristics ........................................................... 3-89

31 3.12.2.1 Employment ................................................................................... 3-89

32 3.12.2.2 Unemployment ............................................................................... 3-89

33 3.12.2.3 Income ........................................................................................... 3-90

34 3.12.3 Housing Resources and Community and Social Services ............................ 3-90

35 3.12.3.1 Housing .......................................................................................... 3-93

36 3.12.3.2 Schools .......................................................................................... 3-93

37 3.12.3.3 Public Safety .................................................................................. 3-93

38 3.12.4 Tax Structure and Distribution ....................................................................... 3-95

39 3.13 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 3-95

40 3.13.1 Minority Populations ..................................................................................... 3-96

41 3.13.2 Low-Income Populations............................................................................... 3-97 

42 3.13.3 Resource Dependencies and Vulnerabilities of Minority 

43 and Low-Income Populations ........................................................................ 3-97

44 3.14 References .............................................................................................................. 3-99

45 

46 
 ix 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 4-1

4 

5 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1

6 4.2 Potential Impacts of Preconstruction and the Proposed Action ............................... 4-2

7 4.2.1 Land Use Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-3

8 4.2.1.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-3

9 4.2.1.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-4

10 4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-4

11 4.2.2 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ...................................................... 4-4

12 4.2.2.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-5

13 4.2.2.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-7

14 4.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-7

15 4.2.3 Visual and Scenic Impacts ............................................................................ 4-8

16 4.2.3.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-8

17 4.2.3.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-10

18 4.2.3.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-11

19 4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-11

20 4.2.4.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-12

21 4.2.4.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-22

22 4.2.4.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-29

23 4.2.5 Geology and Soil Impacts ............................................................................. 4-31

24 4.2.5.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-31

25 4.2.5.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-33

26 4.2.5.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-34

27 4.2.6 Water Resources Impacts ............................................................................. 4-34

28 4.2.6.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-35

29 4.2.6.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-38

30 4.2.6.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-44

31 4.2.7 Ecological Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-45

32 4.2.7.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-46

33 4.2.7.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-54

34 4.2.7.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-55

35 4.2.8 Noise Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-57

36 4.2.8.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-58

37 4.2.8.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-62

38 4.2.8.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-63

39 4.2.9 Transportation Impacts.................................................................................. 4-65

40 4.2.9.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-65

41 4.2.9.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-67

42 4.2.9.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-74

43 4.2.10Public and Occupational Health Impacts ....................................................... 4-75

44 4.2.10.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-76

45 4.2.10.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-77

46 
 x 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 4.2.10.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-86

4 4.2.11 Waste Management Impacts ......................................................................... 4-91

5 4.2.11.1 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-91

6 4.2.11.2 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-93

7 4.2.11.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-98

8 4.2.12Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................ 4-101

9 4.2.12.1 Methodology .................................................................................. 4-102

10 4.2.12.2 Preconstruction and Construction .................................................. 4-103

11 4.2.12.3 Facility Operation ........................................................................... 4-105 

12 4.2.12.4 Potential Effect on Property Values ............................................... 4-107 

13 4.2.13Environmental Justice Impacts ...................................................................... 4-108

14 4.2.14Separation of Preconstruction and Construction Impacts ............................. 4-111

15 4.2.15Accident Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-111

16 4.2.15.1 Accidents Considered .................................................................... 4-111

17 4.2.15.2 Accident Consequences ................................................................ 4-117

18 4.2.15.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-120

19 4.2.16 Decontamination and Decommissioning Impacts ......................................... 4-120

20 4.2.16.1 Land Use ........................................................................................ 4-122

21 4.2.16.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................... 4-122

22 4.2.16.3 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................ 4-122

23 4.2.16.4 Air Quality ...................................................................................... 4-122

24 4.2.16.5 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 4-123

25 4.2.16.6 Water Resources ........................................................................... 4-123

26 4.2.16.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................... 4-124

27 4.2.16.8 Noise .............................................................................................. 4-124

28 4.2.16.9 Transportation ................................................................................ 4-124

29 4.2.16.10 Public and Occupational Health ..................................................... 4-125

30 4.2.16.11 Waste Management ....................................................................... 4-126

31 4.2.16.12Socioeconomics ............................................................................. 4-126

32 4.2.16.13Environmental Justice .................................................................... 4-126

33 4.2.16.14Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-127

34 4.2.17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Proposed EREF ............... 4-127

35 4.2.17.1 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................ 4-127

36 4.2.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in the United States ......... 4-128

37 4.2.17.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in Idaho ............................ 4-130

38 4.2.17.4 Projected Impacts from the Preconstruction, Construction, 

39 Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed EREF 

40 on Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases ........................ 4-130 

41 4.2.18 Terrorism Consideration ................................................................................ 4-142 

42 4.2.18.1 Background Information ................................................................. 4-142

43 4.2.18.2 Potential Impacts of Terrorist Events ............................................. 4-142 

44 4.2.18.3 Mitigative Measures ....................................................................... 4-146 

45 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-147

46 
 xi 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 4.3.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 4-149

4 4.3.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 4-149

5 4.3.3 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................ 4-150

6 4.3.4 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4-150

7 4.3.5 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... 4-152

8 4.3.6 Water Resources........................................................................................... 4-152

9 4.3.7 Ecology ......................................................................................................... 4-154

10 4.3.8 Noise ............................................................................................................. 4-157

11 4.3.9 Transportation ............................................................................................... 4-157

12 4.3.10Public and Occupational Health .................................................................... 4-158

13 4.3.11 Waste Management ...................................................................................... 4-158

14 4.3.12Socioeconomics ............................................................................................ 4-159

15 4.3.13Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 4-159

16 4.4 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative........................................................................ 4-160

17 4.4.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 4-162

18 4.4.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 4-162

19 4.4.3 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................ 4-162

20 4.4.4 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4-162

21 4.4.5 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... 4-162

22 4.4.6 Water Resources........................................................................................... 4-163

23 4.4.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 4-163

24 4.4.8 Noise ............................................................................................................. 4-163

25 4.4.9 Transportation ............................................................................................... 4-163

26 4.4.10Public and Occupational Health .................................................................... 4-163

27 4.4.11 Waste Management ...................................................................................... 4-163

28 4.4.12 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................ 4-164

29 4.4.13 Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 4-164

30 4.4.14 Accidents ....................................................................................................... 4-164

31 4.5 References .............................................................................................................. 4-164

32 

33 5 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................... 5-1

34 

35 5.1 Mitigation Measures Identified by AES .................................................................... 5-1

36 5.2 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC ............................................... 5-21

37 5.3 References .............................................................................................................. 5-21

38 

39 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ...................... 6-1

40 

41 6.1 Radiological Measurements and Monitoring Program ............................................. 6-1

42 6.1.1 Air Emissions Monitoring ............................................................................... 6-2

43 6.1.2 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring ...................................................................... 6-6

44 6.1.3 Wastewater Discharge Monitoring ................................................................ 6-7

45 6.1.4 Stormwater and Basin Sediment Monitoring ................................................. 6-8

46 
 xii 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 6.1.5 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................ 6-9

4 6.1.6 Soil and Vegetation Sampling ....................................................................... 6-10

5 6.1.7 Direct Gamma Radiation Monitoring ............................................................. 6-10

6 6.1.8 Monitoring Procedures and Laboratory Standards ........................................ 6-10 

7 6.1.9 Reporting ....................................................................................................... 6-11

8 6.2 Nonradiological Measurements and Monitoring Program ........................................ 6-11

9 6.2.1 Physiochemical Monitoring............................................................................ 6-12

10 6.2.1.1 Liquid Effluent Monitoring .............................................................. 6-15

11 6.2.1.2 Stormwater Monitoring ................................................................... 6-15

12 6.2.1.3 Environmental Monitoring .............................................................. 6-16

13 6.2.1.4 Meteorological Monitoring .............................................................. 6-17

14 6.2.1.5 Local Flora and Fauna ................................................................... 6-17

15 6.2.1.6 Quality Assurance .......................................................................... 6-17

16 6.2.2 Ecological Monitoring .................................................................................... 6-18

17 6.2.2.1 Monitoring Program Elements ....................................................... 6-18

18 6.2.2.2 Observations and Monitoring Program Design .............................. 6-19

19 6.3 References .............................................................................................................. 6-24

20 

21 7 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 7-1

22 

23 7.1 Costs and Benefits of Preconstruction and the Proposed Action ............................ 7-2

24 7.1.1 Costs of Preconstruction and the Proposed Action ....................................... 7-2

25 7.1.2 Benefits of the Proposed Action .................................................................... 7-6

26 7.1.3 Summary Regarding the Proposed Action .................................................... 7-7

27 7.2 Comparative Benefit-Cost Analysis of Proposed Action Relative to No-Action 

28 Alternative ................................................................................................................ 7-7

29 7.2.1 No-Action Alternative..................................................................................... 7-8

30 7.2.2 The Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 7-8

31 7.2.3 Compliance with Policy and Technical Objectives ........................................ 7-8 

32 7.2.3.1 Meeting Demand for Enriched Uranium ......................................... 7-9

33 7.2.3.2 National Energy Security ............................................................... 7-9

34 7.2.3.3 Technology Upgrade ...................................................................... 7-10 

35 7.2.3.4 Energy Generation with Fewer Emissions 

36 of Criteria Pollutants and Carbon ................................................... 7-10

37 7.2.4 Conclusions Regarding the Proposed Action versus the No-Action 

38 Alternative ..................................................................................................... 7-10

39 7.3 Overall Benefit-Cost Conclusions ............................................................................ 7-10 

40 7.4 References .............................................................................................................. 7-11 

41 

42 8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................. 8-1

43 

44 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 8-3

45 
 xiii 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 8.2 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

4 Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .................................... 8-4

5 8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ......................................... 8-5 

6 8.4 References .............................................................................................................. 8-7 

7 

8 9 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ........................................................ 9-1

9 

10 9.1 Federal Agencies ..................................................................................................... 9-1

11 9.2 Federally Recognized Indian Tribes ........................................................................ 9-2

12 9.3 State Agencies ......................................................................................................... 9-3

13 9.4 Local Governments and Agencies ........................................................................... 9-4

14 9.5 Other Organizations ................................................................................................. 9-4

15 

16 10 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................... 10-1

17 

18 10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors ................................................. 10-1

19 10.2 Argonne National Laboratory Contributors .............................................................. 10-2

20 

21 APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT .................................. A-1

22 

23 APPENDIX B CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE ..................................................... B-1

24 

25 B.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation ................................................ B-3

26 B.2 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation ...................................................... B-36 

27 B.3 Other Consultation ................................................................................................... B-85 

28 

29 APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................. C-1

30 

31 C.1 Selection of Air Dispersion Model ............................................................................ C-3

32 C.2 Determination of Surface Characteristics ................................................................ C-4

33 C.3 Meteorological Data Processing .............................................................................. C-5

34 C.4 Terrain Data Processing .......................................................................................... C-7

35 C.5 Modeling Assumptions ............................................................................................. C-10

36 C.6 Modeling Results ..................................................................................................... C-10

37 C.7 References .............................................................................................................. C-11

38 

39 APPENDIX D TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, 

40 AND IMPACTS ............................................................................................. D-1

41 

42 D.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. D-3

43 D.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ D-3 

44 D.2.1 Routine Transportation Risk Methodology .................................................... D-4

45 D.2.1.1 Collective Population Risk ............................................................. D-4

46 D.2.1.2 Maximally Exposed Individual Risk ................................................ D-5

47 
 xiv 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 D.2.1.3 Vehicle-Related Risk ...................................................................... D-5

4 D.2.2 Accident Transportation Risk Methodology ................................................... D-5

5 D.2.2.1 Radiological Accident Risk Assessment ........................................ D-6

6 D.2.2.2 Chemical Accident Risk Assessment ............................................. D-6

7 D.2.2.3 Vehicle-Related Accident Risk Assessment .................................. D-7 

8 D.3 Input Parameters and Assumptions ......................................................................... D-7

9 D.3.1 Route Characteristics .................................................................................... D-8

10 D.3.1.1 Route Selection .............................................................................. D-8

11 D.3.1.2 Population Density ......................................................................... D-9 

12 D.3.1.3 Accident and Fatality Rates ........................................................... D-11 

13 D.3.2 Packaging ..................................................................................................... D-12

14 D.3.3 Shipment Configurations and Number of Shipments .................................... D-15 

15 D.3.4 Accident Characteristics ................................................................................ D-17 

16 D.3.4.1 Accident Severity Categories ......................................................... D-17

17 D.3.4.2 Package Release Fractions ........................................................... D-18 

18 D.3.4.3 Atmospheric Conditions during Accidents ..................................... D-20

19 D.3.5 Radiological Risk Assessment Input Parameters and Assumptions ............. D-21 

20 D.3.6 Routine Nonradiological Vehicle Emission Risks .......................................... D-22 

21 D.4 Summary of Transportation Impacts ........................................................................ D-24

22 D.5 Uncertainty in Transportation Risk Assessment ...................................................... D-30 

23 D.5.1 Routing of Radioactive Material .................................................................... D-30 

24 D.5.2 Shipping Container Characteristics ............................................................... D-30 

25 D.5.3 Source or Destination of Radioactive Material .............................................. D-30 

26 D.6 References .............................................................................................................. D-30 

27 

28 APPENDIX E DOSE METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS ..................................................... E-1

29 

30 E.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. E-3

31 E.2 Pathway Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... E-3

32 E.2.1 Members of the General Public ..................................................................... E-3

33 E.2.2 Construction Workers .................................................................................... E-4

34 E.2.3 Nonradiological Workers ............................................................................... E-5

35 E.2.4 EREF Radiation Workers .............................................................................. E-5

36 E.2.5 Environmental Transport Methodology ......................................................... E-5

37 E.3 Radiological Impact Assessment Input .................................................................... E-7

38 E.3.1 Radionuclide Releases.................................................................................. E-7

39 E.3.2 Population Distributions................................................................................. E-8

40 E.3.3 Exposure Time Fractions and Receptor Locations ....................................... E-8

41 E.3.4 Agricultural Productivity ................................................................................. E-10

42 E.3.5 Radionuclide-Specific Input ........................................................................... E-10

43 E.4 Results of the Radiological Impact Analyses ........................................................... E-11

44 E.4.1 Collective Population ..................................................................................... E-12

45 E.4.2 Individual Public Doses ................................................................................. E-13

46 
 xv 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 E.4.3 Worker Doses ............................................................................................... E-13

4 E.5 References .............................................................................................................. E-15

5 

6 APPENDIX F SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................. F-1

7 

8 F.1 Employment, Income, and Tax Impacts................................................................... F-3

9 F.2 Impacts on Population ............................................................................................. F-4

10 F.3 Impacts on Local Housing Markets .......................................................................... F-4

11 F.4 Impacts on Community Services ............................................................................. F-4 

12 F.5 References .............................................................................................................. F-5

13 

14 APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS DATA .......................................... G-1

15 

16 APPENDIX H BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF PROPRIETARY DATA .............................. H-1

17 

18 H.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. H-3

19 H.2 Benefits .................................................................................................................... H-3

20 H.3 Costs ........................................................................................................................ H-4

21 H.4 References .............................................................................................................. H-5

22 

23 APPENDIX I PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND NRC RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

24 ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...................... I-1

25 

26 I.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. I-3

27 I.2 Public Participation .................................................................................................. I-3

28 I.2.1 Initial Notification and Notice of Formal Proceeding ...................................... I-3

29 I.2.2 Public Scoping .............................................................................................. I-3

30 I.2.3 Draft EIS Development and Availability for Public Comment ........................ I-4

31 I.2.4 Draft EIS Public Comment Meetings ............................................................. I-5

32 I.2.5 Additional Public Comments Received on the Draft EIS ............................... I-5

33 I.3 Draft EIS Public Comment Compilation, Identification, Organization, Review, 

34 and Response .......................................................................................................... I-5

35 I.3.1 Comment Compilation ................................................................................... I-5

36 I.3.2 Commenter and Comment Identification ....................................................... I-5

37 I.3.3 NRC Comment Organization, Review, and Response .................................. I-6

38 I.3.4 Major Comment Issues and Topics ............................................................... I-6

39 I.3.5 Comments on Out-of-Scope Issues and Topics ............................................ I-7

40 I.4 Mandatory Hearing .................................................................................................. I-7

41 I.5 Public Comments on the Draft EIS and NRC Responses ....................................... I-24

42 I.5.1 General Opposition to the Project ................................................................. I-24

43 I.5.2 General Support for the Project..................................................................... I-36

44 I.5.3 NEPA Process............................................................................................... I-56

45 I.5.4 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................ I-71

46 
 xvi 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

2 

3 I.5.5 Scope of the EIS Analysis ............................................................................. I-98

4 I.5.6 Nuclear Proliferation ...................................................................................... I-116

5 I.5.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................ I-122

6 I.5.8 Land Use ....................................................................................................... I-124

7 I.5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................... I-129

8 I.5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................ I-132

9 I.5.11 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... I-135

10 I.5.12 Geology, Minerals, and Soil ......................................................................... I-139

11 I.5.13 Water Resources.......................................................................................... I-141

12 I.5.14 Ecological Resources ................................................................................... I-151

13 I.5.15 Noise ............................................................................................................ I-164

14 I.5.16 Transportation .............................................................................................. I-164

15 I.5.17   Public and Occupational Health ................................................................... I-174

16 I.5.18 Waste Management ..................................................................................... I-182

17 I.5.19 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................... I-208

18 I.5.20 Environmental Justice .................................................................................. I-225

19 I.5.21 Accidents ...................................................................................................... I-225

20 I.5.22 Decontamination and Decommissioning ...................................................... I-233

21 I.5.23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... I-236

22 I.5.24 Terrorism ...................................................................................................... I-240

23 I.5.25 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... I-241

24 I.5.26 Mitigation ...................................................................................................... I-252

25 I.5.27 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs .............................. I-252

26 I.5.28 Benefit-Cost Analysis ................................................................................... I-258

27 I.5.29 Editorial Comments ...................................................................................... I-261

28 I.6 References .............................................................................................................. I-261

29 

30 

31 
 xvii 

1 FIGURES 

2 

3 1-1 Location of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility ...................................... 1-2 

4 

5 1-2 Nuclear Fuel Cycle .................................................................................................. 1-4 

6 

7 2-1 Location of the Proposed EREF Site in Bonneville County, Idaho .......................... 2-3 

8 

9 2-2 Schematic of a Gas Centrifuge ................................................................................ 2-5 

10 

11 2-3 Diagram of Enrichment Cascade ............................................................................. 2-6 

12 

13 2-4 Stacking Depleted UF6 Cylinders in a Storage Yard ................................................ 2-8 

14 

15 2-5 Centrifuges inside a Cascade Hall ........................................................................... 2-9 

16 

17 2-6 Site Plan for the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility .................................... 2-13 

18 

19 2-7 Truck Loaded with Five 30B Enriched Product Cylinders Loaded for Transport 

20 in Their Protective Overpacks .................................................................................. 2-18 

21 

22 2-8 United States Regions Meeting the Original Site Selection Criteria ........................ 2-30 

23 

24 2-9 Final 10 Candidate Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Facility Site 

25 Locations ................................................................................................................. 2-33 

26 

27 2-10 Organization of Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Facility Site 

28 Selection Objectives, Criteria Categories, and Criteria ............................................ 2-34 

29 

30 2-11 Candidate Sites Phase II Evaluation Results ........................................................... 2-39 

31 

32 2-12 Electromagnetic Isotopic Separation Process ........................................................ 2-40 

33 

34 2-13 Liquid Thermal Diffusion Process ............................................................................ 2-40 

35 

36 2-14 Gaseous Diffusion Stage ......................................................................................... 2-41 

37 

38 2-15 Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation Process .................................................... 2-41 

39 

40 3-1 Location of Proposed Eagle Rock Eenrichment Facility .......................................... 3-2 

41 

42 3-2 Special Land Use Classification Areas .................................................................... 3-4 

43 

44 3-3 Photo of the Proposed EREF Site Area ................................................................... 3-9 

45 

46 
 xviii 

1 FIGURES (Cont.) 

2 

3 3-4 Center of Proposed EREF Site Area Facing South ................................................. 3-9 

4 

5 3-5 Photo from US 20 Facing North ............................................................................... 3-10 

6 

7 3-6 Agricultural Sheds near Proposed EREF Site Area ................................................. 3-10 

8 

9 3-7 Hell’s Half Acre National Natural Landmark ............................................................. 3-11 

10 

11 3-8 Meteorological Monitoring Stations near the Proposed EREF Site ......................... 3-17 

12 

13 3-9 Monthly Mean Temperatures in the Vicinity of the Proposed EREF Site ................. 3-18 

14 

15 3-10 Monthly Mean Precipitation in the Vicinity of the Proposed EREF Site ................... 3-21 

16 

17 3-11 Wind Rose for MFC ................................................................................................. 3-23 

18 

19 3-12 Idaho Air Quality Planning Areas ............................................................................. 3-31 

20 

21 3-13 Geologic Time Scale ................................................................................................ 3-36

22 

23 3-14 Regional Physiography ............................................................................................ 3-37 

24 

25 3-15 Lava Fields and Volcanic Rift Zones of the ESRP ................................................... 3-38 

26 

27 3-16 General Stratigraphy of the ESRP ........................................................................... 3-39 

28 

29 3-17 Peak Horizontal Acceleration ................................................................................... 3-41 

30 

31 3-18 Idaho Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 3-44 

32 

33 3-19 Cross Sections Showing Depth to Basalt at the Proposed EREF Site .................... 3-46 

34 

35 3-20 Soil Map of the Proposed EREF Site and Surrounding Area ................................... 3-47 

36 

37 3-21 Surface Soil and Borehole Sample Locations .......................................................... 3-49 

38 

39 3-22 USGS-Designated Sub-basins within the Eastern Snake River Plain ..................... 3-53 

40 

41 3-23 Drainage Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed EREF Site ................................. 3-54 

42 

43 3-24 Annual Average and Peak Flows at the Snake River above Eagle Rock 

44 Station ...................................................................................................................... 3-56 

45 

46 
 xix 

1 FIGURES (Cont.) 

2 

3 3-25 Groundwater Flow Contours for the ESRP Aquifer .................................................. 3-57 

4 

5 3-26 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Map for the Proposed EREF Property .......... 3-58 

6 

7 3-27 Snake River Plain Aquifers ...................................................................................... 3-59 

8 

9 3-28 Land Cover Types of the Region ............................................................................. 3-64 

10 

11 3-29 Land Cover Types of the Proposed EREF Property ................................................ 3-65 

12 

13 3-30 Vegetation Types of the Proposed EREF Property ................................................. 3-66 

14 

15 3-31 Noise Measurement Locations at the Proposed EREF Property ............................. 3-78 

16 

17 3-32 Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of Common Sources .................................................. 3-79 

18 

19 3-33 Percentage Contribution to the Effective Dose from All Sources of Radiation 

20 in the U.S. Population for 2006 ................................................................................ 3-84 

21 

22 4-1 VRM Classes in the Area Surrounding the Proposed EREF Site ............................ 4-9 

23 

24 4-2 Water Use during Period When Construction and Operations 

25 Activities Overlap ..................................................................................................... 4-41

26 

27 4-3 Locations of the Proposed EREF Stormwater Basins ............................................. 4-42

28 

29 4-4 Proposed EREF Footprint Relative to Vegetation .................................................... 4-48

30 

31 4-5 Proposed EREF Site Plan........................................................................................ 4-61

32 

33 6-1 Proposed Radiological Sampling Stations and Monitoring Locations ...................... 6-3

34 

35 6-2 Proposed Physiochemical Monitoring Locations ..................................................... 6-14 

36 

37 6-3 Vegetation Sampling Locations ............................................................................... 6-20

38 

39 C-1 Wind Rose at 10-meter Level at the Meteorological Station near the Materials 

40 and Fuels Complex within the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho, 2004–2008 ...... C-9 

41 

42 D-1 Schematic of a Type 48Y Cylinder........................................................................... D-13 

43 

44 D-2 Schematic of a Type 30B Cylinder........................................................................... D-14

45 

46 
 xx 

1 FIGURES (Cont.) 

2 

3 D-3 Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severity 

4 Category for Truck Accidents................................................................................... D-19 

5 

6 

7 TABLES 

8 

9 1-1 State of Idaho Environmental Requirements ........................................................... 1-20 

10 

11 1-2 Potentially Applicable Permitting and Approval Requirements and 

12 Their Status for the Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning 

13 of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility ..................................................... 1-22 

14 

15 2-1 Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Schedule ............................................... 2-2 

16 

17 2-2 Depleted UF6 Tails Generation ................................................................................ 2-19 

18 

19 2-3 Candidate Sites for Phase I Screening .................................................................... 2-31 

20 

21 2-4 Objectives, Categories, and Criteria with Weights and Contribution 

22 to Site Score ............................................................................................................ 2-35 

23 

24 2-5 Candidate Sites Considered in Phase II Evaluation ................................................ 2-37 

25 

26 2-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Action 

27 and the No-Action Alternative .................................................................................. 2-43 

28 

29 3-1 Scenic Quality: Explanation of Rating Criteria ......................................................... 3-13 

30 

31 3-2 Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart ........................................................ 3-14 

32 

33 3-3 Mean, Average, and Extreme Temperatures near the Proposed EREF Site .......... 3-19 

34 

35 3-4 Monthly Precipitation near the Proposed EREF Site ............................................... 3-20 

36 

37 3-5 Relative Humidity at ID46W ..................................................................................... 3-22 

38 

39 3-6 Average Monthly and Annual Wind Speeds near the Proposed EREF Site ............ 3-24 

40 

41 3-7 Highest Hourly Wind Speed and Direction near the Proposed EREF Site .............. 3-25 

42 

43 3-8 Stability Class Distribution near the Proposed Site .................................................. 3-25 

44 

45 3-9 Inversion Persistence at MFC .................................................................................. 3-26 

46 
 xxi 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 3-10 Storm Events in the Vicinity of the Proposed EREF Site ......................................... 3-26 

4 

5 3-11 Estimated Seasonal and Annual Mixing Heights in the Vicinity of the 

6 Proposed EREF Site ................................................................................................ 3-28 

7 

8 3-12 National Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................... 3-29 

9 

10 3-13 Emissions from the Four Counties Closest to the Proposed EREF Site .................. 3-31 

11 

12 3-14 Air Toxics Emissions from the Four Counties Closest to the Proposed 

13 EREF Site ................................................................................................................ 3-32 

14 

15 3-15 Hazards Associated with Basaltic Volcanism on the ESRP. .................................... 3-43 

16 

17 3-16 Radiochemical Analyses of Proposed EREF Property Surface Soil ........................ 3-50 

18 

19 3-17 Metals, Soluble Fluoride, and Percent Moisture in Proposed EREF 

20 Property Surface Soil ............................................................................................... 3-51 

21 

22 3-18 VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides Detected in Proposed EREF 

23 Property Surface Soil ............................................................................................... 3-52 

24 

25 3-19 Plant Species Identified on the Proposed EREF Property and 

26 Percent Areal Cover ................................................................................................ 3-67 

27 

28 3-20 Wildlife Species Occurring on the Proposed EREF Property .................................. 3-69 

29 

30 3-21 HUD Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................. 3-77 

31 

32 3-22 Extant Sound Levels at the Proposed EREF Property as Measured by AES .......... 3-79

33 

34 3-23 Annual Average Daily Traffic on Major Roads near the Proposed EREF Site ......... 3-81

35 

36 3-24 Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20 ...................... 3-87 

37 

38 3-25 Cancer Incidence and Death Rates for All Cancers for 2002 to 2006 ..................... 3-88

39 

40 3-26 Population in the Two-County ROI and Idaho ......................................................... 3-90 

41 

42 3-27 Two-County ROI Employment in 2006 .................................................................... 3-91 

43 

44 3-28 Two-County ROI Unemployment Rates ................................................................... 3-92 

45 

46 
 xxii 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 3-29 Two-County ROI and State Personal Income .......................................................... 3-92 

4 

5 3-30 Two-County ROI Housing Characteristics ............................................................... 3-94 

6 

7 3-31 School District Data for the Two-County ROI in 2007 .............................................. 3-95 

8 

9 3-32 Public Safety Employment in the Two-County ROI in 2009 ..................................... 3-95 

10 

11 3-33 Minority and Low-Income Populations within 6.4-kilometer Radius 

12 of the Proposed EREF Site ...................................................................................... 3-97 

13 

14 3-34 Selected Health Statistics for Counties near the Proposed EREF, 20052007 ....... 3-98 

15 

16 4-1 NRC’s Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Construction Support 

17 Vehicles ................................................................................................................... 4-13

18 

19 4-2 NRC’s Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Construction Vehicles 

20 and Equipment ......................................................................................................... 4-14

21 

22 4-3 NRC’s Estimated Daily Emissions during Preconstruction and Construction .......... 4-17

23 

24 4-4 Background Ambient Air Quality at Monitoring Stations Closest 

25 to the Proposed EREF Site ...................................................................................... 4-19

26 

27 4-5 Estimated Air Quality Impacts at the Proposed EREF Property Boundary 

28 Associated with Initial Preconstruction and Construction ........................................ 4-21

29 

30 4-6 Sensitivity of AERMOD Dispersion Modeling Results to Low Wind 

31 Speed Default Values .............................................................................................. 4-23

32 

33 4-7 NRC’s Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants Resulting 

34 from Operations at the Proposed EREF .................................................................. 4-25

35 

36 4-8 Idaho Chemically Specific Air Quality Standards ..................................................... 4-27 

37 

38 4-9 Water Use for the Preconstruction and Construction Period ................................... 4-36

39 

40 4-10 Water Use for Overlapping Years of Construction and Operations ......................... 4-40

41 

42 4-11 Special Status Species Identified for the Proposed EREF ...................................... 4-46

43 

44 4-12 Summary of Annual Impacts on Humans from Truck Transportation of 

45 Radioactive Material ................................................................................................ 4-72

46 
 xxiii 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 4-13 Risk to the MEI from a Single Radioactive Material Shipment ................................. 4-73

4 

5 4-14 Estimated Occupational Health Related Incidences during Preconstruction 

6 and Construction ...................................................................................................... 4-77

7 

8 4-15 Estimated Occupational Health-Related Incidences during Plant Operation ........... 4-79

9 

10 4-16 Source Term Used for the Radiological Impact Assessment 

11 for Normal Operations ............................................................................................. 4-82

12 

4-17 Locations and Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors χ/Q (s/m3 13 ) for 

14 the Construction Workers during the Period of Construction and Operations 

15 Overlap .................................................................................................................... 4-83

16 

17 4-18 Worker Population Distribution during the Period of Construction 

18 and Operations Overlap .......................................................................................... 4-84

19 

20 4-19 Summary of Annual Radiological Impacts Associated with the Construction 

21 Workers during the Overlap Period of Construction and Operations at the 

22 Proposed EREF ....................................................................................................... 4-85

23 

24 4-20 Estimated Occupational Annual Exposures for Various Occupations for the 

25 Proposed EREF ...................................................................................................... 4-85

26 

27 4-21 Estimated Dose Rates at Various Locations within the Proposed EREF ................ 4-86

28 

29 4-22 Extrapolated Population Distribution within 80 km of the Proposed EREF .............. 4-87 

30 

31 4-23 General Public Receptor Locations for Radiological Impact Assessment ............... 4-88 

32 

4-24 Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Factors χ/Q (s/m3 33 ) for the 

34 General Population .................................................................................................. 4-89 

35 

36 4-25 Summary of Radiological Impacts for Members of the Public Associated with 

37 the Proposed EREF ................................................................................................ 4-90 

38 

39 4-26 Hazardous Waste Types and Quantities Expected during 

40 Preconstruction and Facility Construction ................................................................ 4-92 

41 

42 4-27 Radiological and Mixed Waste Types and Quantities Expected 

43 during Facility Operation .......................................................................................... 4-94 

44 

45 4-28 Socioeconomic Effects of the Proposed EREF ........................................................ 4-104 

46 
 xxiv 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 4-29 Summary and Comparison of Environmental Impacts from 

4 Preconstruction and Construction ............................................................................ 4-112 

5 

6 4-30 Definition of High- and Intermediate-Consequence Events ..................................... 4-118 

7 

8 4-31 Summary of Health Effects Resulting from Accidents ............................................. 4-119 

9 

10 4-32 Idaho Historical and Reference Case GHG Emissions, by Sector .......................... 4-131 

11 

12 4-33 Comparison of Idaho vs. U.S. GHG Emissions by Sector ....................................... 4-133 

13 

14 4-34 CO2 Emissions from Onsite Fuel Consumption over the Presconstruction 

15 and Heavy Construction Period ............................................................................... 4-134 

16 

17 4-35 Emissions from Workforce Commuting and Delivery Activities over the 

18 Preconstruction and Construction Period ................................................................ 4-135 

19 

20 4-36 Annual CO2 Emissions as a Result of Workforce Commuting 

21 during EREF Operation............................................................................................ 4-138 

22 

23 4-37 Annual CO2 Emissions as a Result of Deliveries during EREF Operation............... 4-139 

24 

25 4-38 Minority and Low-Income Populations within the 2-mi Buffer 

26 Associated with the Proposed Transmission Line ................................................... 4-160 

27 

28 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by AES for Preconstruction 

29 and Construction Environmental Impacts ................................................................ 5-2 

30 

31 5-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by AES for Operations 

32 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-11 

33 

34 5-3 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC for 

35 Preconstruction and Construction Environmental Impacts ...................................... 5-22 

36 

37 5-4 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC for 

38 Operations Environmental Impacts .......................................................................... 5-24 

39 

40 6-1 NRC Guidance Documents Relevant to Radiological Monitoring Programs ........... 6-2 

41 

42 6-2 EREF Proposed Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Program .......................................... 6-4 

43 

44 6-3 Radiological Sampling and Analysis Program for Liquid Waste Effluents ............... 6-8 

45 

46 
 xxv 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 6-4 Physiochemical Sampling and Analysis Program .................................................... 6-13 

4 

5 6-5 Stormwater Monitoring Program for Detention and Retention Basins ..................... 6-16 

6 

7 6-6 Birds Potentially Using the Proposed EREF Property ............................................. 6-22 

8 

9 6-7 Mammals Potentially Using the Proposed EREF Property ...................................... 6-25 

10 

11 6-8 Amphibians and Reptiles Potentially Using the Proposed EREF Property .............. 6-27 

12 

13 7-1 Socioeconomic Benefits Associated with the Proposed EREF in the 

14 11-County ROI ......................................................................................................... 7-7 

15 

16 C-1 Meteorological Data Information .............................................................................. C-6 

17 

18 C-2 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

19 Construction Activities of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment 

20 Facility in Idaho ........................................................................................................ C-7 

21 

22 C-3 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

23 Construction Activities of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment 

24 Facility in Idaho ........................................................................................................ C-8 

25 

26 D-1 Shipping Origins and Destinations ........................................................................... D-9 

27 

28 D-2 Distance, Density, and Stop Information Generated by WebTRAGIS 

29 for Truck Route ........................................................................................................ D-10

30 

31 D-3 Annual Number of Containers and Trucks Required for Transport .......................... D-13 

32 

33 D-4 Type 48Y Cylinder Specifications ............................................................................ D-14 

34 

35 D-5 Type 30B Cylinder Specifications ............................................................................ D-15 

36 

37 D-6 Curie Inventory in Selected Shipping Containers for Truck Transportation ............. D-16 

38 

39 D-7 Fractional Occurrences for Accidents by Severity Category and 

40 Population Density Zone .......................................................................................... D-19 

41 

42 D-8 Fraction of Package Released, Aerosolized, and Respirable .................................. D-20 

43 

44 D-9 Direct Radiation Surrounding Shipping Containers ................................................. D-22 

45 

46 
 xxvi 

1 TABLES (Cont.) 

2 

3 D-10 RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters ................................................................................ D-23 

4 

5 D-11 Annual Collective Population Risks from Truck Transportation ............................... D-25 

6 

7 D-12 Doses and Total Risk of Latent Cancer Fatalities from Accidents 

8 during Truck Transportation of Radioactive Materials ............................................. D-28 

9 

10 E-1 Source Term Used for the Radiological Impact Assessment 

11 for Normal Operations ............................................................................................. E-8 

12 

13 E-2 Extrapolated Data on Population within 80-kilometer (50-mile) Radius 

14 of Proposed EREF in 2050 ...................................................................................... E-9 

15 

16 E-3 Worker Population Distribution during Build-Out/Operational Phase ....................... E-10 

17 

18 E-4 Receptor Locations for Radiological Impact Assessment ........................................ E-11 

19 

20 E-5 Agricultural Input Parameters Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment .......... E-11 

21 

22 E-6 Radionuclide-Specific Input Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment ............. E-12 

23 

24 E-7 Collective Doses for Members of the General Public and Construction 

25 Workers during Proposed EREF Build-Out .............................................................. E-14 

26 

27 E-8 Summary of Individual Doses for Workers and Members of the Public ................... E-14 

28 

29 E-9 Estimated Annual Exposures for Various Occupations at the Proposed 

30 EREF ....................................................................................................................... E-15 

31 

32 E-10 Estimated Dose Rates at Various Locations within the Proposed EREF ................ E-15 

33 

34 G-1 State and County Minority Population Totals, 2000 ................................................. G-3 

35 

36 G-2 Census Block Group Minority Population Totals, 2000 ............................................ G-3 

37 

38 G-3 State and County Low-Income Population Totals, 1999 ......................................... G-4 

39 

40 G-4 Census Block Group Low-Income Population Totals, 1999 ..................................... G-4 

41 

42 I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations ................ I-8 

43 
 xxvii 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 

3 BACKGROUND 

4 

5 Under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of 

6 Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

7 (NRC) is considering whether to issue a license that would allow AREVA Enrichment Services, 

8 LLC (AES) to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear 

9 material at a proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near Idaho Falls in Bonneville 

10 County, Idaho, for a period of 30 years. The scope of activities to be conducted under the 

11 license would include the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed Eagle 

12 Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). The application for the license was filed with the NRC by 

13 AES by letter dated December 30, 2008. Revisions to the license application were submitted by 

14 AES on April 23, 2009 (Revision 1) and April 30, 2010 (Revision 2). To support its licensing 

15 decision on AES’s proposed EREF, the NRC determined that the NRC’s implementing 

16 regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require the 

17 preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The development of this EIS is based 

18 on the NRC staff’s review of information provided by AES, independent analyses, and 

19 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies, Native 

20 American tribes, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other State agencies, 

21 and local government agencies. 

22 

23 The enriched uranium produced at the proposed EREF would be used to manufacture nuclear 

24 fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Enrichment is the process of increasing the 

25 concentration of the naturally occurring and fissionable uranium-235 isotope. Uranium ore 

26 usually contains approximately 0.72 weight percent uranium-235. To be useful in light-water 

27 nuclear power plants as fuel for electricity generation, the uranium must be enriched up to 

28 5 weight percent uranium-235. 

29 

30 THE PROPOSED ACTION 

31 

32 The proposed action considered in this EIS is for AES to construct, operate, and decommission 

33 a uranium enrichment facility, the proposed EREF, at a site near Idaho Falls in Bonneville 

34 County, Idaho. To allow the proposed action to take place, the NRC would issue a license to 

35 AES as discussed above. The proposed EREF would be located on a 186-hectare (460-acre) 

36 section of a 1700-hectare (4200-acre) parcel of land that it intends to purchase from a single 

37 private landowner. Current land uses of the proposed EREF property include native rangeland, 

38 nonirrigated seeded pasture, and irrigated cropland. The proposed EREF, if approved, would 

39 be situated on the north side of US 20, about 113 kilometers (70 miles) west of the 

40 Idaho/Wyoming State line and approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) west of Idaho Falls. The 

41 eastern boundary of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is 

42 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) west of the proposed property. The lands north, east, and south of the 

43 proposed property are a mixture of private-, Federal-, and State-owned parcels, with the Federal 

44 lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

45 

46 Using a gas centrifuge process, the proposed EREF would produce uranium enriched up to 

47 5 percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 

48 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. An SWU is a unit of measurement used in 

49 the nuclear industry, pertaining to the process of enriching uranium for use as fuel for nuclear 
 xxviii 

1 power plants. If the license is approved, facility construction would begin in 2011 with heavy 

2 construction (construction of all major buildings and structures) continuing for 7 years into 2018. 

3 The proposed EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. 

4 Operations would continue at peak production until approximately 9 years before the license 

5 expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041. 

6 Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the 4 Separation Building Modules 

7 (SBMs) resulting in a gradual decrease in production. Each SBM would take approximately 

8 4.5 years to decommission. 

9 

10 Supplemental information on a proposed 161-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line required to 

11 power the proposed EREF was submitted by AES on February 18, 2010. The NRC has no 

12 jurisdiction over transmission lines; therefore, the transmission line for the proposed EREF is 

13 not considered part of the proposed action. However, construction and operation of this 

14 transmission line are considered in this EIS under cumulative impacts. 

15 

16 NRC EXEMPTION FOR AES TO CONDUCT CERTAIN PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

17 

18 On June 17, 2009, AES submitted a request for an exemption from certain NRC regulations to 

19 allow commencement of certain preconstruction activities on the proposed EREF site prior to 

20 NRC’s decision to issue a license for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the 

21 proposed EREF. On March 17, 2010, the NRC granted an exemption authorizing AES to 

22 conduct the requested preconstruction activities. Under the exemption, these preconstruction 

23 activities are not considered by the NRC as part of the proposed action, although the 

24 environmental impacts of these activities are discussed in this EIS along with the impacts of 

25 facility construction. 

26 

27 Specifically, the exemption covers the following activities and facilities: 

28 

29 • clearing of approximately 240 hectares (592 acres) for the proposed EREF 

30 

31 • site grading and erosion control 

32 

33 • excavating the site including rock blasting and removal 

34 

35 • constructing a stormwater retention pond 

36 

37 • constructing main access and site roadways 

38 

39 • installing utilities 

40 

41 • erecting fences for investment protection 

42 

43 • constructing parking areas 

44 

45 • erecting construction buildings, offices (including construction trailers), warehouses, and 

46 guardhouses 

47 
 xxix 

1 This exemption authorizes AES to conduct the stated activities, provided that none of the 

2 facilities or activities subject to the exemption would be components of AES’s Physical Security 

3 Plan or its Standard Practice Procedures Plan for the Protection of Classified Matter, or 

4 otherwise be subject to NRC review or approval. AES initiated preconstruction activities in late 

5 2010. 

6 

7 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

8 

9 The purpose of the proposed action would be to allow AES to construct, operate, and 

10 decommission a facility using gas centrifuge technology to enrich uranium up to 5 percent by 

11 weight of uranium-235, with a production capacity of 6.6 million SWU per year, at the proposed 

12 EREF near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho. This facility would contribute to the 

13 attainment of national energy security policy objectives by providing an additional reliable and 

14 economical domestic source of low-enriched uranium to be used in commercial nuclear power 

15 plants. 

16 

17 Nuclear power currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. The 

18 United States Enrichment Corporation Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky, is 

19 currently the primary U.S. supplier of low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel in the United States. 

20 However, the URENCO USA facility (formerly known as the National Enrichment Facility) in Lea 

21 County, New Mexico, which began initial operations in June 2010, may provide additional 

22 enrichment services in the future as construction continues on its remaining cascade halls. The 

23 American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio, which is currently under construction, and 

24 the proposed Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, for which 

25 the NRC is currently reviewing its license application, may also provide additional domestic 

26 enrichment services in the future. The existing operating Paducah, Kentucky, enrichment plant 

27 supplies approximately 15 percent of the current U.S. demand for low-enriched uranium. The 

28 United States Enrichment Corporation also imports downblended (diluted) weapons-grade 

29 uranium from Russia through the Megatons to Megawatts Program to supply an additional 

30 38 percent of the U.S. demand. The remaining 47 percent of low-enriched uranium is imported 

31 from foreign suppliers. The current primary dependence on a single U.S. supplier and foreign 

32 sources for low-enriched uranium imposes reliability risks for the nuclear fuel supply to 

33 U.S. nuclear power plants. National energy policy emphasizes the importance of having a 

34 reliable domestic source of enriched uranium for national energy security. The production of 

35 enriched uranium at the proposed EREF would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current 

36 and projected demand (15 to16 million SWUs) for enrichment services within the United States. 

37 

38 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

39 

40 In this EIS, the NRC staff considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, 

41 including alternative sites for an AES enrichment facility, alternative sources of low-enriched 

42 uranium, alternative technologies for uranium enrichment, and the no-action alternative. Two of 

43 the alternatives, the proposed action and the no-action alternative, were analyzed in detail. The 

44 approved preconstruction activities discussed earlier are assumed to occur prior to NRC’s 

45 decision to grant a license to AES and, therefore, are assumed to occur under both the 

46 proposed action and the no-action alternative. 

47 
 xxx 

1 Under the no-action alternative, the proposed EREF would not be constructed, operated, and 

2 decommissioned in Bonneville County, Idaho. Uranium enrichment services would continue to 

3 be performed by existing domestic and foreign uranium enrichment suppliers. However, 

4 URENCO USA would provide and the ACP and potentially the proposed GLE Facility may 

5 provide enrichment services in the future. 

6 

7 AES considered 44 alternative sites throughout the United States. AES evaluated these sites 

8 based on various technical, safety, economic, and environmental selection criteria, and 

9 concluded that the Eagle Rock site in Bonneville County, Idaho, met all of the criteria. The NRC 

10 staff reviewed AES’s site-selection process and results to determine if any site considered by 

11 AES was obviously superior to the proposed Eagle Rock site. The NRC staff determined that 

12 the process used by AES was rational and objective, and that its results were reasonable. 

13 Based on its review, the NRC staff concluded that none of the candidate sites were obviously 

14 superior to the AES preferred site in Bonneville County, Idaho. 

15 

16 The NRC staff examined three alternatives to satisfy domestic enrichment needs: (1) reactivate 

17 the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near Piketon, Ohio; (2) downblend highly enriched 

18 uranium instead of constructing a domestic uranium enrichment facility; and (3) purchase low19 enriched uranium from foreign sources. These alternatives were eliminated from further 

20 consideration based on concerns related to reliability, excessive energy consumption, and 

21 national energy security, and did not meet national energy policy objectives involving the need 

22 for a reliable, economical source of domestic uranium enrichment. 

23 

24 The NRC staff also evaluated alternative technologies to the gas centrifuge process: 

25 electromagnetic isotope separation, liquid thermal diffusion, gaseous diffusion, Atomic Vapor 

26 Laser Isotope Separation, Molecular Laser Isotope Separation, and separation of isotopes by 

27 laser excitation. These technologies were eliminated from further consideration based on 

28 factors such as the technology immaturity, economic impracticality, or exclusive licensing. 

29 

30 In addition, the NRC staff considered conversion and disposition methods for depleted uranium 

31 hexafluoride (UF6): (1) beneficial use of depleted UF6, and (2) conversion at facilities other than 

32 the new facilities that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has built at Portsmouth and 

33 Paducah. For the purposes of this analysis, because the current available inventory of depleted 

34 uranium exceeds the current and projected future demand for the material, the depleted UF6

35 generated by the proposed EREF was considered a waste product, and disposition alternatives 

36 involving its use as a resource were not further evaluated. 

37 

38 Existing fuel fabrication facilities have not expressed an interest in performing depleted UF6

39 conversion services, and the cost for the services would be difficult to estimate; therefore, this 

40 alternative was eliminated from further consideration. However, International Isotopes, Inc. 

41 submitted a license application to the NRC on December 31, 2009, to construct and operate a 

42 depleted UF6 conversion facility near Hobbs, New Mexico. On February 23, 2010, the NRC 

43 staff accepted the license application, and has initiated a formal safety and environmental 

44 review. 

45 

46 
 xxxi 

1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2 

3 This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. A standard of 

4 significance has been established for assessing environmental impacts. Following the Council 

5 on Environmental Quality’s regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27, the NRC staff has assigned each 

6 impact one of the following three significance levels: 

7 

8 • SMALL. The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

9 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

10 

11 • MODERATE. The environmental effects are sufficient to noticeably alter but not destabilize 

12 important attributes of the resource. 

13 

14 • LARGE. The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

15 important attributes of the resource. 

16 

17 As described in Chapter 4, the environmental impacts of preconstruction and the proposed 

18 action would mostly be SMALL. Some potential impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE or 

19 MODERATE in a few cases; and there would be LARGE, though intermittent, short-term 

20 impacts in one resource area during preconstruction. Methods for mitigating the potential 

21 impacts are identified in Chapters 4 and 5. Environmental measurement and monitoring 

22 methods are described in Chapter 6. 

23 

24 Summarized below are the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action on each of 

25 the resource areas considered in this EIS. Each summary is preceded by the impact 

26 significance level for the respective resource areas. 

27 

28 Land Use 

29 

30 SMALL. The construction of a uranium enrichment facility would alter the current land use, 

31 which consists primarily of agriculture and undeveloped rangeland. The 240-hectare (592-acre) 

32 proposed EREF site under consideration would be located entirely on a 1700-hectare 

33 (4200-acre) private parcel of land. Bonneville County has zoned the location as G-1, Grazing, 

34 which allows for industrial development, and is intended to allow certain activities that should be 

35 removed from population centers in the county. The operation of a uranium enrichment facility 

36 is consistent with the county’s zoning. It is not anticipated that construction and operation of the 

37 proposed EREF would have any effect on the current land uses found on the surrounding public 

38 lands managed by the BLM. 

39 

40 Restrictions to land use would begin with the purchase of the proposed property by AES. The 

41 alteration of land use would begin during preconstruction and continue during construction. 

42 Preconstruction activities would result in the alteration of the land as a result of activities such 

43 as land clearing and grading, restricted access to the proposed EREF property, and cessation 

44 of agricultural uses (grazing and crop production). The majority of impacts to land use would 

45 occur during preconstruction. However, since large land areas in the county will continue to be 

46 used for grazing and crop production, including the BLM-managed lands surrounding the 

47 proposed EREF property, land use impacts resulting from preconstruction and construction 

48 would be SMALL. 

49 
 xxxii 

1 Operation of the proposed EREF would restrict land use on the proposed property to the 

2 production of enriched uranium. The operation of the proposed EREF is not expected to alter 

3 land use on adjacent properties. Impacts on land use due to operations would be SMALL. 

4 

5 At the end of decommissioning, the buildings and structures would be available for unrestricted 

6 use. As a result, impacts on land use due to decommissioning would be SMALL. 

7 

8 Historic and Cultural Resources 

9 

10 SMALL TO MODERATE. Impacts to historic and cultural resources would occur primarily 

11 during preconstruction. Construction would take place on ground previously disturbed by 

12 preconstruction activities. There are 13 cultural resource sites (3 prehistoric, 6 historic, and 

13 4 multi-component) in the surveyed areas of the proposed EREF property. One of these sites, 

14 the John Leopard Homestead (MW004), is located within the footprint of the proposed EREF, 

15 and has been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Site 

16 MW004 would be destroyed by preconstruction activities. However, AES mitigated impacts to 

17 site MW004 prior to land disturbance through professional excavation and data recovery, and 

18 other similar homestead site types exist in the region. Therefore, the impact to site MW004 

19 would be limited to a MODERATE level. 

20 

21 Construction and operation of the proposed EREF would be unlikely to result in visual or noise 

22 impacts on the Wasden Complex, an important group of archaeological sites, because it is 

23 located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) from the proposed EREF site and sits behind a 

24 ridge that partially blocks the view. Other impacts during operations would be SMALL because 

25 no intact historic or cultural resources would remain. 

26 

27 Decommissioning would not likely affect historic and cultural resources because any areas 

28 disturbed during decommissioning would have been previously disturbed during preconstruction 

29 and construction. Therefore, impacts would be SMALL. 

30 

31 Visual and Scenic Resources 

32 

33 SMALL TO MODERATE. Impacts to visual and scenic resources result when contrasts are 

34 introduced into a visual landscape. The proposed project site and surrounding areas consist 

35 primarily of sagebrush semi-desert to the north, east, and west of the proposed site. The 

36 proposed facility would be located approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) from areas of public 

37 view, including US 20 and the Hell’s Half Acre Wilderness Study Area (WSA) to the south which 

38 contains the remains of a 4000-year-old lava flow. The BLM gave a Visual Resource 

39 Management (VRM) Class I designation to the WSA, which applies to areas of high scenic 

40 quality. 

41 

42 Visual impacts during preconstruction could result along US 20 from increased activity at the 

43 proposed site and fugitive dust, but these would be of a relatively short duration. The clearing of 

44 vegetation and installation of a perimeter fence would change the visual setting; however, they 

45 would not drastically alter the overall appearance of the area. Impacts on visual and scenic 

46 resources due to preconstruction would be SMALL. 

47 
 xxxiii 

1 Construction of the proposed EREF would introduce visual intrusions that are out of character 

2 with the surrounding area. While initial construction activities would commence on a cleared 

3 area, such a view is not very intrusive on the visual landscape. Similarly, fugitive dust 

4 generated during the construction period would be of a temporary nature and cause minimal 

5 disturbance to the viewshed. However, because of the extent of the proposed EREF project, 

6 the type and size of equipment involved in construction, and the industrial character of buildings 

7 to be built, construction of the proposed EREF would create significant contrast with the 

8 surrounding visual environment, which is predominantly rangeland and cropland. Thus, visual 

9 impact levels associated with construction would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

10 

11 Construction and operation of the proposed EREF would be unlikely to result in visual impacts 

12 on the Wasden Complex due to its distance from the proposed EREF site and location behind a 

13 ridgeline that obscures views of the lower portions of the proposed facility. However, operations 

14 would have an impact on the surrounding visual landscape. The proposed facility is visually 

15 inconsistent with the current setting, and its operation is expected to alter the visual rating on 

16 surround public lands, which would be a MODERATE visual impact. Also, plant lighting at night 

17 could be perceivable at the trailhead of the Hell’s Half Acre WSA, although probably not from 

18 the Craters of the Moon National Park located 72 kilometers (45 miles) to the west of the 

19 proposed EREF site. 

20 

21 At the end of decommissioning, the buildings and structures would be available for unrestricted 

22 use. As a result, impacts on visual and scenic resources would remain MODERATE. 

23 

24 Air Quality 

25 

26 SMALL to LARGE. Air emissions during preconstruction and construction would include fugitive 

27 dust from heavy equipment working on the proposed site, engine emissions from construction 

28 equipment onsite and vehicles transporting workers and materials to the proposed site, and 

29 emissions from diesel-fueled generators. The generators, although not intended to provide 

30 power for construction activities, would be operated weekly for preventative maintenance. 

31 During preconstruction, fugitive dust from land clearing and grading operations would result in 

32 large releases of particulate matter. Such impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE during 

33 certain preconstruction periods and activities that would be temporary and brief in duration. 

34 Otherwise, impacts on ambient air quality from preconstruction would be SMALL for all 

35 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and all criteria pollutants except particulates. Air quality 

36 impacts during construction would be SMALL for all HAPs and all criteria pollutants. 

37 

38 During operations, the proposed EREF would not be a major source of air emissions, although 

39 there is a potential for small gaseous releases associated with operation of the process that 

40 could contain UF6, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and uranyl fluoride (UO2F2). Also, small amounts of 

41 nonradioactive air emissions consisting of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

42 particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) would be 

43 released: 

44 

45 • from the auxiliary diesel electric generators to supply electrical power when power from the 

46 utility grid is not available 

47 

48 • during building and equipment maintenance activities 

49 
 xxxiv 

1 • from trucks, automobiles, and other vehicles in use onsite 

2 

3 Air emissions are not expected to impact regional visibility. Ambient air modeling predicts that 

4 impacts on ambient air quality from the routine operation of the proposed EREF would be 

5 SMALL with respect to all criteria pollutants and all HAPs. 

6 

7 During decommissioning, impacts would result from emissions including fugitive dust (mitigated 

8 by dust suppression work practices) and CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and SO2 from transportation 

9 equipment and would be SMALL. 

10 

11 Geology and Soils 

12 

13 SMALL. Impacts on about 240 hectares (592 acres) of land would occur primarily during 

14 preconstruction, as a result of soil-disturbing activities (blasting, excavating, grading, and other 

15 activities) that loosen soil and increase the potential for erosion. Because these impacts are 

16 short-term and can be mitigated, impacts on geology and soils would be SMALL. Construction 

17 activities could cause short-term impacts such as an increase in soil erosion at the proposed 

18 site. Soil erosion could result from wind action and rain, although rainfall in the vicinity of the 

19 proposed site is low. Compaction of soils due to heavy vehicle traffic would increase the 

20 potential for soil erosion via runoff. Impacts would be SMALL. 

21 

22 Impacts on soils during operations at the proposed facility would also be SMALL because 

23 activities would not increase the potential for soil erosion beyond that for the surrounding area. 

24 The impacts to soil quality from atmospheric deposition of pollutants during operations would be 

25 SMALL. 

26 

27 Land disturbance associated with decommissioning could temporarily increase the potential for 

28 soil erosion at the proposed EREF site, resulting in impacts similar to (but less than) those 

29 during the preconstruction/construction phase. As a result, impacts to soils due to 

30 decontamination and decommissioning activities would be SMALL. 

31 

32 Water Resources 

33 

34 SMALL. During preconstruction and construction, stormwater runoff would be diverted to a 

35 stormwater detention basin, thus the potential for contaminated stormwater discharging to water 

36 bodies on adjacent properties is low. No surface water sources would be used. Natural surface 

37 water bodies are absent within and near the proposed EREF site, and groundwater occurs at 

38 depths of 202 meters (661 feet) to 220 meters (722 feet). Annual maximum groundwater usage 

39 rates from the Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) aquifer in Bonneville County during 

40 preconstruction and construction comprise about 16 percent of the annual water right 

41 appropriation that has been transferred to the proposed property for use as industrial water. 

42 Therefore, impacts on surface water quality, the regional water supply, and groundwater quality 

43 during preconstruction and construction would be SMALL. 

44 

45 Water usage rates during operations would remain well within the water right appropriation. 

46 Both average and peak annual water use requirements would be less than 1 percent of the total 

47 groundwater usage from the ESRP aquifer. No process effluents would discharge to the 

48 retention or detention basins or into surface water. Therefore, liquid effluents would have a 
 xxxv 

1 SMALL impact on water resources. Because all the water discharged to the Cylinder Storage 

2 Pads Stormwater Retention Basins would evaporate, the basins would have a SMALL impact 

3 on the quality of water resources. The site Stormwater Detention Basin seepage would also 

4 have a SMALL impact on water resources of the area because no wastewater would be 

5 discharged to the basin. 

6 

7 Since the usage and discharge impacts to water resources during the decommissioning phase 

8 would be similar to those during construction, the impacts to water resources would remain 

9 SMALL. 

10 

11 Ecological Resources 

12 

13 SMALL TO MODERATE. Preconstruction activities such as land clearing could result in direct 

14 impacts due to habitat loss and wildlife mortality as well as indirect impacts to ecological 

15 resources in surrounding areas, primarily from fugitive dust and wildlife disturbance. 

16 Approximately 75 hectares (185 acres) of sagebrush steppe habitat and 55 hectares 

17 (136 acres) of nonirrigated pasture would be eliminated. Impacts on plant communities and 

18 wildlife from preconstruction would be MODERATE. Construction activities that could impact 

19 ecological resources include constructing the proposed UF6 storage pads and EREF buildings. 

20 However, most construction activities would occur in areas that would have already been 

21 disturbed by preconstruction activities. Impacts on vegetation would occur primarily from any 

22 additional vegetation clearing. Impacts would include the generation of fugitive dust, spread of 

23 invasive species, changes in drainage patterns, soil compaction, erosion of disturbed areas, 

24 potential sedimentation of downgradient habitats, and accidental releases of hazardous or toxic 

25 materials (e.g., fuel spills). These activities could also result in some wildlife mortality and would 

26 cause other wildlife to relocate as a result of noise, lighting, traffic, and human presence. 

27 Collisions with construction equipment and other vehicles may cause some wildlife mortality. 

28 No rare or unique plant communities, or threatened or endangered species, have been found or 

29 are known to occur on the proposed site, although habitat on the proposed property is known to 

30 be used by greater sage-grouse (a Federal candidate species). Construction (and 

31 preconstruction) activities are not expected to result in population-level impacts on any 

32 Federally listed or State-listed species, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated are 

33 not present on the proposed EREF property. Impacts of construction of the proposed facility 

34 would be SMALL. 

35 

36 Operation of the proposed EREF could result in impacts on wildlife and plant communities as a 

37 result of noise, lighting, traffic, human presence, air emissions, and retention/detention ponds. 

38 However, these impacts would be SMALL. 

39 

40 Vegetation and wildlife that became established near the proposed facility could be affected by 

41 decommissioning activities. Impacts during decommissioning would be similar to those during 

42 construction and would be SMALL. 

43 

44 Noise 

45 

46 SMALL. Most of the major noise-producing activities (site clearing and grading, excavations 

47 [including the use of explosives], utility burials, construction of onsite roads [including the US 20 

48 interchanges], and construction of the ancillary buildings and structures) would occur during 
 xxxvi 

1 preconstruction. Noise impacts from initial preconstruction activities may exceed established 

2 standards at some locations along the proposed EREF property boundary for relatively short 

3 periods of time. However, because of the distances involved, expected levels of attenuation, 

4 application of mitigation measures, and the expected limited presence of human receptors at 

5 these locations, the impacts of noise during preconstruction would be SMALL for human 

6 receptors. The nearest resident is located approximately 7.7 kilometers (4.8 miles) east of the 

7 proposed site. No residence is expected to experience unacceptable noise levels during 

8 construction. Noise impacts from construction may exceed established standards at some 

9 offsite locations for relatively short periods of time. However, because of the distances involved, 

10 expected levels of attenuation, and AES’s commitment to appropriate mitigations, the impacts 

11 would be SMALL for human receptors. During the overlap period when partial operations begin 

12 while building construction continues, noise impacts from construction and operation are 

13 expected to be additive, but still substantially reduced from noise levels during initial 

14 construction. 

15 

16 Major noise sources associated with facility operation include the six diesel-fueled emergency 

17 generators, commuter traffic, the movement of delivery vehicles, and operation of various 

18 pumps, compressors, and cooling fans. Operational noise estimates at the proposed property 

19 boundary satisfy all relevant or potentially relevant U.S. noise standards and guidance. 

20 Residents in the vicinity of US 20, who would otherwise be unaffected by noise from the 

21 proposed EREF industrial footprint, would be impacted by slightly increased traffic noise. Noise 

22 impacts from proposed EREF operation would be SMALL. 

23 

24 Noise sources and levels during decommissioning would be similar to those during construction, 

25 and peaking noise levels would be expected to occur for short durations. As a result, noise 

26 impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL. 

27 

28 Transportation 

29 

30 SMALL TO MODERATE. Preconstruction activities for the proposed EREF would cause an 

31 impact on the local transportation network due to the construction of highway entrances, the 

32 daily commute of workers, daily construction deliveries, and waste shipments. Traffic 

33 slowdowns or delays would only be expected to occur at the entrance to the proposed EREF 

34 during access road construction and shift changes; the impacts on overall traffic patterns and 

35 volumes would be MODERATE on US 20 and SMALL on Interstate 15 (I-15). The primary 

36 impact would be increased traffic on nearby roads. Impacts during construction would occur 

37 from transportation of personnel, construction materials, and nonradiological waste. All traffic to 

38 and from the proposed EREF during preconstruction and construction would use US 20. 

39 Construction activities at the proposed EREF site could result in a 55 percent increase in traffic 

40 volume on US 20 (including the period when construction and operations overlap). Because 

41 traffic volume is expected to remain below the design capacity of I-15 and traffic slowdowns or 

42 delays would only be expected to occur at the entrance to the proposed EREF during shift 

43 changes, the impacts on overall traffic patterns and volumes during construction would be 

44 SMALL to MODERATE on US 20 and SMALL on I-15. For the most part, the impacts from the 

45 truck traffic to and from the proposed site during construction would be SMALL. 

46 

47 Operations impacts would occur from the transport of personnel, nonradiological materials, and 

48 radioactive material to and from the proposed EREF, especially during the period when 
 xxxvii 

1 construction and operation overlap. Increased traffic during facility operation would have a 

2 SMALL to MODERATE impact on the current traffic on US 20 (SMALL for any off-peak shift 

3 change). The impacts of truck traffic to and from the proposed site during operation would be 

4 SMALL. Annual transportation routine impacts and accident risks (radiological and chemical) 

5 would be SMALL. 

6 

7 Traffic during the initial portion of the decommissioning would be approximately the same as for 

8 the period when construction and operations overlap. Traffic after the cessation of operations 

9 would be less than during either construction or operation. Impacts on local traffic on US 20 

10 would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

11 

12 Public and Occupational Health 

13 

14 SMALL. During preconstruction, impacts on occupational safety resulting from injuries, 

15 illnesses, and exposures to fugitive dust, pollutants, and vapors would be SMALL, based on 

16 estimates of the number of incidents. During construction, nonradiological impacts could 

17 include injuries and illnesses incurred by workers and impacts due to exposure to chemicals or 

18 other nonradiological substances. All such potential impacts would be SMALL because all 

19 activities would take place under typical construction workplace safety regulations. No 

20 radiological impacts are expected during facility construction. 

21 

22 Nonradiological impacts during facility operation include worker illnesses and injuries and 

23 impacts from worker or public exposure to hazardous chemicals used or present during 

24 operations, mainly uranium and HF. Due to low estimated concentrations of uranium and HF at 

25 public (proposed property boundary) and workplace receptor locations, nonradiological impacts 

26 due to exposures to hazardous chemicals (including uranium and HF) during operations would 

27 be SMALL. 

28 

29 Assessment of potential radiological impacts from facility operations considers both public and 

30 occupational exposures to radiation, and includes exposures to workers completing the facility 

31 construction during initial phases of operation. Exposure pathways include inhalation of 

32 airborne contaminants, ingestion of contaminated food crops, direct exposure from material 

33 deposited on the ground, and external exposure associated with the stored UF6 cylinders. 

34 Impacts from exposure of members of the public would be SMALL. Worker exposures would 

35 vary by job type, but would be carefully monitored and maintained as low as reasonably 

36 achievable (ALARA) and impacts would be SMALL. 

37 

38 For a hypothetical individual member of the public at the proposed EREF property boundary and 

39 the nearest resident, the maximum annual total effective dose equivalents would be 0.014 

millisievert per year (1.4 millirem per year) and 2.1  10-6 millisievert per year (2.1  10-4 40 millirem 

41 per year), respectively. Dose equivalents attributable to operation of the proposed EREF would 

42 be small compared to the normal background radiation range of 2.0 to 3.0 millisieverts (200 to 

43 300 millirem) dose equivalent. This equates to radiological impacts during proposed EREF 

44 operation that would be SMALL. 

45 

46 The nature of decommissioning activities would be similar to that during construction and 

47 operation. Impacts from occupational injuries and illnesses and chemical exposures would be 

48 SMALL. Occupational radiological exposures would be bounded by the potential exposures 
 xxxviii 

1 during operation, because the quantities of uranium material handled would be less than or 

2 equal to that during operations. An active environmental monitoring and dosimetry (external 

3 and internal) program would be conducted to maintain ALARA doses to workers and to 

4 individual members of the public. Therefore, the impacts of decommissioning on public and 

5 occupational health would be SMALL. 

6 

7 Waste Management 

8 

9 SMALL. Solid nonhazardous wastes generated during preconstruction would be transported 

10 offsite to an approved local landfill. Hazardous wastes (e.g., waste oil, greases, excess paints, 

11 and other chemicals) generated during preconstruction would be packaged and shipped offsite 

12 to a licensed treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). Impacts from nonhazardous solid 

13 waste and hazardous waste generation during preconstruction would be SMALL due to the 

14 available current or future capacity at local and regional disposal facilities. Construction would 

15 generate about 6116 cubic meters (8000 cubic yards) of nonhazardous solid waste per year, not 

16 including recyclable materials such as scrap structural steel, sheet metal, and piping. About 

17 23,000 liters (6200 gallons) and 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds) of hazardous waste would be 

18 generated annually. The impacts of nonhazardous and hazardous waste generation during 

19 construction would be SMALL due to the available current or future capacity at local and 

20 regional disposal facilities. 

21 

22 During operation, approximately 70,307 kilograms (154,675 pounds) of industrial, 

23 nonhazardous, nonradioactive solid waste and approximately 146,400 kilograms 

24 (322,080 pounds) of low-level radioactive waste (not including depleted UF6) are expected to be 

25 generated annually. The proposed facility would also generate approximately 5062 kilograms 

26 (11,136 pounds) of hazardous wastes and 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of mixed waste 

27 annually. All wastes would be transferred to offsite licensed waste disposal facilities with 

28 suitable disposal capacity. The impacts of this waste generation would be SMALL. 

29 

30 During peak operation, the proposed EREF is expected to generate 1222 cylinders of depleted 

31 UF6 annually, which would be temporarily stored on an outdoor cylinder storage pad in 

32 approved Type 48Y containers before being transported to a DOE-owned or private conversion 

33 facility. Storage of uranium byproduct cylinders at the proposed EREF would occur for the 

34 duration of, but not beyond, the proposed facility’s 30-year operating lifetime. The impacts from 

35 temporary storage of depleted UF6, from the conversion of depleted UF6 to U3O8 at an offsite 

36 location, and from the transportation of the U3O8 conversion product to a potential disposal site 

37 would be SMALL. 

38 

39 During decommissioning, radioactive material from decontamination of contaminated equipment 

40 would be packaged and shipped offsite for disposal. Wastes to be disposed would include 

41 7700 cubic meters (10,070 cubic yards) of low-level radioactive waste. Due to the availability of 

42 adequate disposal capacity, waste management impacts would be SMALL. 

43 

44 Socioeconomics 

45 

46 SMALL. Employment and income impacts were evaluated using an 11-county ROI in Idaho – 

47 including Bannock, Bingham, Blaine, Bonneville, Butte, Caribou, Clark, Fremont, Jefferson, 

48 Madison, and Power Counties. Wage and salary spending and expenditures associated with 
 xxxix 

1 materials, equipment, and supplies would produce income and employment and local and State 

2 tax revenue, resulting in a beneficial impact. Preconstruction would create 308 jobs and 

3 $11.9 million in the first year, and 1687 jobs would be created during the peak year of 

4 construction with $65.0 million of income. Operations would produce 3289 jobs and 

5 $92.4 million in income in the first year of full operations. The jobs created include jobs at the 

6 proposed EREF and those indirectly created elsewhere in the 11-county ROI due to 

7 preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF. Because preconstruction 

8 and construction activities would constitute less than 1 percent of total 11-county ROI 

9 employment, the economic impact of constructing the proposed EREF would, therefore, be 

10 SMALL. 

11 

12 As it is anticipated that a number of workers will move into the area during each phase of the 

13 proposed project, with the majority of the demographic and social impacts associated with 

14 population in-migration likely to occur in Bingham and Bonneville Counties, the impacts of the 

15 proposed EREF on population, housing, and community services are assessed for a two-county 

16 ROI, consisting of Bingham and Bonneville Counties. The migration of workers and their 

17 families into surrounding communities would affect housing availability, area community 

18 services such as healthcare, schools, and law enforcement, and the availability and cost of 

19 public utilities such as electricity, water, sanitary services, and roads resulting in an adverse 

20 impact. Because of the small number of in-migrating workers expected during preconstruction, 

21 construction, and operations, the impact on housing and community and educational services 

22 employment would be SMALL. 

23 

24 Decommissioning would provide continuing employment opportunities for some of the existing 

25 workforce and for other residents of the 11-county ROI. Additional, specialized 

26 decommissioning workers would also be required from outside the 11-county ROI. 

27 Expenditures on salaries and materials would contribute to the area economy, although less 

28 than during operations, and the State would continue to collect sales tax and income tax 

29 revenues. The socioeconomic impact of decommissioning activities would be SMALL. 

30 

31 Environmental Justice 

32 

33 SMALL. The potential impacts of the proposed EREF would mostly be SMALL for the resource 

34 areas evaluated. For these resources areas, the impacts on all human populations would be 

35 SMALL. Potential impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE or MODERATE in a few cases, 

36 which could potentially affect environmental justice populations; and there would be LARGE, 

37 though intermittent, short-term impacts from fugitive dist during preconstruction. However, as 

38 there are no low-income or minority populations within the 4-mile area around the proposed 

39 facility, these impacts would not be disproportionately high and adverse for these population 

40 groups. 

41 

42 Impacts of decommissioning would be SMALL. Because impacts on the general population 

43 would generally be SMALL to MODERATE in other resource areas, and because there are no 

44 low-income or minority populations defined according to Council on Environmental Quality 

45 (CEQ) guidelines within the 4-mile area around the proposed facility, decommissioning would 

46 not be expected to result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or low47 income populations. 

48 
 xl 

1 Accidents 

2 

3 SMALL TO MODERATE. Six accident scenarios were evaluated in this EIS as a representative 

4 selection of the types of accidents that are possible at the proposed EREF. The representative 

5 accident scenarios selected vary in severity from high- to intermediate-consequence events and 

6 include accidents initiated by natural phenomena (earthquake), operator error, and equipment 

7 failure. The consequence of a criticality accident would be high (fatality) for a worker in close 

8 proximity. Worker health consequences are low to high from the other five accidents that 

9 involve the release of UF6. Radiological consequences to a maximally exposed individual (MEI) 

10 at the Controlled Area Boundary (proposed EREF property boundary) are low for all six 

11 accidents including the criticality accident. Uranium chemical exposure to the MEI is high for 

12 one accident and low for the remainder. For HF exposure to an MEI at the proposed property 

13 boundary, the consequence of three accidents is intermediate, with a low consequence 

14 estimated for the remainder. All accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective 

15 offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Impacts from accidents would be SMALL 

16 to MODERATE. Plant design, passive and active engineered and administrative controls, and 

17 management of these controls would reduce the likelihood of accidents. 

18 

19 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

20 

21 This EIS also considers the potential environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, which 

22 are summarized below. It is assumed that preconstruction activities have taken place under the 

23 no-action alternative. The impact conclusions presented in this EIS for the no-action alternative 

24 address the impacts of denying the license, but do not include the impacts of the NRC-approved 

25 preconstruction activities. This is because a decision by the NRC not to issue the license does 

26 not cause the impacts of preconstruction under the no-action alternative. As described in 

27 Chapter 4, the anticipated environmental impacts from the no-action alternative would range 

28 from SMALL to MODERATE. 

29 

30 Should the nation’s need for enriched uranium continue to increase and necessitate the 

31 construction and operation of another domestic enrichment facility at an alternate location, 

32 impacts could occur for each resource area and could range from SMALL to LARGE. The 

33 nature and scale of these impacts could be similar to those of the proposed action, but would 

34 depend on several facility- and site-specific factors. 

35 

36 Land Use 

37 

38 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, AES would purchase the proposed property and 

39 restrictions on grazing and agriculture would occur. The zoning designation for the property 

40 would remain G-1 Grazing whether or not the proposed EREF is constructed. Current land 

41 uses of grazing and farming could potentially resume. Impacts to local land use would be 

42 SMALL. 

43 

44 Historic and Cultural Resources 

45 

46 SMALL TO MODERATE. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed EREF would not be 

47 constructed. Site MW004 would not be affected by NRC’s licensing action, and Section 106 of 

48 the National Historic Preservation Act would not apply because no Federal action would be 
 xli 

1 involved. However, the removal of site MW004, which has already occurred, resulted in a 

2 LARGE impact because the site no longer exists; but because AES removed this site through 

3 professional excavation and data recovery and there are other homestead sites of this type 

4 found in the region, the impact has been mitigated to a MODERATE level. No visual or noise 

5 effects would occur to the viewshed for the Wasden Complex. 

6 

7 Visual and Scenic Resources 

8 

9 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, since the proposed EREF would not be constructed, 

10 no visual intrusions to the existing landscape would occur. The current land cover would be 

11 altered, but no large industrial structures would be constructed. The existing natural character 

12 of the area would largely remain intact. The lack of development would be consistent with 

13 BLM’s VRM Class I designation for the Hell’s Half Acre WSA, and no intrusions to the Wasden 

14 Complex viewshed would occur. 

15 

16 Air Quality 

17 

18 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, the air quality impacts associated with construction 

19 and operation of the proposed EREF would not occur. The proposed site could revert to 

20 agricultural activities, which would impact ambient air quality through the release of criteria 

21 pollutants from the operation of agricultural vehicles and equipment and the release of fugitive 

22 dusts from the tilling of soils. Local air impacts associated with the no-action alternative would 

23 be SMALL. 

24 

25 Geology and Soils 

26 

27 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, no additional land disturbance from construction would 

28 occur, and the proposed site could revert to crop production and grazing activities. Wind and 

29 water erosion would continue to be the most significant natural processes affecting the geology 

30 and soils at the proposed site. Impacts would be SMALL. 

31 

32 Water Resources 

33 

34 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, additional water use may or may not occur, depending 

35 on future plans for the proposed property. Water resources would be unchanged. Water usage 

36 could continue at the current rate should agricultural activities resume at the proposed site. No 

37 changes to surface water quality would be expected, and the natural (intermittent) surface flow 

38 of stormwater on the proposed site would continue. No additional groundwater use or adverse 

39 changes to groundwater quality would be expected. Impacts would be SMALL. 

40 

41 Ecological Resources 

42 

43 SMALL. Most impacts on ecological resources would occur during preconstruction. The 

44 potential impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the 

45 proposed EREF would not occur. Revegetation of the proposed site could occur with renewal of 

46 some wildlife habitat. The land could revert to crop production and grazing activities. Impacts 

47 would be SMALL. 

48 

49 
 xlii 

1 Noise 

2 

3 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, none of the noise impacts associated with proposed 

4 EREF construction, operation, or decommissioning would occur. Land uses on the proposed 

5 EREF site could revert to previous applications, livestock grazing and/or crop production, with 

6 concomitant noise levels and SMALL impacts. 

7 

8 Transportation 

9 

10 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, traffic volumes and patterns would remain unchanged 

11 from existing conditions. The current volume of radioactive material and chemical shipments 

12 from other sources in the area would not increase. Impacts would be SMALL. 

13 

14 Public and Occupational Health 

15 

16 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, health impacts from construction, operation, and 

17 decommissioning would not occur. Worker and public impacts from chemical and radioactive 

18 hazards would also not occur. Should the land be returned to grazing and agriculture, current 

19 use impacts would be expected and would be SMALL. 

20 

21 Waste Management 

22 

23 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, no proposed EREF construction, operational, or 

24 decommissioning wastes (including sanitary, hazardous, low-level radioactive wastes, or mixed 

25 wastes) would be generated or require disposition. Impacts from waste management would be 

26 SMALL. 

27 

28 Socioeconomics 

29 

30 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, any beneficial or adverse consequences of the 

31 proposed action would not occur. All socioeconomic conditions in the 11-county ROI would 

32 remain unchanged. Impacts would be SMALL. 

33 

34 Population in the area surrounding the proposed EREF, in Bonneville and Bingham Counties, is 

35 expected to grow in accordance with current projections, with the total population in the region 

36 projected to be approximately 156,491 in 2013 and 168,331 in 2017. In association with 

37 population growth, the social characteristics of the region, including housing availability, school 

38 enrollment, and availability of law enforcement and firefighting resources, are expected to 

39 change over time. However, future changes in these characteristics are difficult to quantify, and 

40 no projections of their future growth are available. 

41 

42 Environmental Justice 

43 

44 SMALL. The no-action alternative would not be expected to cause any high and adverse 

45 impacts. It would not raise any environmental justice issues. 

46 

47 
 xliii 

1 Accidents 

2 

3 SMALL. Under the no-action alternative, potential accidents and accident consequences from 

4 operation of the proposed EREF would not occur. Impacts would be SMALL. 

5 

6 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

7 

8 While there are national energy security and fiscal benefits associated with the proposed action, 

9 and local socioeconomic benefits in the 11-county ROI in which the proposed EREF would be 

10 located, there are also direct costs associated with the preconstruction, construction, and 

11 operation phases of the proposed project, as well as impacts on various environmental 

12 resources. These impacts would mostly be SMALL, and in a few cases SMALL to MODERATE, 

13 or MODERATE in magnitude and small in comparison to the local and national benefits of the 

14 proposed action. In addition, most of the impacts to environmental resources associated with 

15 the proposed action would result from preconstruction activities at the proposed site, and would 

16 also occur under the no-action alternative. The principal socioeconomic impact or benefit of the 

17 proposed EREF project would be an increase in employment and income in the 11-county ROI. 

18 Although the majority of the costs, and most of the socioeconomic impacts, of the various 

19 phases of proposed EREF development would occur in the 11-county ROI, there would be 

20 economic, fiscal and, in particular, energy security benefits, which would occur at the local, 

21 State, and national levels. 

22 

23 Average employment created in the 11-county ROI during the year of peak construction is 

24 estimated at 1687 full-time jobs, with $0.7 million in State income tax revenues and $5.1 million 

25 in State sales taxes. During the proposed EREF full operations phase beginning in 2022, 

26 3289 annual jobs would be created. During this period, the State of Idaho would benefit from 

27 $1.3 million annually in income taxes, while Bonneville County would collect $3.5 million 

28 annually in property tax receipts. Although it can be assumed that some portion of paid State 

29 sales and income taxes would be returned to the 11-county ROI under revenue-sharing 

30 arrangements between each county and the State government, the exact amount that would be 

31 received by each county cannot be determined. Although there are economic and fiscal 

32 benefits associated with the proposed action in the 11-county ROI, these impacts would be 

33 SMALL. 

34 

35 The direct costs associated with the proposed action may be categorized by the following life36 cycle stages: facility construction, operation, depleted uranium disposition, and 

37 decommissioning. In addition, costs would be incurred for preconstruction activities under both 

38 the proposed action and the no-action alternative. In addition to monetary costs, the proposed 

39 action would result in impacts on various resource areas, which are considered “costs” for the 

40 purpose of this analysis. The resource areas and corresponding impacts are described in detail 

41 in Chapter 4 of this EIS. As discussed earlier, the impacts of preconstruction and the proposed 

42 action would mostly be SMALL, and in a few cases SMALL to MODERATE, or MODERATE, for 

43 all resource areas. 

44 

45 The proposed action could result in the maximum annual production of 6.6 million SWUs of 

46 enriched uranium in peak years, which would represent an augmentation of the domestic supply 

47 of enriched uranium and, along with other planned new enrichment facilities, would meet the 

48 need for increased domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security. Thus, 
 xliv 

1 the proposed action would generate national and regional benefits and costs. The national 

2 benefit would be an increase in domestic supplies of enriched uranium that would assist the 

3 national energy security need. The regional benefits would be increased employment, 

4 economic activity, and tax revenues in the 11-county ROI. Costs associated with the proposed 

5 project are, for the most part, limited to the resource areas in the 11-county ROI. 

6 

7 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

8 

9 The impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are briefly summarized and 

10 compared below. A more detailed summary and comparison is provided in Chapter 2, 

11 Table 2-6. As discussed earlier, it is assumed that the previously discussed preconstruction 

12 activities take place under both alternatives and, therefore, the impacts associated with 

13 preconstruction activities take place regardless of which alternative is selected. As a result, the 

14 comparison of alternatives presented below and in Chapter 2 is intended to highlight the 

15 differences between the two alternatives after preconstruction activities have occurred. 

16 

17 Under the no-action alternative, the proposed EREF would not be constructed, operated, and 

18 decommissioned in Bonneville County, Idaho. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in 

19 Paducah, Kentucky, the URENCO USA facility in Lea County, New Mexico, and the 

20 downblending of highly enriched uranium under the Megatons to Megawatts Program would 

21 remain the sole sources of domestically generated low-enriched uranium for U.S. commercial 

22 nuclear power plants. The URENCO USA facility is still under construction and with the ACP, 

23 which is currently under construction, may provide additional enrichment services in the future. 

24 The license application for an additional enrichment facility, the proposed GLE Facility, is 

25 currently under review by the NRC. Foreign enrichment sources would be expected to continue 

26 to supply approximately 85 percent of U.S. nuclear power plants’ demand until new domestic 

27 enrichment facilities are constructed and operated. 

28 

29 The no-action alternative would have SMALL impacts on land use, visual and scenic resources, 

30 air quality, geology and soils, water resources, ecological resources, noise, transportation, 

31 public and occupational health, waste management, socioeconomics, environmental justice, 

32 and facility accidents, and SMALL to MODERATE impacts on historic and cultural resources. 

33 The costs and benefits of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed EREF 

34 would not occur. Additional domestic enrichment facilities could be constructed in the future 

35 with impacts expected to be SMALL to LARGE, depending on facility- and site-specific 

36 conditions. 

37 

38 In comparison to the no-action alternative, the proposed action would also have SMALL impacts 

39 on land use, air quality, geology and soils, water resources, ecological resources, noise, public 

40 and occupational health, waste management, socioeconomics, and environmental justice, but 

41 would have SMALL to MODERATE impacts on historic and cultural resources, visual and scenic 

42 resources, transportation, and facility accidents. The proposed action would have positive 

43 impacts in the region on employment and income, and on State and Federal tax revenues. 

44 

45 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

46 

47 This EIS also considers cumulative impacts that could result from the proposed action when 

48 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Federal, non-Federal, 

49 or private). No ongoing or planned developments were identified within 16 kilometers (10 miles) 
 xlv 

1 of the proposed project location, which includes the ROI for all affected resource areas except 

2 socioeconomics, which extends to an 80.5-kilometer (50-mile) radius. Proposed developments 

3 within 80.5 kilometers (50 miles) that could contribute to a regional socioeconomic impact in 

4 combination with the proposed project include the proposed Mountain States Transmission 

5 Intertie, a proposed 500-kV electrical transmission line running between western Montana and 

6 southeastern Idaho. The preferred route lies approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) to the west 

7 of the proposed EREF site, running north-south. Two other alternate routes lie closer, the 

8 nearest running adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed EREF property just outside 

9 of INL property, and the other route crossing US 20 about 10 miles east of the proposed EREF 

10 site. In addition, impacts from the construction of a proposed new 161-kV transmission line, a 

11 substation, and substation upgrades for the proposed EREF are addressed as cumulative 

12 impacts in this EIS, as this action is not under the NRC’s jurisdiction and, therefore, not 

13 considered by the NRC to be part of the proposed action. In general, the anticipated cumulative 

14 impacts from the proposed action would be SMALL. Cumulative impacts associated with the 

15 no-action alternative would be generally less than those for the proposed action, except in terms 

16 of local job creation. 

17 

18 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

19 

20 Preconstruction activities and the proposed action would result in unavoidable adverse impacts 

21 on the environment. These impacts would mostly be SMALL and SMALL to MODERATE or 

22 MODERATE in a few cases, with the potential for temporary and brief LARGE impacts on air 

23 quality from fugitive dust, and would, in most cases, be mitigated. The area needed for 

24 construction and operation of the proposed EREF would be cleared of vegetation, which would 

25 lead to the displacement of some local wildlife populations. There would be temporary impacts 

26 from preconstruction and the construction of new facilities, including increased fugitive dust, 

27 increased potential for soil erosion and stormwater pollution, and increased vehicle traffic and 

28 emissions. Water consumption from onsite wells would be relatively small, and the risk for 

29 significant adverse impacts on neighboring residential wells or public supply wells would be 

30 SMALL. During operations, workers and members of the public could be exposed to radiation 

31 and chemicals, although the impacts of these exposures would be SMALL. 

32 

33 Preconstruction and the proposed action would necessitate short-term commitments of 

34 resources and would permanently commit certain other resources (such as energy and water). 

35 This EIS defines short-term uses as generally affecting the present quality of life for the public 

36 (i.e., the 30-year license period for the proposed EREF) and long-term productivity as affecting 

37 the quality of life for future generations on the basis of environmental sustainability. The short38 term use of resources would result in potential long-term socioeconomic benefits to the local 

39 area and the region. 

40 

41 Workers, the public, and the environment would be exposed to increased amounts of hazardous 

42 and radioactive materials over the short term from operations of the proposed EREF. 

43 Construction and operation would require a long-term commitment of terrestrial resources, such 

44 as land, water, and energy. Short-term impacts would be minimized by the application of 

45 appropriate mitigation measures. Upon the closure of the proposed EREF, AES would 

46 decontaminate and decommission the buildings and equipment and restore them for 

47 unrestricted use. Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during the 

48 proposed action would directly benefit the local, regional, and State economies. 

49 
 xlvi 

1 Irreversible commitment of resources refers to resources that are destroyed and cannot be 

2 restored, whereas an irretrievable commitment of resources refers to material resources that 

3 once used cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means. The proposed 

4 action would include the commitment of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural 

5 and human-generated resources. Following decommissioning, the land occupied by the 

6 proposed facility would likely remain industrial beyond license termination. Water required 

7 during preconstruction and the proposed action would be obtained from new and existing wells 

8 at the proposed EREF property and would be replenished through natural mechanisms. 

9 Wastewaters would be treated to meet applicable standards and would evaporate. Energy used 

10 in the form of electricity and diesel fuel would be supplied through new infrastructure connecting 

11 to existing systems in the Idaho Falls area. The specific types of construction materials and the 

12 quantities of energy and materials used cannot be determined until final facility design is 

13 completed, but it is not expected that these quantities would strain the availability of these 

14 resources. 

15 

16 During operation of the proposed EREF, natural UF6 would be used as feed material, requiring 

17 the mining of uranium (not licensed by the NRC) and other front end operational steps in the 

18 uranium fuel cycle (licensed by the NRC). This use of uranium would be an irretrievable 

19 resource commitment. 

20 

21 Even though the land used to construct the proposed EREF would be returned to other 

22 productive uses after the proposed facility is decommissioned, there would be some irreversible 

23 commitment of land at other offsite locations used to dispose of solid wastes generated by the 

24 proposed facility. In addition, wastes generated during the conversion of depleted UF6

25 produced by the proposed facility and the depleted uranium oxide conversion product from the 

26 conversion of depleted UF6 would be disposed at a licensed offsite LLRW disposal facility. Land 

27 used for disposal of these materials would represent an irreversible commitment of land. No 

28 solid wastes or depleted uranium oxide conversion product originating from the proposed EREF 

29 would be disposed of on the proposed EREF property. When the proposed facility is 

30 decommissioned, some building materials would be recycled and reused. Other materials 

31 would be disposed of in a licensed and approved offsite location, and the amount of land used 

32 to dispose of these materials would be an irretrievable land resource. 

33 
 xlvii 

1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

2 

234 3 U uranium-234 (U-234) 

235 4 U uranium-235 (U-235) 

235 5 UF6 uranium-235 hexafluoride 

238 6 U uranium-238 (U-238) 

238 7 UF6 uranium-238 hexafluoride 

8 

9 AAC acceptable ambient concentration 

10 AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

11 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

12 ACP American Centrifuge Plant 

13 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

14 AERMOD AMS/EPA Regulatory Model 

15 AES AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC 

16 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

17 ANSI American National Standards Institute 

18 APE Area of Potential Effect 

19 Argonne Argonne National Laboratory 

20 ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

21 ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

22 AVLIS Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation 

23 

24 BEA U.S. Bureau for Economic Analysis 

25 BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

26 BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

27 BMP best management practice 

28 BSPB Blending, Sampling, and Preparation Building 

29 

30 CAA Clean Air Act

31 CAB Centrifuge Assembly Building or Controlled Area Boundary 

32 CaF2 calcium fluoride 

33 Cal/EPA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

34 CCS Center for Climate Studies 

35 CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

36 CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 

37 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

38 CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

39 CH4 methane 

40 CTF Centrifuge Test Facility 

41 CO carbon monoxide 

42 CO2 carbon dioxide 

43 CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

44 CWA Clean Water Act

45 CY calendar year 

46 

47 D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

48 DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 
 xlviii 

1 DEM Digital Elevation Model 

2 DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

3 DNL day/night average noise level 

4 DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

5 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

6 DOEQAP DOE Quality Assurance Program 

7 DOL U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

8 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

9 

10 EA Environmental Assessment 

11 EDE effective dose equivalent 

12 EIA Energy Information Administration 

13 EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

14 EMP Effluent Monitoring Program 

15 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

16 ER Environmental Report 

17 ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration 

18 EREF Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

19 ESA Endangered Species Act

20 ESRP Eastern Snake River Plain 

21 

22 FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

23 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

24 FGR Federal Guidance Report 

25 FR Federal Register 

26 FTE full-time equivalent 

27 FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

28 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

29 

30 GAO U.S. General Accounting Office 

31 GCRP U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program 

32 GDP Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

33 GE General Electric 

34 GEVS Gaseous Effluent Ventilation System 

35 GHG greenhouse gas 

36 GLE Global Laser Enrichment 

37 GWP Global Warming Potential 

38 

39 HAP hazardous air pollutant 

40 HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

41 HEU high-enriched uranium 

42 HF hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid 

43 HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

44 HPS Health Physics Society 

45 HRCQ Highway Route Controlled Quantity 

46 HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 

47 HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

48 

49 
 xlix 

1 I Interstate 

2 IAC Idaho Administrative Code

3 ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

4 IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

5 IDC Idaho Department of Commerce 

6 IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

7 IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

8 IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources 

9 IGS Idaho Geological Survey 

10 INL Idaho National Laboratory 

11 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

12 IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety 

13 IROFS Items Relied on for Safety 

14 IS Idaho Statutes

15 ISA Integrated Safety Analysis 

16 ISAC Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee 

17 ISACTAT Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee Technical Assistance Team 

18 ISCORS Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards 

19 ISTC Idaho State Tax Commission 

20 ITD Idaho Transportation Department 

21 IWRB Idaho Water Resource Board 

22 

23 LCF latent cancer fatality 

24 Ldn day/night maximum average sound level 

25 Leq equivalent sound level 

26 LES Louisiana Energy Services 

27 LEU low-enriched uranium 

28 LLRW low-level radioactive waste 

29 LOS level of service 

30 LTTS Low Temperature Take-off Stations 

31 LWR light water reactor 

32 

33 MAPEP Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program 

34 MCL maximum contaminant level 

35 MCNP Monte Carlo N-Particle 

36 MDC minimum detectable concentration 

37 MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

38 MEI maximally exposed individual 

39 MFC Materials and Fuels Complex 

40 MLIS molecular laser isotope separation 

41 MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

42 MRI Midwest Research Institute 

43 MSL mean sea level 

44 MW(e) Megawatt electric 

45 

46 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

47 NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

48 NCES National Center for Education Statistics 
 l 

1 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

2 NEF National Enrichment Facility 

3 NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference 

4 NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

5 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1966

6 NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

7 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

8 NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

9 NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

10 NLCD 1992 National Land Cover Data 1992 

11 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

12 NMVOC nonmethane volatile organic compound 

13 NNL National Natural Landmark 

14 N2O nitrous oxide 

15 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

16 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

17 NOI Notice of Intent 

18 NOx nitrogen oxides 

19 NPCR National Program of Cancer Registries 

20 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

21 NPS National Park Service 

22 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

23 NRCP National Council on Radiation Protection 

24 NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

25 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

26 NWS National Weather Service 

27 

28 O3 ozone 

29 OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

30 OEL occupational exposure levels 

31 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

32 

33 PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

34 Pb lead 

35 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

36 PFC perfluorocarbon 

37 PGA peak ground acceleration 

38 PM particulate matter 

39 PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

40 PM10 particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter 

41 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

42 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

43 PTE Potential to Emit 

44 PWR pressurized water reactor 

45 

46 RAB Restricted Area Boundary 

47 RAI Request for Additional Information 

48 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

49 
 li 

1 REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

2 RMP Rocky Mountain Power or range management plan 

3 ROI region of influence 

4 ROW right-of-way 

5 

6 SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

7 SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

8 SBM Separations Building Module 

9 SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

10 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

11 SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

12 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

13 SILEX separation of isotopes by laser excitation 

14 SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level 

15 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

16 SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

17 SPL sound pressure level 

18 SUNSI Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

19 SVOC semivolatile organic compound 

20 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

21 SWU separative work unit 

22 

23 TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent 

24 TI transportation index 

25 TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

26 TRAGIS Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System 

27 TSB Technical Support Building 

28 TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility 

29 

30 U3O8 triuranium octaoxide 

31 UO2F2 uranyl fluoride 

32 UBC uranium byproduct cylinder 

33 UF4 uranium tetrafluoride 

34 UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

35 UN United Nations 

36 UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

37 URENCO URENCO Group 

38 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

39 U.S.C. United States Code

40 USCB U.S. Census Bureau

41 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

42 USEC U.S. Enrichment Corporation 

43 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

44 USSLWG Upper Snake Sage-grouse Local Working Group 

45 

46 VOC volatile organic compound 

47 VRI visual resource inventory 

48 
 lii 

1 VRM visual resource management 

2 VTM vehicle miles traveled 

3 

4 WSA Wilderness Study Area 
 A-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX A 

15 ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

 A-3 

1 

2 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING 

PROCESS 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

Proposed AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Bonneville County, Idaho 
 A-4 

1 

2 

1. INTRODUCTION 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) submitted its original 

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct, 

operate, and decommission a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility to be located near 

Idaho Falls, Idaho. An Environmental Report was also submitted by AES at that time. On 

April 24, 2009, AES resubmitted its application to request an increase in enrichment capacity. 

If licensed, the facility would enrich uranium for use in manufacturing commercial nuclear fuel 

for use in power reactors. Feed material would be natural (not enriched) uranium in the form of 

uranium hexafluoride (UFs), which contains the uranium-235 isotope. AES proposes to use 

centrifuge technology to enrich this isotope in the UFsto up to 5 percent by weight. The 

centrifuge would operate at below atmospheric pressure and would have a capacity up to 

6.6 million separative work units (SWU). The enriched UFs would be transported to a fuel 

fabrication facility, while the depleted UFswould be stored onsite until it is sold, disposed of 

commercially, or taken by the U.S. Department of Energy. 

In accordance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), the NRC is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed 

facility as part of its decision making process. The EIS will examine the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed AES facility in parallel with the review of the license 

application. In addition to the EIS, the NRC staff will prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) 

on health and safety issues raised by the proposed action. The SER will document the NRC 

staff evaluation of the safety of the activities proposed by AES in its license application and the 

compliance with applicable NRC regulations. 

On May 4,2009, NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (74 Federal Register 

20508-20509) to prepare an EIS and to conduct the public scoping process, in accordance with 

the NEPA process. The scoping process is designed to help determine the range of actions, 

alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS, and to identify significant issues 

related to the proposed action. The NRC solicits input from the public and other agencies in 

order to focus on issues of genuine concern. 

On June 4, 2009, the NRC staff held a public scoping meeting in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to receive 

both oral and written comments from interested parties. The meeting began with the staff 

providing a description of the NRC's role, responsibilities, and mission. This was followed by an 

overview of the licensing process, including information on the safety review and environmental 

review processes. Also, NRC staff provided Information on the means for the public's 

participation. Most of the meeting time was spent taking comments from attendees regarding 

the scope of the environmental review. 

After publishing the draft EIS, NRC will invite the public to comment on that document. NRC will 

announce the availability of the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and 

information about the public meeting in the Federal Register, on NRC's AREVA Enrichment 

Services Gas Centrifuge Facility Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cyclefac/arevanc.html), and in the local news media. After evaluating comments on the draft EIS, the 

NRC staff will issue a final EIS that will serve as the basis for the NRC's consideration of 

environmental impacts in its decision on the proposed enrichment facility. 

2 
 A-5 

1 

2 

This report summarizes the determinations and conclusions reached in the scoping process. 

It is organized into four main sections. Section 1 provides an introduction and background 

information on the environmental review process. Section 2 summarizes the comments and 

concerns expressed by government officials, agencies, organizations, and the public. Section 3 

identifies the issues that the draft EIS will address, and Section 4 identifies issues that are not 

within the scope of the draft EIS. Where appropriate, Section 4 also identifies other occasions 

in the decision making process where issues that are outside the scope of the draft EIS may be 

considered. 

2. ISSUES RAISED DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS 

2.1 OVERVIEW 

The public scoping process is an important component in determining the major issues that the 

NRC should address in the draft EIS. The comments provided by the public addressed several 

subject areas related to the proposed AES facility and the development of the draft EIS. 

Members of the public were able to submit comments on the scope of the AES enrichment 

facility EIS bye-mail, postal mail, and by speaking and/or submitting written comments at the 

public scoping meeting held in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on June 4, 2009. The scoping period began 

on May 4,2009 and ended June 19,2009. 

Comments were received from 131 individuals or organizations. Approximately 120 individuals 

not affiliated with the NRC attended the June 4, 2009, public scoping meeting. 

Most of the scoping comments (89) were received bye-mail; 37 people provided oral comments 

at the scoping meeting (two of these had also sent e-mail comments); and 7 people sent their 

comments by postal mail. Some people used more than one submittal method; they were not 

counted twice. The scoping meeting transcript (ML 091980464) and the written comments are 

available on NRC's Electronic Reading Room Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

In addition to private citizens, commenters included: 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

A representative of the Governor of Idaho 

Representatives for Idaho's U.S. Senators 

A representative for the U.S. Congressman, 2nd District of Idaho 

Three members of the Idaho State House of Representatives 

A member of the Idaho State Senate 

The mayor of Idaho Falls 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

Greater Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce 

Bonneville County Commissioners 

Representatives of other organizations and businesses, including: 

- A Partnership for Science and Technology 

- Auto Building Trade and Construction Council 

3 
 A-6 

1 

2 

- Carpenter and Millwright Local Union, No. 808 

- Cooper, Roberts, Simonsen Associates 

- Diversified Metal Products 

- Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center 

- Forde Johnson Oil Company 

- Friends of the Earth 

- Grow Idaho Falls 

- Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah (H EAL Utah) 

- Idaho Conservation League 

- Idaho Falls Regional Development Alliance 

- Idaho Families for the Safest Energy 

- Idaho State University 

- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 449 

- Mayor's Youth Advisory Council (Idaho Falls) 

- Snake River Alliance 

- Tri-Valley Cares 

The following general topics categorize the comments received during the public scoping 

period: 

• NEPA and public participation 

• Need for the proposed facility 

• Alternatives 

• Ecology 

• Air quality and climate 

• Geology and seismicity 

• Water 

• Land use and visual resources 

• Human health 

• Nuclear waste and hazardous materials 

• Socioeconomics and cost 

• Cultural resources and environmental justice 

• Transportation 

• Accidents 

• Nonproliferation and security issues 

• Cumulative impacts, and 

• Miscellaneous topics 

4 
 A-7 

1 

2 

In addition to raising important issues about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 

facility, some commenters offered opinions and concerns that typically would not be included in 

the subject matter of an EIS - these include general opinions about AES or issues that are more 

appropriately considered in the SER. Comments of this type are taken into consideration by the 

NRC staff, but they do not point to significant environmental issues to be analyzed. Other 

statements may be relevant to the proposed action, but they have no direct bearing on the 

evaluation of alternatives or on the decision making process involving the proposed action. For 

instance, general statements of support for or opposition to the proposed project fall into this 

category. Again, comments of this type have been noted but are not used in defining the scope 

and content of the EIS. 

Section 2.2 summarizes the comments received during the public scoping period. Most of the 

issues raised have a direct bearing on the NRC's analysis of potential environmental impacts. 

2.2 SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED 

General comments supporting the facility: Nearly 50 percent of commenters expressed 

general support for the project. Many commenters provided specific reasons for their support, 

including: (1) the need for a domestic supply of enriched uranium to power the Nation's current 

and future nuclear reactors; (2) the need to produce more nuclear energy, which would reduce 

greenhouse gases and reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil; (3) the region's qualified 

workforce and long history in nuclear-related research and development; (4) the safety and 

efficiency of centrifuge technology; (5) the benefits to employment and other economic factors; 

and (6) AREVA's track record regarding safe operations, environmental stewardship, and 

community relations. 

General comments opposing the facility: Approximately 30 percent of commenters stated 

their opposition to the project; in general, they stated that the increased risks to people and the 

environment outweighed the economic benefits. Many commenters mentioned that they 

thought AREVA had a poor track record in France, specifically they claimed that there had been 

routine dumping of radioactive liquids into the English Channel and a series of recent (2008) 

radioactive leaks and spills that were not reported to the public in a timely manner. Some 

commenters claimed that AREVA's mining activities in Niger over the past 40 years had 

depleted the local drinking water and radioactively contaminated the ground in the nearby town. 

General concerns: Several commenters who were supportive of the proposed action noted that 

there were legitimate questions about potential environmental impacts that must be addressed 

in the draft EIS. Many commenters identified specific resource areas for which impacts should 

be addressed in the draft EIS. These included socioeconomic issues, water and air quality, 

waste management, noise, land use, geology and soils, cultural and environmental justice, 

ecology, public and occupational health, transportation, and security infrastructure impacts. 

More details on these issues can be found in the following sections of this scoping summary 

report. 

The NRC staff will consider the comments provided during development of the EIS for the 

facility. 

5 
 A-8 

1 

2 

2.2.1 NEPA and Public Participation 

Several commenters requested that public meetings be held in additional locations across the 

State to provide people throughout Idaho with the opportunity to comment on the proposal. 

Boise was mentioned most often, with commenters stating that it was the State capital and main 

population center. Other Idaho locations mentioned included Twin Falls, Coeur d'Alene, and the 

Wood River Valley. One commenter requested that meetings also be held in the Greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem area (specifically Wyoming), since that region's tourist industry could be 

adversely affected by having a nuclear facility in the vicinity. 

Commenters pointed out that the impacts of the enrichment facility would not be limited to the 

Idaho Falls region. Most frequently mentioned were the tax incentives for the AREVA project 

that some thought were passed by the Idaho State Legislature and would affect Idahoans 

statewide. Other reasons given were that regions outside of Idaho Falls could be affected by 

accidents at the facility and by radioactive waste disposal. 

Commenters mentioned the need to provide a forum in which the public could discuss and be 

informed about the radioactive wastes that the facility would generate, how the wastes would be 

handled, and the differences between the enriched uranium used to power reactors and the 

enriched uranium used for bombs. 

2.2.2 Need for the Proposed Facility 

Several made the general comment that uranium enrichment was needed for clean energy 

(nuclear power). On the other hand, a number of commenters wanted the EIS to include an indepth analysis of the actual need for the proposed enrichment facility. They stated that the 

analysis should consider current and projected worldwide uranium enrichment capacity, the 

continuing downblending of surplus highly enriched uranium (HEU) in Russia and U.S. weapons 

stockpiles, and the current and projected number of nuclear power plants. In addition, mixed oxide 

fuel should be analyzed as another fuel supply. One commenter asked if plutonium, thorium, or 

other nuclear fuels could displace existing or potential demand for enriched uranium - will there be 

enough fuel capacity to serve the needs of future nuclear power plants without constructing the 

proposed facility. 

Several commenters questioned the need for the proposed enrichment facility, given that there 

are renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower) that are 

more environmentally friendly than nuclear power. One commenter stated that energy-need 

projections should take energy conservation and increased energy efficiencies into account. 

2.2.3 Alternatives 

One commenter stated that all reasonable alternatives should be evaluated, including ones that 

are outside the legal jurisdiction of the NRC, and that the EIS should discuss the reasons for 

eliminating alternatives that are not evaluated in detail. Reasonable alternatives should include, 

but are not limited to, alternative sites and different enrichment techniques. The commenter 

asked that the environmental impacts of the proposed action and no-action alternative be 

presented in comparative form and that the impacts of each alternative action be listed with 

corresponding mitigation measures. 

6 
 A-9 

1 

2 

Another commenter wanted the increased downblending of U.S and Russian HEU, as well as 

plutonium- and thorium-based fuels, to be analyzed as alternatives to the Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility (EREF). The analysis should include costs and environmental impacts. 

2.2.4 Ecology 

A few commenters raised concerns about endangered and sensitive species in the vicinity of 

the proposed facility. They stated that the NRC should try to site facilities and infrastructure to 

avoid areas of critical habitat for species of concern and that a mitigation plan should be 

prepared for impacts that could not be avoided. 

Commenters were particularly concerned about increased habitat fragmentation, since the 

project area contains habitat that is crucial to sagebrush obligate species. One commenter 

noted that the sagebrush steppe habitat is considered by Federal agencies as "imperiled" and 

an area of primary concern. One commenter specifically mentioned sage grouse, pygmy 

rabbits, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and birds of prey and recommended avoiding construction 

in any designated areas or lands for special management for these species. This commenter 

also suggested that the project minimize impacts to big game winter habitat. There were also 

concerns about impacts to nesting habitat for migratory birds. 

One commenter wanted further analysis of the impacts associated with the construction of two 

access roads from U.S. Highway 20 to the project site, specifically the additional risk associated 

with fire and the spread of invasive weeds. 

2.2.5 Air Quality and Climate 

Air quality: A few commenters were concerned about the potential release of radioactive, 

hazardous, and toxic materials into the air. Commenters asked that the EIS include the 

following: (1) detailed information about ambient air conditions, (2) data on emissions of criteria 

pollutants, (3) information about mitigation measures, (4) an equipment emissions mitigation 

plan to reduce particulates and emissions associated with construction activities, (5) an 

evaluation of radioactive and nonradioactive emissions, (6) details on the use and disposal of 

filters, and (7) information on air impacts associated with accidents. One commenter requested 

that the applicant include air monitoring and reporting plans, including guidance for public alerts 

and containment. 

Climate change: One commenter stated that the EIS should discuss how climate change could 

potentially influence the proposed project area resources and vice versa, especially within 

sensitive areas. He mentioned, as examples, changes in hydrology, sea leave, weather 

patterns, precipitation rates, and chemical reaction rates. 

2.2.6 Geology and Seismicity 

Geology and soil: One commenter noted that construction of facilities and access roads may 

also inadvertently compact the soil or disturb it, thus compromising the ability of a site to handle 

the normal flow of organisms, nutrients, and toxic wastes. The commenter stated that the EIS 

analysis should include a detailed discussion of the "cumulative effects from this and other 

7 
 A-10 

1 

2 

projects on the hydrologic conditions of the project area." Another commenter suggested 

establishing citing criteria to minimize soil disturbances and erosion on steep slopes. 

Seismicity: A commenter recommended that the EIS discuss the potential for seismic risk 

associated with uranium enrichment activities and how this risk would be evaluated, monitored, 

and managed. They suggested that a seismic map be referenced or included in the EIS. The 

commenter stated that uranium enrichment activities could cause increased earthquake activity 

in tectonically active zone. Another commenter noted that eastern Idaho sits on a geologically 

unstable fault zone extending across southern Idaho to Yellowstone. 

2.2.7 Water 

Several commenters expressed concerns about adverse impacts the proposed facility would 

have on both surface water and groundwater. Of particular concern was the Snake River 

aquifer, which is located below the proposed site. The fear was that nuclear waste stored at the 

facility would seep into the aquifer and contaminate the groundwater. 

Some commenters were concerned that water used by the facility would deplete the 

groundwater supply. In addition to depleting the supply, a commenter noted that the pumping 

action could increase existing groundwater contamination caused by seepage of toxic and 

radioactive contaminants into the groundwater. On the other hand, a few commenters stated 

that the facility would use less water than current agricultural activities. 

A commenter recommended that the potential impacts to groundwater and other drinking water 

sources be fully analyzed and that mitigation measures be identified for significant impacts. 

They also stated that the EIS should document the project's "consistency with applicable 

stormwater permitting requirements" and include a discussion of specific mitigation measures 

that may be needed to reduce "adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic resources." 

2.2.8 Land Use and Visual Resources 

One commenter noted that the proposed AREVA facility would be located within an area of 

ranching and farming. There were local concerns about trespass, dust, impacts on livestock, 

impacts to local wells and groundwater, and traffic. Another commenter mentioned using visual 

resource management guidelines as an example of ways to minimize negative impacts. 

2.2.9 Human Health 

There were some comments related to the human health risks associated with long-term 

exposure to small amounts of uranium; increased risk for childhood leukemia and general 

concerns about cancer rates were mentioned. 

One commenter questioned whether the NRC and AREVA could "scientifically demonstrate the 

legal requirement that this plant will not expose any member of the public to more than 1 0 mrem in 

any given year." Exposure from waste disposal was specifically mentioned. This commenter 

wanted the EIS to include the following: (1) an explanation as to why uranium exposure has greater 

health effects than are presently calculated by NRC safety standards; (2) how the alpha recoil 

problem is addressed by the NRC, since "alpha emitters can leak through four H EPA filters in a 

8 
 A-11 

1 

2 

row, in excess of the 99.97 percent filtering rate used presently"; and (3) a response to the 

complaints in the report from Centers' for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC's) SENES group 

on the understatement of fluoride toxicity at Oak Ridge. 

Another commenter wanted the EIS to describe the measures that would be taken to ensure that 

workers involved in the transport of radioactive materials would be protected, including those 

loading and unloading shipments. 

2.2.10 Nuclear Waste and Hazardous Materials 

Radioactive waste: Nearly 40 percent of the commenters mentioned the need to address the 

impacts (environmental and economic) associated with long-term storage of the nuclear waste 

that would be produced by the enrichment process. There were concerns that the proposed 

facility would be adding to the nuclear waste that is already being stored at Idaho National 

Laboratory, particularly since no permanent nuclear waste depository has been designated. 

Many commenters noted that depleted uranium is hard to store safely and becomes "more 

radioactive over time." Another commenter pointed out that, although the depleted uranium 

becomes more radioactive over time due to radioactive ingrowth, the level of radioactivity never 

exceeds that found in natural uranium ore deposits. 

Commenters noted that the NRC is still in the process of preparing specific rules for the 

depleted uranium waste stream. One commenter stated that the draft EIS should include a 

discussion of the rule making process and how (or whether) the rule making and current licensing 

processes can proceed simultaneously. 

Commenters wanted the draft EIS to consider the environmental impacts of a full range of 

disposition pathways for the depleted uranium tails, including currently available disposal sites and 

those that are proposed. The analyses should include indefinite storage of uranium hexafluoride, 

indefinite storage of some other conversion product, disposal at new-surface nuclear waste 

disposal sites, and disposal at deep geologic sites. Commenters wanted NRC to assess the costs 

of each alternative. 

Some commenters asked that the draft EIS discuss the environmental impacts associated with 

recycle/reuse disposition pathways or deconversion of the waste to a safer form (to an oxide). 

They noted that the United States lacks an operational deconversion facility and that the two 

deconverson plants currently under construction may not be able to handle the added inventory 

from the Louisiana Energy Services plant in New Mexico and the proposed Eagle Rock facility. 

One commenter stated that the draft EIS must provide a description of the financial assurance 

for the indefinite storage of the depleted uranium at the AREVA site. 

Hazardous materials: A few commenters were concerned that hazardous materials from the 

facility would contaminate the air and water. One commenter stated that hazardous materials in 

retention basins have the potential to settle in sediments and be released into the air. 

Commenters wanted the draft EIS to discuss the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts of hazardous waste from construction and operation of the project, including waste 

types and volumes and transport, storage, disposal, and mitigation measures. There were also 

concerns about pollutants that could be associated with the ventilation system. One commenter 

9 
 A-12 

1 

2 

asked that subsequent environmental documentation include a management plan for toxic and 

hazardous materials. 

2.2.11 Socioeconomics and Costs 

Several commenters mentioned positive socioeconomic impacts that the facility lNOuld bring to 

the community, particularly jobs. One commenter stated that he had looked into the increased 

housing, schooling, and transportation needs that lNOuld be expected during construction and 

operations phases and determined that the region lNOuld be able to accommodate them. 

Many people commented on the costs of building and operating the facility, which lNOuld be partly 

covered by tax subsidies and increased electricity rates; cost overruns and delays in France, 

Poland, and Finland were cited as examples. 

One commenter wanted the draft EIS to provide an analysis of the global market for uranium, 

including a scenario in which nuclear plants do not expand beyond current numbers or even 

decline. Another commenter noted that the economies of the Teton Valley, Jackson, WY, and 

West Yellowstone into Cody, WY, are fairly dependent on tourism. He asked that the EIS look 

at how many new jobs and how much new money lNOuld be brought into the region if the same 

amount of money were used to create and support small businesses. 

Other commenters asked about the ramifications of foreign ownership (see Section 2.2.17, 

miscellaneous topics). 

2.2.12 Cultural Resource and Environmental Justice 

Cultural resources: One commenter stated that the EIS should describe the process and 

outcome of government-to-government consultation between the NRC and each of the Tribal 

governments in the vicinity of the project, any issues raised, and how those issues were 

addressed. 

Another commenter noted that the proposed facility would be in close proximity to the Fort Hall 

Indian Reservation and within the aboriginal territories of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. This 

commenter stated that they would like the Heritage Tribal Office (He TO) to be part of the 

cultural surveys of the proposed site and to be notified of any inadvertent cultural or 

archaeological discoveries. 

A third commenter pointed out that the proposed site is in an area of rich and relatively wellpreserved prehistoric and historic resources, noting the Wasden site, which is within one mile of 

the project area, and the relatively undisturbed and abundant archaeological sites within Idaho 

National Laboratory and on public and private lands in the vicinity. 

Commenters pointed out that mitigation for all culturally sensitive items needed to be done and 

asked that contractors and permanent employees be informed about cultural regulations and 

Federal laws concerning artifacts and retrieving and removing historic items. 

10 
 A-13 

1 

2 

One commenter wanted to know if AREVA will share information about transportation routes, 

hazards associated with shipment, and the number of shipments. He also wanted to know if 

AREVA would provide training to the Tribes Emergency Management and Response staff on 

identifying and responding to a transportation accident on the reservation. 

Another commenter questioned the transportation route of product to and from the EREF and 

whether AREVA will share information regarding the number of shipments and hazards of the 

shipments, and whether the facility will provide training to the Tribes Emergency Management 

and Response staff to identify and respond to a transportation accident on the reservation. 

Environmental justice: One commenter stated that the EIS should include an evaluation of 

environmental justice populations within the project area and should address the potential for 

disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. The commenter 

stated that the EIS should include: information describing the process used to inform 

communities about the project and the potential impacts on the communities; input received 

from the communities; and a description on how that input was used in project-related 

decisions. Another commenter stated that sensitive population exposure scenarios needed to 

be developed from the standpoint of both workers and members of the public. 

2.2.13 Transportation 

Some commenters asked that the EIS include an assessment of the impacts of the 

transportation of the facility's feedstock, product, and waste, and of transportation-related 

accidents, including transportation-related emissions and possible exposures. The EIS should 

also describe measures that will be taken to decrease the chances of a transportation accident 

involving radioactive material and to ensure that workers involved in the transport of radioactive 

materials will be protected, including those loading and unloading shipments. One commenter 

want the draft EIS to include information about what form the uranium will be in when it is 

transported to Idaho-yellowcake, gaseous uranium tetrafluoride, or uranium hexafluoride. 

Alternative transportation routes and modes should be analyzed; routes and modes that present 

a significant risk to the public and natural resources should be avoided. 

One commenter stated that the EIS should provide information about the transportation of 

hazardous and toxic materials to and from the project site, including amounts, methods of 

transport, and the types of containment vessels. 

Some commenters were concerned about traffic safety on portions of U.S. Highway 20 running 

from Idaho Falls to the proposed EREF. They pointed out that the highway already has safety 

issues, since it is used by large, slow-moving agricultural machinery with many access roads on 

both sides. The addition of construction workers and construction traffic would add to the 

already congested conditions and create an increased safety risk. Commenters asked that the 

EIS describe local transportation safety issues and suggest solutions. One commenter wanted 

further analysis of the impacts associated with the construction of two access roads from U.S. 

Highway 20 to the project site. 

One commenter noted that AREVA workers would find themselves in competition for seating on 

airline flights that are already filled to capacity and suggested that the region pursue a carrier to 

establish a new service to Las Vegas. 

11 
 A-14 

1 

2 

2.2.14 Accidents 

There \Nere a few comments concerning accidents. One commenter wanted to know how 

AREVA would respond to accident scenarios on the proposed site and how the public would be 

informed. Another was concerned about transportation accidents resulting in the release of 

radioactive materials to the environment and asked that the EIS describe measures that will be 

taken to minimize the chances of this type of accident. A third commenter stated that the draft 

EIS must analyze the air impacts of all potential accidents. Note: Section 2.2.13 of this 

summary also discusses accidents. 

2.2.15 Nonproliferation and Security Issues 

Nonproliferation: Several commenters were concerned that uranium enrichment could lead to 

the production of nuclear bombs and wondered if the use of enrichment technology could 

undermine U.S. efforts involving international nonproliferation. 

One commenter stated that since there is a potential connection between a facility's ability to 

enrich uranium to fuel grade and the ability to continue enrichment to weapons grade, a 

proliferation analysis must be included in the draft EIS. Another commenter asked for a 

nonproliferation impact assessment. 

A commenter stated that the analysis must include "both a technical discussion and a 

discussion by the U.S. Departments of State and Energy and the White House of their efforts to 

curtail uranium enrichment elsewhere and whether or not those efforts are affected by 

commercial enrichment in this country." Another commenter wanted the EIS to explain why the 

International Atomic Energy Agency had not been involved in the project. 

Security issues: Some commenters raised concerns about fissile material (which has the 

potential for nuclear bomb-making) getting into the hands of terrorists and hostile countries like 

Iran and North Korea. They pointed out that the AREVA facility as well as the nuclear materials 

shipments going to and from the facility were subject to attack. One commenter asked for a 

detailed accounting of AREVA's plans to secure its nuclear materials at the facility and during 

transport. Another commenter wanted an account of the environmental impact of sabotage to 

the fluoride gas supply. One commenter wanted AREVA to commit to donating money to 

increase the local police and fire departments. 

2.2.16 Cumulative Impacts 

One commenter stated that the draft EIS should include a detailed discussion of the cumulative 

effects from this and other projects on the hydrologic conditions of the project area. On a more 

general level, commenters wanted the EIS to identify the current condition, describe the trend in 

the condition, and predict the future condition for each resource that is at risk and/or significantly 

impacted by the proposed project before mitigation. The EIS should identify the resources that 

could experience cumulative impacts, the time period over which impacts could occur, and the 

geographic area impacted. Parties that would be responsible for avoiding, minimizing, and 

mitigating adverse impacts should be identified. Another commenter wanted the draft EIS to 

discuss the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of hazardous waste. 

12 
 A-15 

1 

2 

2.2.17 Miscellaneous Topics 

Other potential facility operations: One commenter was concerned that AREVA would 

become involved in the re-enrichment of reprocessed uranium. The commenter wanted a clear 

statement in the draft EIS by AREVA that it would not engage in re-enrichment. If this 

statement could not be made, the commenter wanted the draft EIS to discuss the capacity of 

the plant to process contaminated reprocessed uranium, the measures to protect workers from 

additional radiation exposures, an analysis of unique waste streams, and the transportation 

risks associated with shipping the reprocessed uranium by land and sea. 

Another commenter wanted the draft EIS to assess the use of the plant to separate other 

isotopes of uranium, such as U-233, or to purify uranium-contaminated materials. 

Mining and milling operations: A few commenters wanted the EIS to fully analyze the "front 

end" impacts associated with the operation of the proposed enrichment facility. They wanted 

the draft EIS to look at the environmental and human health impacts in the communities where 

uranium mining and milling activities were occurring. It was noted that these activities would not 

likely be occurring in the United States. 

Foreign ownership: A few commenters raised issues about the foreign ownership of AREVA. 

One commenter wondered who would pay in the event of an accident and if the United States 

Government would argue with France over damages. Another commenter wondered what 

would happen if AREVA went out of business and stated that AREVA could only survive 

financially if it was supported by the French government. The commenter stated that U.S. 

taxpayers would ultimately have to cover any damages resu~ing from accidents, nuclear waste, 

and other issues associated the facility. Another commenter was concerned that profits would 

go to France and not to the United States. 

Facility design: One commenter advocated integrating International Atomic Energy Agency 

safeguards for the proposed facility at the design phase. Another commenter asked if the facility 

design had been approved by the NRC for use in the United States. 

Comments on the Environmental Report and Safety Analysis Report: One commenter 

stated that AREVA had adequately addressed the safety and environmental issues in the 

Environmental Report submitted with the NRC application. Other commenters had areas of 

concern including: (1) the ability of the Idaho Falls fire department to provide timely support, 

given its distance from the proposed facility; (2) the adequacy of the emergency backup 

systems; (3) the transportation analysis; and (4) the impact analysis of ecological resources, 

particularly the pending Endangered Species Act listings of sage grouse and the pygmy rabbit. 

There was also a concern that the Environmental Report was not detailed enough to ensure the 

reduction of impacts or appropriate mitigation plans. Commenters asked that subsequent 

documents provide a more detailed analysis, particularly in the areas involving water, air, and 

public health. 

One commenter stated that AREVA was pushing the NRC to exempt it from the requirement to 

provide decommissioning funding assurance for the licensed operating period of the facility. 

The commenter noted that the EREF Safety Analysis Report (SAR) excluded "escalation, 

contingency, interest, tails disposition, decommissioning, and any replacement equipment" in its 

cost estimates. The commenter wanted the draft EIS to discuss in detail the exemptions that 

were being considered, particularly those listed in the SAR. 

13 
 A-16 

1 

2 

Power usage: One commenter wanted the draft EIS to analyze an additional load that the 

AREVA facility \NOuld add to the power grid. Another commenter wanted a commitment to use 

renewable energy sources (including nuclear power) to run the facility. 

Out of scope issues: A few commenters specifically asked that issues raised that were not 

directly related to the assessment of potential impacts of the project, or the decision making 

process, be dismissed from the draft EIS and discussed elsewhere. 

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

3.1 SCOPE OF THE EIS AND SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

NEPA (Public Law 91-90, as amended), and the NRC's implementing regulations for NEPA 

(10 CFR Part 51), specify in general terms what should be included in an EIS prepared by the 

NRC staff. Regulations established by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 

1500-1508), while not binding on the NRC staff, provide useful guidance. The NRC staff has 

also prepared environmental review guidance to its staff for meeting NEPA requirements 

associated with licensing actions ("Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions 

Associated with Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs", 

NUREG -1748). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71 (a), in addition to public comments received during the scoping 

process, the contents of the draft EIS will depend in part on the environmental report. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.71 (b), the draft EIS will consider major points of view and 

objections concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed action raised by other 

Federal, State, and local agencies, by any affected Indian tribes, and by other interested 

persons. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71 (c), the draft EIS will list all Federal permits, licenses, 

approvals, and other entitlements which must be obtained in implementing the proposed action, 

and will describe the status of compliance with these requirements. Any uncertainty as to the 

applicability of these requirements will be addressed in the draft EIS. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71 (d), the draft EIS will include a consideration of the economic, 

technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed 

action. In the draft analysis, due consideration will be given to compliance with environmental 

quality standards and regulations that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local 

agencies having responsibilities for environmental protection. The environmental impact of the 

proposed action will be evaluated in the draft EIS with respect to matters covered by such 

standards and requirements, regardless of whether a certification or license from the 

appropriate authority has been obtained. Compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all 

environmental effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any, of water quality, 

and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing adverse 

effects. While satisfaction of NRC standards and criteria pertaining to radiological effects will be 

necessary to meet the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the draft EIS will also, 

for the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological and non-radiological effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71 (e), the draft EIS will normally include a preliminary recommendation 

by the NRC staff with respect to the proposed action. Any such recommendation would be 

14 
 A-17 

1 

2 

reached after considering the environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives, and after \Neighing the costs and benefits of the proposed action. 

The scoping process summarized in this report will help determine the scope of the draft EIS for 

the proposed facility. The draft EIS will contain a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed action. The development of the draft EIS will be closely coordinated with the SER 

prepared by the NRC staff to evaluate the health and safety impacts of the proposed action. 

The goal in writing the EIS is to present the impact analyses in a manner that makes it easy for 

the public to understand. This EIS will provide the basis for the NRC decision with regard to 

potential environmental impacts. Significant impacts will be discussed in greater detail in the 

EIS, and explanations will be provided for determining the level of detail for different impacts. 

This should allow readers of the EIS to focus on issues that were determined to be important in 

reaching the conclusions supported by the EIS. The following topical areas and issues will be 

analyzed in the EIS. 

Public and worker safety and health. The draft EIS will include a determination of 

potentially adverse effects on human health that result from chronic and acute 

exposures to ionizing radiation and hazardous chemicals as well as from physical safety 

hazards. These potentially adverse effects on human health might occur during facility 

construction and operation. Impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed 

action will be assessed under normal operation and credible accident scenarios. 

Alternatives. The draft EIS will describe and assess the no-action alternative and other 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Other reasonable alternatives to the 

proposed action will be considered such as alternative sites, enrichment sources, or 

technological alternatives to the proposed centrifuge technology. 

Waste management. The draft EIS will discuss the management of wastes, including 

byproduct materials, generated from the construction and operation of the EREF to 

assess the impacts of generation, storage, and disposition. Onsite storage of wastes will 

also be included in this assessment. 

Depleted uranium disposition. The draft EIS will address concerns about the depleted 

uranium hexafluoride material, or tails, resulting from the enrichment operation over the 

lifetime of the proposed plant's operation. These concerns include the safe and secure 

storage and ultimate removal of this material from Idaho, and potential conversion of 

UF6 to U308 and ultimate disposition. 

Water resources. The draft EIS will assess the potential impacts on groundwater quality 

and water use due to the implementation of the proposed action. 

Geology and seismicity. The draft EIS will describe the geologic and seismic 

characteristics of the proposed EREF site. Evaluation of the potential for earthquakes, 

ground motion, soil stability concerns, surface rupturing, and any other major geologic or 

seismic considerations that would affect the suitability of the proposed site will be 

addressed in the SER rather than in the draft EIS. 

Compliance with applicable regulations. The draft EIS will present a listing of the 

relevant permits and regulations that are believed to apply to the proposed EREF. 

These would include air, water, and solid waste regulations and disposal permits. 

15 
 A-18 

1 

2 

Air quality. The draft EIS will make determinations concerning the meteorological 

conditions of the site location, the ambient air quality, and the contribution of other 

sources. In addition, the draft EIS will assess the impacts of the EREF's construction 

and operation on the local air quality. 

Transportation. The draft EIS will discuss impacts associated with the transportation of 

construction material, centrifuges, and feed and tails during both normal transportation 

and transportation under credible accident scenarios. The impacts on local 

transportation routes due to workers, large vehicles delivering needed equipment and 

materials, and vehicles removing waste from the proposed facility will be evaluated in 

the draft EIS. 

Accidents. The draft EIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting from 

credible accidents at the EREF. The SER will assess the impacts associated with 

credible accidents at the proposed EREF, both from natural events and human activities. 

Based on the analyses, the EIS will summarize the potential environmental impacts 

resulting from credible bounding accidents at the proposed facility. 

Land use. The draft EIS will discuss the potential impacts associated with the changes 

in land use from predominately rangeland to industrial. 

Socioeconomic impacts. The draft EIS will address the demography, the economic 

base, labor pool, housing, utilities, public services, education, recreation, and cultural 

resources as impacted by EREF. The hiring of new workers from outside the area could 

lead to impacts on regional housing, public infrastructure, and economic resources. 

Population changes leading to changes to the housing market and demands on the 

public infrastructure will be assessed in the draft EIS. 

Cost/benefits. The draft EIS will address the potential costlbenefits of constructing and 

operating the EREF, and will discuss the costlbenefits of tails disposition options. 

Cultural resources. The draft EIS will assess the potential impacts of the proposed 

EREF on the historic and archaeological resources of the area and on the cultural 

traditions and lifestyle of Indian tribes. 

Resource commitments. The draft EIS will address the unavoidable adverse impacts, 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, and the relationship between 

local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity. In addition, associated mitigative measures and environmental 

monitoring will be presented. 

Ecological resources. The draft EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of 

the proposed EREF on ecological resources including plant and animal species and 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that may occur in the area. As 

appropriate, the assessment will include an analysis of mitigation measures to address 

a dve rse i mpa cts. 

Need for the facility. The draft EIS will provide a discussion of the need for the proposed 

EREF and the expected benefits. 

16 
 A-19 

1 

2 

Decommissioning. The draft EIS will include a discussion of facility decommissioning 

and associated impacts. 

Cumulative impacts. The draft EIS will address the potential cumulative impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities at and near the site. 

4. ISSUES CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

The purpose of an EIS is to assess the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action as 

part of the decision-making process of an agency-in this case, a licensing decision. As noted in 

Section 2.2, some issues and concerns raised during the scoping process are not relevant to 

the EIS because they are not directly related to the assessment of potential impacts or to the 

decision making process. The lack of in depth discussion in the EIS, however, does not mean 

that an issue or concern lacks value. Issues beyond the scope of the EIS either may not yet be 

ripe for resolution or are more appropriately discussed and decided in other venues. 

Some of these issues raised during the public scoping will not be addressed in the EIS. Major 

categories of these issues not analyzed in detail in the EIS include nonproliferation concerns, 

security and safety issues, and credibility. 

Some of these issues raised during the public scoping process for the proposed facility are 

outside the scope of the draft EIS, but they will be analyzed in the SER. For example, health 

and safety issues will be considered in detail in the SER prepared by NRC staff for the proposed 

action and will be summarized in the EIS. The draft EIS and the SER are related in that they 

may cover the same topics and may contain similar information, but the analysis in the draft EIS 

is limited to an assessment of potential environmental impacts. In contrast, the SER primarily 

deals with safety evaluations and procedural requirements or license conditions to ensure the 

health and safety of workers and the general public. The SER also covers other aspects of the 

proposed action such as demonstrating that the applicant will provide adequate funding for the 

proposed facility in compliance with NRC's financial assurance regulations. 

17 

 B-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX B 

15 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

 B-3 

APPENDIX B 

CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

B.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation 

Mr. Damien Miller 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Eastern Idaho Field Office 

4425 Burley Dr., Suite A 

Chubbuck, ID 83202 

Dear Mr. Miller: 

June 17, 2009 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 

CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE PROPOSED AREVA EAGLE ROCK 

ENRICHMENT FACILITY LOCATED IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Miller: 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an environmental report 

(ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an application 

for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. The NRC staff is in the initial stages of developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located near Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville 

County. The facility, if licensed, lNOuld use a gas centrifuge based technology to enrich the 

isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by weight. The EIS will document 

the impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

facility. 

NRC requests a list of threatened or endangered species or critical habitats within the action 

area for the proposed facility. The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares 

(4,200 acres). AES states that the facility footprint encompasses 381 hectares (941 acres) of 

the site for which construction, operation, and decommissioning activities will occur. The 

proposed site is situated within Bonneville County, Idaho, on the north side of U.S. Highway 20, 

about 113 km (70 miles) west of the IdaholWyoming State line. The coordinates for the center 

of the action area are 43 degrees, 35 minutes, 7.37 seconds North and longitude 112 degrees, 

25 minutes, 28.71 seconds West. 

We have enclosed additional background information relating to ecological resources on the 

site, including a map showing the action area, as it appears in the AES ER. 
 B-4 

D. Miller 2 

We intend to use the EIS process to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. After assessing information you provide, we will determine what additional 

actions are necessary to comply with the Section 7 consultation process. If you have any 

questions or comments, or need any additional information, please contact Gloria Kulesa of my 

staff at 301-415-5308. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 

Enclosures: .1. Ecology Field Study Report Proposed Site for the 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

2. Ecology Field Study Report Proposed Site for the 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility - Fall 2008 Survey 

3. Sage Grouse Survey Report Proposed for the 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 
 B-5 

United States Department of the Interior 

USNRC 

Attn: Gloria Kulesa 

MS T8 F5 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20854 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Eastern Idaho Field Office 

4425 Burley Dr., Suite A 

Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 

Telephone (208) 237-6975 

http://IdahoES.fws.gov 

JUL 15 2009 

Subject: Proposed 1\reva Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, 

Idaho. SL #09-0471 

Dear Ms. Kulesa: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is writing in response to your request for 

information about the potential impacts to endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or 

candidate species from the proposed Areva Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in 

Bonneville County, Idaho. The Service has not identified any issues that indicate that 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is 

needed for this project. This finding is based on our understanding of the nature of the 

project, local conditions, and/or current information indicating that no listed species are 

present. If you determine otherwise or require further assistance, please contact Sandi 

Arena ofthls office at (208)237-6975 ext 102. 

Thank you for your interest in endangered species conservation. 

Sincerely, 

SDv-t/'f L--

r::/Damien Miller 

~ Supervisor, Eastern Idaho Field Office 

. , ; ; 
 B-6 

Damien Miller 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Eastern Idaho Field Office 

4425 Burley Dr., Suite A 

Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 

February 18, 2010 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THREATENED OR 

ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS FOR PROPOSED 

TRANSMISSION LINE LOCATED IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO, TO 

POWER THE PROPOSED AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

Dear Mr. Miller: 

As discussed in our earlier letter to you dated June 17, 2008, AREVA Enrichment Services LLC 

(AES) has submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) for a 

license to construct, operate, and decommission a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility; 

and NRC is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of our licensing 

action for this facility. The proposed facility, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF), would 

be located in Bonneville County, Idaho, near Idaho Falls. Thank you for your July 15, 2009, 

response to our letter. The purpose of the present letter is to report an addition to the scope of 

the EREF project, a 161-kilovolt (KV) transmission line to power the facility, and request 

additional information for the vicinity of the proposed transmission line project. 

On January 29,2010, AES submitted supplemental information to NRC for the construction and 

operation of a proposed transmission line, an electrical substation, and substation upgrades. 

The locations of the transmission line and substations are shown in the January 29, 2010 

submittal, a copy of which is enclosed. NRC's EIS for the proposed EREF will include a 

discussion of the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the transmission line 

project. NRC requests a list of threatened or endangered species and critical habitats within the 

action area for the proposed transmission lines and associated facilities. The action area is 

described below and in greater detail in the enclosure. 

The new transmission line and associated structures would be located entirely on private land 

within Bonneville County. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a division of PacifiCorp, will be the 

builder, owner, and operator. The transmission line would originate from the existing RMP 

Bonneville Substation and extend in a general westward direction to the new point of service, 

the Twin Buttes Substation on the proposed EREF site. Beginning at the Bonneville Substation, 

the proposed transmission line route is west along the county road (West 65 North Street) to 

the existing RMP Kettle Substation, a distance of approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles), 

continuing west to the eastern portion of the EREF site, a distance of approximately 

1.2 kilometer (0.75 mile), then north within the EREF site to its northern end, then west and 

south to the new RMP Twin Buttes Substation, for a distance of approximately 6.4 kilometers 

(4 miles). The area being affected by the transmission line is approximately 84 hectares 

(208 acres). 
 B-7 

D. Miller 2 

NRC intends to use the EIS process to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. After assessing the information you provide, we will determine what 

additional actions are necessary to comply with the Section 7 consultation process. 

If you have any questions regarding this request, or need additional information, please contact 

Stephen Lemont of my staff at 301-415-5163 or Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Enclosure: 

January 29, 2010 Ltr. 

Docket No: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-8 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Andrea Kock 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Eastern Idaho Field Office 

4425 Burley Dr., Suite A 

Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 

Telephone (208) 237-6975 

http://ldahoES.fws.gov 

MAR 0 9 2010 

Subject: Proposed Areva Eagle Rock Transmission Line Project Species List Request, 

Bonneville County, Idaho 

SL # 10-0242 

Dear Ms. Kock: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing you with a list of endangered, threatened, 

proposed, andlor candidate species, and designated critical habitat which may occur in the area 

of the proposed Areva Eagle Rock transmission line project located in Bonneville, County. You 

requested this list by letter on February 18,20 I O. This list fulfills the requirements for a species 

list under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. If the project 

decision has not been made within 180 days of this letter, regulations require that you request an 

updated list. Please refer to the species list (SL) number shown above in all correspondence and 

reports. 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to assure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species. Federal funding, 

permitting, or land use management decisions are considered to be Federal actions subject to 

section 7. If the proposed action may affect a listed species, consultation with the Service is 

required. Formal consultation must be initiated for any project that is likely to adversely affect a 

threatened or endangered species. If a project involves a major construction activity and may 

affect listed species, Federal agencies are required to prepare a Biological Assessment. If a 

proposed species is likely to be jeopardized or if proposed critical habitat will be adversely 

modified by a Federal action, regulations require a conference between the Federal agency and 

the Service. A Federal agency may designate, in writing, you or another non-Federal entity to 

represent them in an informal consultation. 

In a decision published in the July 9, 2007 Federal Register, the Service concluded that 

protections for the bald eagle (Haliaeelus leucocephalus) under the Act were no longer 

warranted. Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle is no longer included on the list of 

threatened and endangered species in the lower 48 states pursuant to the Act, and has been 

removed from all Idaho species lists. However, the protections provided to the bald eagle under 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA, 16 U.S.C. 668) and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.c. 703) will remain in place. To assist with the deli sting transition, 

the Service has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise land managers 
 B-9 

and project proponents when, and under what circumstances, the protective provisions of the 

BGEPA and MBTA may apply to their activities. These guidelines, as well as additional 

information on the protection of bald eagles, are available on the Service's web site at: 

http://www.fws.aovlmigratorvbirds/baldeagle.htm. The Service also is available to provide 

technical assistance regarding bald eagle conservation. 

In addition to listed species, transmission lines have the potential to affect migratory birds, which 

are afforded protection under the MBTA (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.c. 703-7 12). In addition to 

considering the potential impacts of the proposed project to listed species we recommend that 

you identify and implement measures to assure the project complies with the MBTA. The 

Service suggests your Agency review the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee's "Suggested 

Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006" for more 

information on migratory birds and transmission lines (www.aplic.org). Additionally. more 

information on impacts to migratory birds and/or the Service's recommendations can be found 

on the web at http://www.fws.gov/migratorvbirds. 

If you have any questions about your responsibilities under section 7 of the Act, or require 

further information, please contact Ty Matthews of our Eastern Idaho Field Office at (208)237-

6975 extension 115. Thank you for your interest in endangered species conservation. 

Sincerely, 

Eastern 

Actlllg 

S~superv~ Idaho Field ~ 

Office 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, 

APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington D.C. and Sacramento, 

Califomia. 
 B-10 

U.& 

eJ BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

LISTED SPECIES COMMENTS 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) LT 

Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) LT 

Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) LE 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) LT 

PROPOSED SPECIES 

None 

CANDIDA TE SPECIES I 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) C 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centro cercus urophasianus) C 

LE - Listed Endangered 

L T - Listed Threatened 

XN - ExperimentallNon-essential population 

PT - Proposed Threatened 

C - Candidate 

I Candidate species have no protection under the Act, but are included for your early planning consideration. 

Candidate species could be proposed or listed during the project planning period, and would then be covered under 

Section 7 of the Act. The Service advises an evaluation of potential effects on candidate species that may occur in 

the project area. 
 B-11 

Mr. Ty Matthews 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Eastern Idaho Field Office 

4425 Burley Dr., Suite A 

Chubbuck, ID 83202 

July 14, 2010 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 

THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

AREVA ENRICHMENT SERVICES LLC EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT 

FACILITY IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Matthews: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) for a license to construct, operate, and decommission 

a uranium enrichment facility near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho. The proposed Eagle 

Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF), if licensed, would use a gas centrifuge process to enrich 

uranium-235 isotope found in natural uranium to concentrations up to 5 percent by weight. The 

enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power 

reactors. 

As part of the review of the application, the NRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (NUREG-1945). The Draft EIS includes an analysis of relevant environmental 

issues, including potential impacts on ecological resources, and documents the NRC staff's 

preliminary determination regarding the environmental impacts from the preconstruction (e.g., 

site preparation), construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. Many of the activities required to build a uranium enrichment facility do not 

fall within NRC's regulatory authority and, therefore, are not "construction" as defined by the 

NRC. Such activities are referred to as "preconstruction" activities in Title 1 0 of the U. S. Code 

of Federal Regulations (1 OCFR) 51.45(c). The proposed 161-kilovolt (kV) electrical 

transmission line required to provide power to the proposed EREF also falls under this category. 

By letters dated June 17,2009, and February 18, 2010, the NRC requested information from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on Federally listed threatened or endangered species 

or critical habitat that may be at or in the vicinity of the proposed EREF site and proposed 

transmission line project, respectively. In those letters, the NRC indicated that it intends to use 

the EIS process to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(ESA); and that after assessing the information provided by the USFWS, the NRC will determine 

what additional actions are necessary to comply with the Section 7 consultation process. The 

USFWS responded to these letters as follows: 

• In a letter dated July 15, 2009, the USFWS stated that no listed species are present [at 

the EREF sitej, and that no issues were identified that indicate that consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA is needed for this project; and 
 B-12 

T. Matthews 2 

• In a letter dated March 9, 2010, the USFWS provided a list of endangered, threatened, 

proposed, and candidate species that may potentially occur in the area of the proposed 

transmission line project. That list identified the following four Federally listed species: 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes dHuvialis), Utah valvate 

snail (Va/vata utahensis), and Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). The letter also identified the 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centro cercus urophasianus) as candidate species for listing, provided information on 

the status of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us) , and indicated the potential of 

the transmission lines to affect migratory birds. However, in a subsequent telephone 

conversation between the NRC and you on April 15, 2010, you indicated that the list of 

endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species provided by the USFWS was 

for Bonneville County in general; you did not believe that these species are in the vicinity 

of, or potentially impacted by, the transmission line project; and consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA would not be needed for these species for the project. 

The Draft EIS describes the NRC staff's evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed 

EREF project on ecological resources. Based on this evaluation, which included consideration 

of the information provided by the USFWS, the NRC staff's preliminary conclusion is that the 

preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed project would 

not adversely affect any of the four Federally listed species. In the context of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), under which the Draft EIS was 

prepared, the NRC staff's preliminary determination is that the impact on ecological resources 

from the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed project 

would be small to moderate. 

In accordance with our June 17, 2009, and February 18,2010, letters, the NRC staff is 

forwarding the Draft EIS to you for your review and comment. We are requesting your 

comments on the Draft EIS and on our preliminary conclusions regarding listed species under 

USFWS purview and will address your comments in the Final EIS. Please provide any 

information or comments on the enclosed Draft EIS that you consider appropriate under the 

provisions of the NEPA, ESA, and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended, 

during the comment period, which ends on Monday, September 13, 2010. Comments should 

be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 

Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-B01 M, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by 

e-mail to EagleRock.EIS@nrc.gov. 

The NRC staff plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the contents of the Draft EIS on 

Thursday, August 12, 2010, at the Red Lion Hotel on the Falls Convention Center, 475 River 

Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402. The meeting will convene at 7:30 p.m. and will continue 

until 10:00 p.m. The meeting will be transcribed and will include the following agenda items: (1) 

a brief presentation of NRC's roles and responsibilities and the licensing process, (2) a 

presentation summarizing the contents of the Draft EIS, and (3) an opportunity for interested 

government agencies, tribal governments, organizations, and individuals to provide comments 

on the Draft EIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions in an open house 

forum one hour before the start of the meeting, during which members of the public may meet 

and talk with NRC staff members. You and other USFWS staff are invited to attend. 
 B-13 

T. Matthews 3 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Stephen Lemont, 

Senior Project Manager, by phone at 301-415-5163, or bye-mail at Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosure: 

Draft EIS 

cc without enclosure: See next page 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Diana Diaz-Toro, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch A 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-14 

Mr. Cal Groen, Director 

Idaho Fish and Game 

600 South Walnut 

Post Office Box 25 

Boise, Idaho 83707 

June 22, 2009 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 

CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE PROPOSED AREVA EAGLE ROCK 

ENRICHMENT FACILITY LOCATED IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Groen: 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an environmental report 

(ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an application 

for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. The NRC staff is in the initial stages of developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located near Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville 

County. The facility, if licensed, lNOuld use a gas centrifuge based technology to enrich the 

isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by weight. The EIS will document 

the impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

facility. 

NRC requests information on the following items within the action area for the proposed facility, 

if available: 

• Endangered or threatened species, or other species of concern to the state of Idaho, 

that are known to be or likely to be at the proposed AREVA site, and nearest known 

locations based on the element occurrence database. Attached is a preliminary list of 

species compiled from Idaho Fish and Game (I DFG) county lists (plants) and the I DFG 

Snake River Basalts Ecological Section list (animals). Habitat on the site consists of 

sagebrush steppe, non-native grassland (primarily crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass), 

and irrigated crops. 

• Nearest known lek sites (based on the element occurrence database), nesting habitat, 

brood-rearing habitat, and winter habitat for greater sage grouse, migratory status of the 

local population, the number of leks nears the site, and trends. 

• Information on Sagebrush Reserves (location, size, species, management) or other 

sensitive or rare habitats in the project vicinity. 

• Information on mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herds, including seasonal habitat (such as 

crucial winter habitat areas), local migration routes, and concerns such as population 

trends. 

• Important migration routes for migratory birds. 

• Maps or GIS shapefiles regarding species or habitats. 

• Concerns of I DFG regarding potential impacts of the proposed project. 
 B-15 

C. Groen 2 

The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres). AES states that the 

facility footprint encompasses 381 hectares (941 acres) of the site for which construction, 

operation, and decommissioning activities will occur. The proposed site is situated within 

Bonneville County, Idaho, on the north side of U.S. Highway 20, about 113 km (70 miles) west 

of the IdaholWyoming State line. The coordinates for the center of the action area are 43 

degrees, 35 minutes, 7.37 seconds North and longitude 112 degrees, 25 minutes, 28.71 

seconds West. 

We have enclosed additional background information relating to ecological resources on the 

site, including a map showing the action area, as it appears in the AES ER. 

We intend to use the EIS process to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. After assessing information you provide, we will determine what additional 

actions are necessary to comply with the Section 7 consultation process. If you have any 

questions or comments, or need any additional information, please contact Gloria Kulesa of my 

staff at 301-415-5308. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosures: 

1. Special Status Plants and Species 

2. Ecology Field Survey Report 

3. Fall 2008 Survey 

4. Sage Grouse Survey Report 

cc: Paul Kjellander, 

I D Office of Energy Resources 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 

2 
 B-16 

Idaho Special Status Plants and Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

Earth lichen (Catapyrenium congestum) 

Gray willow (Salix glauca) 

Green spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum) 

Iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis) 

Meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius) 

Payson's bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii) 

Payson's milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) 

Red glasswort (Salicornia rubra) 

Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) 

Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Western Sedge (Carex occidentalis) 

Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) 

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

Ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) 

Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

Blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

California gull (Larus californicus) 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Franklin's gull (Larus pipixcan) 

Juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) 

Lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

Northern pintail (Anas acuta) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) 

Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae) 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

Great Basin ground squirrel (Spermophilus mollis) 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) 

Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis) 

Little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris) 

Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami) 

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

Townsend's big-eared bat (CorynorhinuslPlecotus townsendii) 

Townsend's pocket gopher (Thomomys townsendii) 

Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans) 

Enclosure 1 
 B-17 

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ---------------- 600 S. Walnut/P.O. Box 25 

Boise, Idaho 83707 

Ms. Andrea Kock, 

Chief, Environmental Review Branch 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

August 4/ 2009 

C.L. "Butch" Otter/Oovernor 

Cal GroenlDirector 

·RE:' Re~rinatio~d~erett--speCies-:and crlticathatiftatrlCirthi·ptopOsed 

AREVA Esgle Rock Enrichment Facility located in Bonneville County, I.daho. 

Dear Ms. Kock: 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (lDFG) has reviewed the above referenced request for information 

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the potential development of a uranium 

enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho. Our int~rest in the project is in protecting fisheries, 

wildlife, plants and their habitats. To date, IpFG has been involved in this proposal as follows; {1} Our 

Regional Supervisor and environmental Staff Biologist fl'Om the Upper Snake Region were briefed on the 

potential for this project at our Idaho Falls Office in 2008 by AREVA staff while the project was still being 

considered, and (2) staff from the Idaho Falls office attended the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'~ 

public open house in Idaho Falls on 4 June 2009. 

Resident species of fish and wildlife are the property of all citizens within the state and decisions 

i;lffecting fish and wildUfe'tlierefore are ·the coricem of all Idahoans. The 1daho D'I~partmEmt of Fish and 

Game and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, are charged with the statutory responsibility to 

preserve, protect, perpetuate, anti manage all fish and wildli'fe' in 1daho {Idaho Code § 36~103(~n. · 

Your letter contain:; seven information requests, We responded to those we were able to and we offer 

additional summary comments regarding the AREVA prOject. 

We note that IDFG has no specific project proposal upon which to comment. The summary letter sent 

to us has no specifics beyond a "parcel" size, a "footprint" size, and the location of the center of the 

facUity. This is not sufficient for uS to evaluate the effects the project-may have on fish, wildlife; ancttheir habitat. You refer in yOur letter to an application for a license submitted to the NRC but you have 

not provided this application for Our consideration. For IDFG to consider more general questions, such 

as the request for our concerns about potential impacts ofthe project, we will need a specific project 

description that depicts not only the size and location of the project but enough specifics for us to gauge 

potentral· wildlife disturbances and impacts. The proposal description should inciude; but not necessarily b.e limited to: ... I · .. ,: ' . . . . .. 

• ' . Location ind.uding "I/boundaries;· fente'sideveJoped structures, access ways such as roads and 

trials, . . . . 

• Size of'developments·indudin·g buildings, parking lots, power lines, energy production facilities, . . . .. . 

• Anticipated and licensed/permitted levels of dischargesfroni the permitted activity including 

IIght,'sound, odor, and water discharges, . 

Keeping IdRlw':i Wildlife lIerifQgc 

EqlJl1/ Oppurlllll{IY Employer .108·3J</-3700. F~ .. 2t'18·JU·Z 114 .I@lrl> fi~lt()I (roO) Si:rvir;.e< .. /~(I(I·37lo3SZ9. hlip;/ljis/mrnigame,ldaho.gav 
 B-18 

Page 2 

Ms. Andrea Kock 

August 4, 2009 

• Associated infrastructure such as trucking centers off~site, housing for workers (both permanent 

and temporary), power lines to be constructed, piping for materials, and any other construction 

associated with the project, 

• Current land use patterns and condttions of aI/lands to be built upon or fenced from public and 

wildlife access, 

• Public lands (state, federal, county, local, municipal) to be fenced or restricted in any way from 

public access or from fish/wildlife use. Included should be proposals to mitigate for these lands 

lost to the public or fish and wildlife, and 

• Entire project life, license life, decommissioning and dean-up schedule and penalties for 

noncompliance. 

We offer the following in response to your seven requests. The infl')rr.na~ion provided in ~) and 2) was . 

determined uSlng-thE!ct>o-rcllnaiesohheproJecfceiiterprovidecfin-you-r letter and a -buffer with a radius 

of 8 km around that point intersected with data from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System 

which includes data on sage·grouse, at~risk animals, and at-risk plants (Accessed July 28,2009). 

1) Endangered or threatened species and species or other species of conern ; 

The IDFG Conservation Oilta Center contilins two indiVidual observations of Ferruginous Hawks 

(8vteo rega/is) and one nest observation for ferruginous hawks. Hibernacula for Townsend's 

big.eared bats (Corynohinus townsend;;) also occur in the area. Immediately west of the westedge of the 8 km buffer is a group of lava tube caves that are important bat roosts and 

hibernacula. There are no known occurrences of at~risk plant species in the immediate vicinity 

of the project site. The nearest known occurrences of at·risk plants is 40 km NW of the site. 

2) Nearest known sage-grouse(Centrocercus urophasianus) lek sites: 

One sage-grouse lek was identified within the 8 km buffer of the center of the project. 

Additional leks were identified near the site but outside the buffer area. Without knowing the 

extent of developments associated with this project it is not possible to gauge what sage grouse 

habitats the project may affect. However, both "Key Sage Grouse Habitats" and "Perennial 

Grasslands" habitats are found along Highway 20 and fairly near the project that might be 

affected by the project. These habitats are described and graphed (Fig. 4-11 page 4-49) in the 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage Grouse in Idaho which is available as follows: 

http:afjshandgame.idaho .. ~.~~(~ ~s(~~ntlg~ouse/conserve plan( 

3) Sagebrush Reserves: 

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem 

Reserve was established by proclamation in 1999. The Proclamation was signed by Secretary of 

Energy Bill Richardson, (for) the Regional Directorl Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by 

Richard Munoz, (for) the State Director of Idaho, Bureau of land Management by Elena Daly, 

(for) the Interim Director, Idaho Fish and Game by Don Wright. The Reserve itself lies both 

north and south of Highway 331 but does not reach as far south as Highway 20. The 

management plan may be found online as follows: 

http://ar.inel.gov/owa/getimage 2'?F PAGE-l&F DOC=IO.Q74-02-067&F REV-DO 

Keepillg idaho s Wildlife Ht!J'itage 

Equal Opponunlly Empio.l'Cf". :;1f)8-Jj~-37QO. Fw:: J08-JJ4-2114" Idaho Relay (TDD) s..r~h'l'l 1-IIOO-J77-3529. hup:lljishundgame.ldaho.gov 
 B-19 

Page 3 

Ms. Andrea Kock 

August 4, 2009 

4. Information on mule deer, pronghorn. and elk herds and habitats: 

IDFG manages mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk by analysis units that are made up of 

Game Management Units (GMU). We do not have information on the property you are 

specifically developing, but your project would potentially be in GMU 63. We have summarized 

data regarding these three species in Appendix A. Aerial survey information on pronghorn in 

the area has been collected by consultants at Idaho National Laboratory. IDFG does not 

consider the location of this project to be winter range or critical range for mule deer or elk. 

Pronghom do frequently use lands surrounding the proposed site throughout all seasons. 

S. Important migration routes for migratory birds: 

IDFG is unaware of any known migratory flight corridors for birds that fall near the stated center 

of the j5rojed-'However;u'pOh"disclo~ure of'otlier 'projecfoeVelo'pments we may reconsider this 

question. ' 

6. Maps or GIS shape files regarding species or habitats: 

IDFG has hundreds of GIS layers that we work with throughout each year. As stated, this 

request is too vague to respond adequately. 

7. Concerns of IDFG: 

We appreciate being asked to comment regarding this question. However, without a complete 

project description as discussed above, we do not have enough information to answer this 

question. Upon receipt of a full disclosure of the proposallDFG staff will begin to consider and 

assess impacts to fish wildlife and habitats of whatever is disclosed. This is the most important 

question you asked us; we hope to receive a full project description so we may fulfill this 

request. 

We look forward to further information about this project to better accommodate your information 

request. If you have any questions about our technical information, please contact Gary Vecellio, 

Environmental Staff Biologist in our Upper Snake Regional Office, (208)525-7290. 

Sincerely, 

Assistant Director-Policy 

SWK/kc 

Enclosures 

Cc; S. Sthmidt, G. VecelliO, L. Hebdon, IDFG 

P. Kjellander, Idaho Office of Energy Resources 

Kooping Irklho s Wilellife Ht:rilagt: 
 B-20 

Appendix A. Mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herd status. 

IDFG does not conduct aerial 5UrveyS to estimate mule deer, elk or pronghorn herd sizes in Unit 63. 

Without aerial survey data herd sizes are tracked using harvest as an index of abundance. Hunting 

opportunities (season length and timing) for these species have remained stable over the last five years. 

For mule deer in unit 63 hunter numbers and harvest during the general any weapon season have 

remained fairly stable (Figure 1). There are no data to suggest that the mule deer population is 

dedining. Elk hunter numbers and harvest in Unit 63 have increased slightly over the previous five years 

(Figure 2). There are no data to suggest the elk population is declining, and it may be slightly increasing. 

Hunter success (harvest per hunter) has increased in the Unit 63 controlled, any-weapon pronghorn 

hunts (Figure 3). Hunter numbers and harvest during the unit 63 general archery season pronghorn 

1,\ hunt have increased over time (Figure 4). There are no data to suggest that pronghorn populations are 

declining, and they may be increasing. 

~ ~------------~--------------

500 +--,~.-~------~~_=~_=~,-~-;-­ . :;' .~~,- .. <.,.- .. '-.. ,'~ 7~~--'!' .. ' 

~ +-------'~,.~,.'---------------

300 +-----~---------.----Hunters 

200 +-______________ -Harvest 

l00t-~=;==--------==;:=-~ 

o +-----r---~~--~----~----~ 

2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 

Figure 1. Unit 63 deer harvest and hunter trends from 2004 through 2008. Harvest includes 

whitetailed deer which averaged 31% of the harvest. 

800 ~------~-----------

700 +---------------------,~.~ 

600 +-----------------~~'~--­ ~,' 500 +-~,-,-- .. -~----~-,.,~-------

~ +---~~------~~---------- ',--.... _-,' 300 +-----------------

200 +---~~------------------

---- 100 +--~-.... Iii_=:=... .-I!!!!!!!~~~=----

o +---~----~--~----~--~ 

2004 2005 20062007 2008 

--... ·Hunters 

-Harvest 

Figure· 2. Unit 63 elk harvest and hunter numbers from 2004 through 2008. 
 B-21 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

o 

. ,' " .--.... .. ." ...... -~ .. -

./" 

""",,- ----Hunters 

-Harvest 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Figure 3. Llriii"63 pronghorn tlarvestii"ncltiU-n-ter numbers-for·controlled hunts from 2064 , through 2008. 

120 ~--------~---------------

100 +-------------------~~­ ,~ 

~~ 80 +-----------.::I,L--- ,, __ ,r 

,"- 60 +--------,'"':I.,~~---------- ---- Huntel'$ 

40 +-------:"",."'----__________ . -- Harvest ----" / 

w+-------------~~--- -'" 

o 0==~:::=--,.___. 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Figure 4. Unit 63 pronghorn harvest and hunter numbers for general season archery hunts from 

2004 through 2008. 
 B-22 ,dIUS buffer aSSOCIated with the center coordinates provided for the proposed Areva Uranium . Pre6lflltb'fllle Naei@'Sr Commission data request by Idaho Department of fish and Game, 3 August 2009 ei D-
 B-23 

Lemont, Stephen 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Sharon W. Kiefer 

Assistant Director-Policy 

Lemont, Stephen 

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:56 AM 

'sharon.kiefer@idfg.idaho.gov' 

Biwer, Bruce; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Continuing NRC Coordination with IDFG Regarding Ecological Issues for AREVA Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility Environmental Impact Statement 

ID_Fish_Game_response 080409.pdf; ID_Fish_Game_request 012209.pdf; AES-ONRC-10-00263 EREF Supplemental Info Trans Line_with_figure.pdf 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

600 South Walnut 

P.O. Box 25 

Boise, Idaho 83707 

Dear Ms. Kiefer: 

I am Steve Lemont, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) new Project Manager for the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that NRC is preparing in support of its licensing action for the proposed 

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AREVA) Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) located in Bonneville 

County, Idaho. Thank you for your August 4, 2009 letter in response to NRC's letter of June 22, 2009, in which 

the NRC requested information regarding threatened or endangered species and critical habitats at the 

proposed EREF project site. In your letter, you responded to the general questions we posed, but stated that 

the Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) staff would need more specific project information in order to consider and 

assess impacts of the proposed facility to fish, wildlife, and habitats. Copies of the above referenced IDFG and 

NRC letters are attached for your reference. 

We apologize for not getting back to you sooner regarding the request made in your letter, but there have been 

a number of changes here and also on the EREF project as discussed below. The purposes of this email are 

to follow up with IDFG regarding the proposed EREF project, to: (1) provide you with the information you 

requested in your August 4, 2009 letter; (2) inform you of a change to the EREF project scope involving the 

addition of an electrical transmission line to power the facility; and (3) request additional information from IDFG 

for the EREF project site, as well as information for the transmission line route, similar to that requested 

previously for the EREF site. 

NRC requests that you provide IDFG's response to NRC's information request below within 30 days of this 

email if possible. 

Information Requested in August 4,2009 Letter from IDFG 

In response to your August 4, 2009 letter, the information you requested can be found in the NRC website for 

the EREF project, at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/arevanc.html. Specifically, the Environmental 

Report (ER) that AREVA submitted to NRC for the EREF project (Environmental Report, Rev. 1, April 2009) 

contains information on the entire uranium enrichment facility project (see at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuelcycle-fac/eagle-rock.html), with the information you requested contained in the following sections of the ER: 

• Section 2.1.2 provides the location and a detailed description of the proposed site and facility. 

• Section 3.1 describes the land use of the site. 

• Section 3.5 describes the ecological resources of the site. 

• Section 4.4 contains a description of the retention and detention basins. 

• Section 4.5 describes the potential impacts to ecological resources. 

• Sage Grouse Survey Report (Environmental Report, Field Study, Sage Grouse Survey Report). 
 B-24 

If you have any problems accessing the above information or need additional information or clarifications, 

please let me know. 

Electrical Transmission Line to Power the EREF 

Electrical service beyond that currently existing near the proposed EREF would be required to operate the 

EREF. AREVA submitted supplemental information to NRC dated January 29, 2010, which shows the location 

of the proposed 161-kilovolt transmission line and associated structures (e.g., substations and substation 

upgrades), and provides information regarding its construction and operation and environmental impacts 

(including ecological resources). That supplemental information is also attached to this email. The 

transmission line is part of the proposed EREF project, and the environmental impacts of the construction and 

operation of this line will be addressed in the EREF EIS. 

The new transmission line and associated structures would be located entirely on private property within 

Bonneville County. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a division of PacifiCorp, will be the builder, owner, and 

operator. The line would originate from the existing RMP Bonneville Substation and extend in a general 

westward direction to the new point of service, the Twin Buttes Substation on the proposed EREF site. 

Beginning at the Bonneville Substation, the proposed transmission line route is west along the county road 

(West 65 North Street) to the existing RMP Kettle Substation, a distance of approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 

miles), continuing west to the eastern portion of the EREF site, a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometer (0.75 

mile), then north within the EREF site to its northern end, then west and south to the new RMP Twin Buttes 

Substation, for a distance of approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles). The area being affected by the 

transmission line is approximately 84 hectares (208 acres). 

Request for Additional Information 

In accordance with our letter dated June 22, 2009, NRC requests additional information from IDFG for the 

EREF site, on the items listed below, beyond that provided with your August 4, 2009 letter. In addition, NRC 

requests information on the items listed below within the action area of the proposed transmission line and 

associated structures as well. 

Endangered or threatened species, or other species of concern to the State of Idaho, that are known to 

be or likely to be present, and nearest known locations based on the element occurrence database. 

Habitat in these areas consists of sagebrush steppe, post-fire plantings (crested wheatgrass and other 

grasses), and irrigated crops. 

Nearest known lek sites (based on the element occurrence database), nesting habitat, brood-rearing 

habitat, and winter habitat for greater sage grouse, migratory status of the local population, the number 

of leks near the site, and trends. 

• Information on sensitive or rare habitats in the project vicinity. 

• Information on mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herds, including seasonal habitat (such as crucial winter 

habitat areas), and local migration routes. 

• Important migration routes for birds. 

Maps or GIS shapefiles regarding species or habitats. 

Concerns of IDFG regarding potential impacts of the proposed project. 

Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. My contact information is 

provided below. The NRC appreciates your assistance and cooperation in this matter. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Lemont 
 B-25 

S~~~.P4.V. 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 
 B-26 

Lemont. Stephen 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

SteveHebdon,Lance [Iance.hebdon@idfg.idaho.gov] 

Wednesday, April 14, 20103:07 PM 

Lemont, Stephen; Kiefer,Sharon 

Vecellio,Gary; Kemner,Don; Biwer, Bruce 

RE: Sage-grouse Work by Wildlife Conservation Society 

During the conference call reference was made to some sage-grouse work being conducted by the Wildlife Conservation 

Society (WCS) in the vicinity of the project. We made a commitment to follow-up with and determine if the information 

being collected would be useful for inclusion in our comments on the AREVA project. The information being collected by 

the WCS is still preliminary and did not add information that would change our comments. Therefore you will not see 

any reference to their data. If you have questions feel free to contact me. 

Lance 

Lance Hebdon 

Inter-Governmental Policy Coordinator 

Director's Office 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

208-287-2711 

lance. hebdon@idfg.idaho.gov 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:41 PM 

To: Kiefer,Sharon 

Cc: Hebdon,Lance; Vecellio,Gary; Kemner,Don; Hemker,Tom; Biwer, Bruce 

Subject: RE: Teleconference to Discuss Greater Sage-grouse Issues Related to the AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium 

Enrichment Facility Project, Bonneville County, Idaho 

How about 9:00 am Mountain Time? I will provide the bridge line after you confirm. How many lines will you need? 

From: Kiefer,Sharon [sharon.kiefer@idfg.idaho.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:42 AM 

To: Lemont, Stephen 

Cc: Hebdon,Lance; Vecellio,Gary; Kemner,Don; Hemker,Tom 

Subject: RE: Teleconference to Discuss Greater Sage-grouse Issues Related to the AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium 

Enrichment Facility Project, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Mr. Lamont - would Wednesday morning, (3/17) preferably before 10 am work? If you will provide me the bridge line, I 

will make sure that our headquarters and Upper Snake regional staff have the number to call in. 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:42 AM 

To: Kiefer,Sharon 

Cc: Hebdon,Lance; Biwer, Bruce M.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: Teleconference to Discuss Greater Sage-grouse Issues Related to the AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium Enrichment 

Facility Project, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Dear Ms. Kiefer: 
 B-27 

The purpose of this email is to request a teleconference with your agency to discuss questions the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its contractor, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), have 

regarding the recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Greater Sage-grouse decision as it relates to the proposed 

AREVA Eagle Rock uranium enrichment facility project and associated proposed electrical transmission line in 

Bonneville County. My last contact with you was in an email dated February 10, 2010, regarding NRC's 

continuing coordination with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) on ecological issues for the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the NRC is preparing in support of its licensing action for the 

AREVA Eagle Rock project. We understand that Mr. Lance Hebdon of IDFG is working on responding to the 

information requests in that email, and we very much appreciate that effort. With regard to the sage grouse, 

this includes information such as the local population in the vicinity of the proposed AREVA facility and 

transmission line and what areas that population uses for seasonal habitat. 

Regarding the teleconference, we would like to ask about IDFG's thoughts and concerns for Eastern Idaho 

regarding the recent sage grouse decision, and about any suggestions, requirements and/or management 

guidelines you may have regarding the impacts, if any, of the proposed AREVA Eagle Rock project and 

transmission line on the sage grouse. 

Please let me know your availability (dates and times) for a conference call next week to discuss the above 

matters. I wi ll provide a bridge line for the call. In addition to myself, call participants on my end will be Bruce 

Biwer, the Argonne Project Manager for the Eagle Rock EIS, and Bob Van Lonkhuyzen, Argonne's ecological 

lead. 

I look forward to hearing back from you soon. 

Thanks, 

Steve Lemont 

S~L~, '7'4,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.qov 
 B-28 

Lemont. Stephen 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Kiefer,Sharon [sharon.kiefer@idfg.idaho.gov] 

Wednesday, April 14, 20106:38 PM 

Lemont, Stephen; bmbiwer@anl.gov 

Hebdon,Lance; Vecellio,Gary 

IDFG Response to NRC AREVA Supplemental Request 

E-mail from NRC to Sharon Kiefer regarding additional AREVA project information 

2-10-2010.txt; Response to NRC AREVA transmission supplemental request Mar 2010.docx 

Steve, I apologize for a bit of delay in our information response to your request. Please contact Gary, lance or I if there 

are any questions or clarifications needed. We appreciated the telephone discussion regarding sage-grouse and other 

issues. 

Sharon W. Kiefer 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Assistant Director-Policy 

sharon.kiefer@idfg.idaho.gov 

please note new email address!! 

208.334.3771 

P.O. Box 25 

Boise, ID 83707 
 B-29 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Department) is providing this information in response 

to a February 10, 2010 request by Stephen Lamont of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) to Sharon Kiefer. These items are provided in supplement to the responses provided by 

the Department on August 4, 2009. This response incorporates potential issues related to a 

power line to service the infrastructure, which was not identified in 2009. 

Sensitive and rare habitats or threatened species (power line only. site information previously 

provided) 

Department staff considers the areas both north and south of your proposed power line to be 

important habitat for lek development, rearing, and migration of sage grouse. It is likely that a 

new above-ground transmission line will cause direct mortality of migrating sage grouse due to 

grouse striking the lines during flight. The locations of sensitive species from the Idaho Natural 

Heritage Database and occupied sage-grouse habitats in the vicinity of the proposed right-ofway for the power line are depicted in Figure 1. Department staff is unaware of any federallylisted species within the bounds of the project. 

Figure 1. Location of sensitive species records from the IDFG Natural Heritage database and 

Sage-grouse habitat in proximity to the proposed AREVA transmission line. 

1 
 B-30 

Important migration routes for birds (power line only) 

The addition of a power line, or an array of suspended lines will likely cause direct mortality of 

sage- and sharp-tailed grouse. As grouse fly across Highway 20 and over traffic during daily or 

seasonal migrations, we anticipate direct mortality of these birds due to collisions with newlyerected power lines. We request consideration of burying the new sections of line - this would 

be the most direct and effective way to avoid potential adverse effects to sage-grouse (and 

other flying and migrating wildlife). Power line burial has proven feasible to protect migrating 

sage grouse in Clark County near Small, Idaho as negotiated and constructed in 2007. This 

recommendation is consistent with the Idaho Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan which 

recommends avoiding construction of new power lines in grouse habitat or burying the line 

(Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee 2006) and is consistent with Department scoping 

comments for the Mountain States Transmission Intertie Project (available on request). If NRC 

and the applicant deem that it is not possible to bury the line, the Department requests that the 

licensee submit a proposal to the Department and USFWS describing: 

1) How the line will be marked with high-visibility deflectors to reduce collisions by birds 

and bats, 

2) How the licensee will survey the new line for the first 5 years to detect and record any 

sage- and sharp-tailed grouse mortality, and 

3) How the licensee will mitigate for the direct loss of birds due to power line construction. 

Concerns of the Department regarding potential wildlife effects of the proposed project 

The Department has considered both the uranium enrichment plant and the (single) proposed 

power line identified in the latest version of the application. If constructed as proposed there will 

be various negative effects to wildlife and their habitats, as well as potential losses of public 

recreation benefits and use of some public lands. The Department offers the following as our 

assessment of likely impacts due to the project, and we request in order of preference that NRC 

require in the license that: 

-The licensee to take measures to avoid and reduce wildlife and wildlife-related 

recreation impacts and subsequently, 

-The licensee be required to fully mitigate for unavoidable wildlife, habitat, and wildliferelated recreational impacts due to project construction and operation. 

We believe consultation with the Department and other natural resource managers would 

ensure implementation of effective measures to avoid, reduce, and mitigate adverse wildlife 

effects and ask the NRC to support such an approach. 

Sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse 

One of the documents provided was a sage-grouse survey report (MWH 2008). The stated goal 

of the effort was to "determine if greater sage grouse leks were in the vicinity of the site." The 

survey was conducted during the week of May 5. The timing of this survey is so late that it is 

unlikely to have detected any leks that may have been present on the property. Additionally no 

efforts were made to identify other potential seasonal use (nesting or brood rearing) of the 

property by sage-grouse. We recommend that the consultants confer with Department biologists 

and adopt our techniques for lek searches and monitoring. To be useful, their grouse surveys 

should be repeated using more effective methods. 

2 
 B-31 

It is likely that the proposed project will directly impact year-round sage-grouse use through 

fence collision mortality and habitat loss associated with power line infrastructure (previously 

noted) and a fenced perimeter. Additionally, it is also likely that the proposed project will 

indirectly affect the adjacent available sage grouse habitat due to increased road access and 

human use, and increased noise disturbance. 

Sharp-tailed grouse are known to exist in the area; therefore, it is likely the proposed project will 

have impacts to sharp-tailed grouse and sharp-tailed grouse habitat similar to that of sage 

grouse. 

The proposed power line to the Bonneville substation will likely negatively impact sage and 

sharp-tailed grouse populations in the area by providing additional raptor and corvid (e.g., crows 

and ravens) perch sites. 

Big game 

The Department manages the following species classified as big game species, which may be 

impacted negatively by the project: Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, and Pronghorn Antelope. All of 

these species will be affected by losses of open (mainly private) range upon which to live and 

forage and the forage gleaned by open range or agricultural products produced as a function of 

the property's original uses. Any high fence or security perimeter fence will presumably exclude 

these species from access to native ranges or previously accessible agricultural habitats. 

However, because the actual lay-out of any perimeter fence is withheld, we are uncertain of the 

extent of wildlife/public exclusion through fencing or actual development. Increased noise and 

human disturbance will cause these species to avoid the site of the enrichment plant to an 

unknown degree or distance. We cannot determine at this time whether loss of this area for use 

by big game will cause animals to just shift to new range or actually cause other change to the 

herd (such as productivity, etc.). 

Public Lands 

The Department remains very concerned about the loss of public lands to wildlife and to wildliferelated recreation access due to the project. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns and 

manages a parcel of land entirely within the project boundary. We are unclear about the ability 

of wildl ife or humans to access this public land during project operation. If public land resides 

within a fenced area or an area of 'high security' and is inaccessible to big game or humans we 

would urge NRC to consider this land as permanently removed from public/wildlife use. We 

request that the licensee negotiate with BLM to replace similar acreage to be managed by BLM 

for multiple uses including wildlife habitat and human recreation. We urge NRC to necessitate 

this using an iterative process described below. 

Similarly, the Department has concerns that human access to other surrounding BLM property 

for recreational use will be curtailed due to high security needs at this facility. Perhaps large 

wildlife will also have less access, or will be less willing to use public lands adjacent to the 

project due to project security or human activity. If wildlife avoid public lands surrounding the 

project due to noise, lights, roads, or human presence due to the facility, we urge NRC to 

require that the licensee study and disclose these effects, and fully mitigate for lands lost to 

wildlife due to project effects using the iterative process described below. 

3 
 B-32 

Cumulative effects of the project. 

The Department has concerns that activities and developments anticipated by AREVA for 

operations at this site have not yet been identified. Original plans for this project were given to 

the public, and public support sought, when the project was depicted at a smaller scale than is 

currently requested. At a meeting on 18 June 2008 at IDFG offices in Idaho Falls, Department 

staff were told by AREVA that (1) only 30 megawatts (MW) of power would be necessary to 

operate this plant and (2) the water use would be equal to operation of 1 center pivot during 

growing season. We now see that (1) 78MW of power are required as is (2) "a dual redundant 

electrical supply utilizing separate feeders (not one but two lines) is required" (Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility Appendix H Environmental Report, Paragraph 1). As such, we find that 

AREVA continues to modify the project and to add project components that will cause impacts 

to fish, wildlife, or habitats. We understand that currently, only one power line is requested for 

permitting and licensing (from the Bonneville Substation to the Enrichment Plant), even though 

the Environmental Report describes a need for two power lines for redundancy. The 

Department remains concerned that post-licensing, a future action of AREVA will be to request 

another power line. We remain concerned that the cumulative effects of all of these incremental 

actions will combine to further negatively affect wildlife, habitats, and recreational human use to 

a degree not evaluated by requests for individual actions alone in the pre-licensing phase. The 

second powerline, if coming from the west, might have much higher impact to sage-grouse than 

the line identified to date. 

We advise NRC to require complete identification of all anticipated activities (all power lines, 

new water rights, increased roads and traffic, lighting of the plant and surrounding desert, etc) 

so that the Department may assess the cumulative impacts and so that NRC may necessitate 

adequate protections and mitigations. We also recommend NRC include future actions be 

covered in the "Mitigated Protections" and mitigations license language suggested below. 

Negotiated protections and mitigations 

We recommend and ask that NRC adopt an approach in crafting this license similar to the 

iterative approach of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when licensing new 

hydroelectric facilities to require the licensee to collaborate with natural resources agencies to 

reach agreements to minimize and mitigate adverse effects to public trust resources as a 

condition of the license. 

To advance successful negotiations of a package of adequate natural resource protections and 

commensurate mitigations, we ask NRC to devise a collaborative team to work with the licensee 

to include the Department. We offer that the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, the 

USFWS, and BLM would also be appropriate agency participants. 

Citation 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in 

Idaho. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/huntlgrouse/conserve planl 

4 
 B-33 

Lemont. Stephen 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Sharon, 

Lemont, Stephen 

Tuesday, June 08, 2010 2:57 PM 

'Kiefer,Sharon' 

lance.hebdon@idfg.idaho.gov; 'gary.vecellio@idfg.idaho.gov'; Kemner,Don; 

'tom .hemker@idfg.idaho.gov'; KAY Jim (AREVA NP INC); Biwer, Bruce; 'Van Lonkhuyzen, 

Robert A.' 

Additional Sage Grouse Information for AREVA Eagle Rock Project 060810 

After I shared the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's April 14, 2010, comments on the subject project with 

AREVA, AREVA commissioned North Wind, Inc. to conduct a supplementary sage grouse survey for the Eagle 

Rock site and transmission line right-of-way. You can access the report for that study, dated May 13, 2010, via 

the following download link: https:llwebapps.anl.gov/filetransfer/downloader/9401984222651501. (NOTE: 

This download link is good only for 30 days from yesterday.) Also included in the download link are the reports 

of four other ecological surveys that are referenced in the North Wind report, some of which you may not have 

seen previously. 

Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. 

Regards, 

Steve 

S~L~, 'P~,Z', 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 
 B-34 

From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Attachments: 

I enpnt Stephen 

Hebdgn lance 

Kiefer Sharun ' Biwer Bruce M. ; Van Lonkhuyzen Robert A. 

RE: Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Wednesday, September 08,2010 10:04:31 AM 

Additional Sage Gmllse InfOrmation fOr AREVA Eagle Rock pmject 060810 msg 

Hi, Lance. Environmental Report (ER), Rev. 2 (AES, 2010) is a voluminous document that 

includes numerous appendices. In NRC's electronic document filing system, known as the 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (or ADAMS), this ER document 

is broken down into numerous parts. Publicly available portions of ER Rev. 2 are 

accessible electronically from NRC's public website for the AREVA Eagle Rock project, 

under License Application, at http"llwww nrc goylmaterjalslfuel-cycle-facleagle-rock htm!. 

When you get to that web page, you will see a tabular listing of all the various parts of 

Rev. 2 of the license application, beginning with the parts of the Safety Analysis Report, 

Rev. 2. Scroll down to see the parts of Environmental Report, Rev.2; and web links to 

these are provided (i.e., click on the ADAMS Accession # (ML#) for each) .. 

I would like to point out that ER Rev. 2 is merely the original ER into which AREVA 

incorporated all the supplementary information it had provided to the NRC through 

approximately MarchlApril 2010. I believe we already provided you with, or otherwise 

directed you to, all of the documentation relevant to ecology, but you are certainly free to 

look through what we have in the website. The supplementary sage grouse survey report 

that we directed you to in the attached email was provided by AREVA subsequent to, and 

therefore is not included in, ER Rev.2. 

If you need additional assistance, please let me know. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T -8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

From: Hebdon,Lance [mailto:lance.hebdon@idfg.idaho.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 20109:52 AM 

To: Lemont, Stephen 

Cc: Kiefer,Sharon 

Subject: Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

StephenIn reviewing the DE IS for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility I saw a reference to a 
 B-35 

document cited as (AES, 2010) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. "Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility 

4 Environmental Report, Rev. 2." Bethesda, Maryland. April. 

Would you be able to send me an electronic copy of the report or give me a link where I 

can download it? 

Thank you for your assistance, 

Lance 

Lance Hebdon 

Inter-Governmental Policy Coordinator 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

208-287-2711 

lance.hebdon@idf~.idaho.~ov 

The attachment referred to in this document is included in Section B.1 

of Appendix B, directly preceding this document. 
 B-36 

B.2 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation 

Ms. Janet Gallimore, Executive Director 

Idaho State Historical Society 

2205 Old Penitentiary Road 

Boise, Idaho 83712 

June 17, 2009 

SUBJECT: INITIATION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 

PROCESS FOR AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

Dear Ms. Gallimore: 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an environmental report 

(ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an application 

for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. The NRC is in the initial stages of developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located near Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville 

County. The facility, if licensed, would use a gas centrifuge enrichment technology to enrich the 

isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by weight. The EIS that NRC is 

preparing will document the environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, 

and decommissioning of the proposed facility. 

The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres). In November 2008, 

AES commissioned an archeological survey of the facility's footprint which involves 

approximately 381 hectares (941 acres) of the total parcel. The report is attached along with a 

map showing the area of potential effect, as it appears in the AES ER. As a result of the 

surveys, AES recorded a number of isolated finds and concluded that one find (MW004) was 

potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. AES proposes 

minimizing any adverse impacts through a mitigation plan for this find. 

In the ER, AES indicated their submission of the archeological surveys to your office. As 

required by 36 CFR 800.4(a), the NRC is requesting the views of the State Historic Preservation 

Officer on any further actions necessary to identify historic properties that may be affected by 

the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed facility, including whether find 

MW004 should be included in the National Register of Historic Places. 
 B-37 

J. Gallimore 2 

We intend to use the EIS process to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as described in 36 CFR Part 800.8. After assessing information you 

provide, we will determine any additional actions that are necessary to comply with the Section 

106 consultation process. If you have any questions or comments, or need any additional 

information, please contact Gloria Kulesa of my staff on 301-415-5308. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosure: Volume Report 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-38 

September 16, 2009 

Ms. Susan Pengilly 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

Idaho State Historical Society 

2205 Old Penitentiary Road 

Boise, Idaho 83712 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF AN EXEMPTION REQUEST FROM U.S. NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION'S (NRC) REGULATED ACTIONS SUBMITTED' 

BY AREVA ENRICHMENT SERVICES (AES) 

Dear Ms. Pengilly: 

On June 11, 2009, my staff sent a letter to the office of Idaho State Historical Society requesting 

input on identifying any cultural or historic properties that may be affected by the construction, 

operation and decommissioning of the proposed facility. We look forward to receiving your 

written feedback soon and will incorporate the details of your response within our environmental 

impact statement (EIS). 

In addition, we want to communicate pertinent and new information to your office. On June 17, 

2009, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) requested an exemption that would allow them to 

commence certain activities prior to NRC's completion of its environmental review under 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR 51) and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission's issuance of a Materials License for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

under 10 CFR 70. 

NRC's approval of the exemption would permit AES to undertake the following list of actions. 

These actions do not affect radiological health and safety or common defense and security. As 

such, NRC has determined that these activities do not require a license. 

• Clearing, Grading and Erosion Control 

• Excavation, Including Rock Blasting and Removal 

• Construction of Storm Water Detention Pond, Highway Access and Site Roads 

• Installation of Utilities, Storage Tanks and Fences 

• Installation of Parking Areas, Construction Buildings, Offices, Warehouses and 

Guardhouses. 

If approved, the exemption would allow AREVA to commence the above pre-construction 

activities before NRC completes its licensing determination. AREVA plans on performing this 

pre-construction work in September 2010. The approval to perform pre-construction does not 

equate to approval of a license to construct, operate and decommission a facility. AREVA 

assumes the risk of completing these activities and then not receiving a license to construct and 

operate the facility. 
 B-39 

S. Pengilly 2 

The pre-construction activities of both the environmental impacts above and construction of the 

facility will be considered in NRC's environmental impact statement which will be issued after 

pre-construction activities begin. We will continue to communicate with you regarding important 

issues for NRC to consider on assessing the environmental impacts of these pre-construction 

and construction activities. 

NRC anticipates completing its review of the exemption request by mid December 2009. If 

approved, AES will supplement its Environmental Report to distinguish between the 

environmental impacts of the construction activities covered by the exemption and construction 

activities which will not be undertaken until after issuance of a license by the NRC. This 

supplement will allow NRC staff to consider the impacts of pre-construction in its cumulative 

impact analysis within the EIS. 

Please respond by October 15, 2009 with any comments or concerns that you may have on this 

subject. If you have any questions or comments with regard to this request from AES, or need 

any additional information, please contact Mathews George of my staff on 301-415-7065. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-40 

Janet Gallimore 

Executive Director and State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

Idaho State Historical Society 

2205 Old Penitentiary Road 

Boise, Idaho 83712 

February 17, 2010 

SUBJECT: CONTINUING CONSULTATION UNDER THE NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED 

AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

Dear Ms. Gallimore: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) previously contacted your office by letter 

dated June 17, 2009, informing you of the submittal by AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) 

of an application to the NRC for a license to construct, operate and decommission a gas 

centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho. The proposed facility, the 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF), would be located approximately 20 miles west of Idaho 

Falls. As discussed in our June 17, 2009 letter, NRC is developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed EREF. The purposes of the present letter are to inform you: 

(1) that the project scope has been modified to include the construction and operation of a 

161-kilovolt (KV) electrical transmission line needed to power the proposed EREF; and (2) of a 

change to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the EREF site. 

Transmission Line 

On January 29,2010, AES submitted supplemental information to NRC for the construction and 

operation of a proposed transmission line, an electrical substation, and substation upgrades. 

The submittal updates and supersedes AES' previous transmission line addendum dated 

December 4,2009, (Supplemental Information, EREF Environmental Report, Appendix H, 

EREF 161-KV Transmission Line Project). A Cultural Resource Inventory report was included 

with the December 4,2009, supplement. NRC understands that AES sent copies of both the 

December 4, 2009 and January 29, 2010, submittals to your office. The locations of the 

transmission line and substations are shown in AES' January 29,2010, submittal. NRC's EIS 

for the proposed EREF will now include a discussion of the impacts associated with the 

construction and operation of the transmission line and associated substations. Likewise, our 

Section 106 consultation for the EREF project will expand to include the proposed transmission 

line right-of-way and other lands needed for this line and associated structures. 

The new transmission line and associated structures would be located entirely on private land 

within Bonneville County. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a division of PacifiCorp, will be the 

builder, owner, and operator. The transmission line would originate from the existing RMP 

Bonneville Substation and extend in a general westward direction to the new point of service, 

the Twin Buttes Substation on the proposed EREF site. In AES' updated proposal, there will be 

no use of Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy (Idaho National 

Laboratory) lands, as there was in AES' December 4, 2009, proposal. 
 B-41 

J. Gallimore 2 

Beginning at the Bonneville Substation, the proposed transmission line route is west along the 

county road 0fVest 65 North Street) to the existing RMP Kettle Substation, a distance of 

approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles), continuing west to the eastern portion of the EREF site, 

a distance of approximately 1.2 kilometer (0.75 mile), then north within the EREF site to its 

northern end, then west and south to the new RMP Twin Buttes Substation, for a distance of 

approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles). The area being affected by the transmission line is 

approximately 84 hectares (208 acres). 

As discussed above, as part of its December 4, 2009, supplement, AES commissioned an 

archeological survey of the APE associated with the transmission line and associated structures 

(see Cultural Resource Inventory). This survey, which identified nine sites that are 

recommended potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, 

encompassed a large area that included much of the area of the presently proposed 

transmission line shown in AES' January 29,2010, submittal. However, to NRC's knowledge, 

none of the nine historic properties identified are within the presently proposed transmission line 

right-of-way. AES stated in its January 29, 2010, submittal that there are no cu~ural or historical 

resources along the proposed transmission line corridor. 

EREF Project Site APE 

Additionally, AES has indicated that the APE for the EREF project site has been modified. The 

original APE encompassed 240 hectares (597 acres). Based on an August 28, 2009, 

submission by AES to NRC, an additional 26 hectares (64 acres) was added to the main project 

APE, increasing the EREF project site APE to 265 hectares (656 acres). The additional 

acreage was surveyed by AES' archaeological contractor with no historic properties identified. 

NRC understands that AES provided your office with a copy of the report on this survey 

(Amendment to: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho, Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., 

August 28,2009). 

If you have any questions regarding the project, or need additional information, please contact 

Stephen Lemont of my staff at 301-415-5163 or Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Docket No: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-42 

Ms. Suzi Pengilly 

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office 

210 Main Street 

Boise, ID 83702 

Dear Ms. Pengilly, 

April 16, 2010 

Bruce M. Biwer 

Environmental Systems Engineer 

Radiological Health Risk Section 

Environmental Science Division 

Argonne National Laboratory 

9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg.240 

Argonne, IL 60439 

1-630-252-5761 phone 

1-630-252-4624 fax 

bbiwer@anl.gov 

Enclosed are copies of the additional documents that you indicated were needed by your office to conduct 

a review of the proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) in Bonneville County. The 

documents included are: 

1) details of the proposed 161-k V transmission line required to power the EREF as provided in the 

February 18,2010 submittal from AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC), also included are a set of higher resolution figures of the 

proposed transmission line corridor that were provided by AES under separate cover, 

2) the MW004 treatment plan and the analysis of obsidian artifacts in the February 19,2010 

submittal from AES to the NRC (Enclosures 2 and 3, respectively, in that document), and 

3) the report "AMMENDMENT TO: A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF 

THE PROPOSED EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY BONNEVILLE COUNTY, 

IDAHO" that details the survey of the additional 64 acres on the EREF property. 

Please contact Steve Lemont at the NRC (301-415-5163 or stephen.lemont@nrc.gov) if you have any 

further questions. 

cc: S. Lemont, NRC 

D. O'Rourke, ANL 

R. Van Lonkhuyzen, ANL 

Sincerely, 

Bruce M. Biwer, Ph.D. 

Environmental Science Division 
 B-43 

Preserving the past, Enrirhing the f uture 

Our mission: to preserve and 

promote Idaho's cultural heritage. 

www.idahohistory. net 

c.L. ''Butch'' Otter Governor of Idaho 

Janet L. Gallimore Executive Director 

Administration 

2205 Old Penitellliary Rood 

Boise. Idaho 83712·8250 

Office: (208) 334-2682 

Fax: (208) 334-2774 

Membership and Fund Development 

2205 Old Penitentiary Rood 

Boise. Idaho 837 I 2·8250 

Office: (208) 5 I 4·23 JO 

Fax: (208) 334-2774 

Archaeological Survey of Idaho 

210 MainStreel 

Boise. Idaho 83702·7264 

Office: (208) 334-3847 

Fax: (208) 334-2775 

Historical Museum and 

Education Programs 

610 North Julia Davis Drive 

Boise. Idaho 83702·7695 

Office: (208) 334·2120 

Fax: (208) 334-4059 

Historic Preservation Office 

210 Main Street 

Boise. Idaho 83702·7264 

Office: (208) 334·3861 

Fax: (208) 334-2775 

Old Penitentiary and Historic Sites 

2445 Old Penitentiary Road 

Boise. Idaho 837 I 2·8254 

Office: (208) 334·2844 

Fax: (208) 334·3225 

Statewide Sites 

~ Frnnklin Historic Site 

• Pierce Courthouse 

• Rock Creek StntiOD & 

Stricker Homesite 

Public Archives and 

Resurch Library 

2205 Old Penitentiary Rood 

Boise. Idaho 83712·8250 

Office: (208) 334·3356 

Fax: (208) 334·3198 

• Public Archives 

· Research Library 

· Orol History 

North Idaho Office 

112 W. Fourth Sueel. Suite 7 

Moscow. ID 83843 

Office: (208) 882· I 540 

Fax: (208) 882· I 763 

Stephen Lemont 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Environmental Review Branch 

May 3, 2010 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington D.C., 20555-0001 

RE: AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Dear Mr. Lemont: 

Our office has received information on the expanded footprint, 

proposed 161 kV transmission line, and archaeological treatment plan for 

AREVA's proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville 

County, Idaho. Our comments on each project component and associated 

document(s) are outlined below. We have also provided guidance on the 

next steps in the Section 106 review process. 

1. Expanded Footprint: AREV A wishes to expand the originally 

proposed footprint for the enrichment facility by 64 acres. The 

expansion was surveyed by Western Cultural Resource 

Management and documented in a report dated August 28, 2009. 

Two sites and seven isolates were identified within the expansion 

area. We agree that sites AR-2 and AR-3 are not eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places for the reasons stated in the 

report. Although not addressed in the report, we also recommend 

that the isolates (IF-19 through IF-25) are not eligible. 

Before we can accept this report, however, we will need the 

following: 1) two copies of the report and site forms; and 2) maps 

showing the site locations attached to each site form. These 

requirements apply to this submission and any future 

archaeological reports and forms submitted to the Idaho SHPO. 

For backup and local reference, we send the second copy of the 

report and forms to the regional repository. In this case, we will 

send the second copy to the Museum of Natural History in 

Pocatello. 

2. Transmission Line: We received a report and site forms 

completed by North Wind documenting archaeological survey of 

two proposed alternate routes for a transmission line to the planned 

Eagle Rock facility. 

The Idaho State Historical Society is an Equal OpportunIty Employer. 
 B-44 

Stephen Lemont 

Page 2 

May 3, 2010 

We found this report and the project proposal difficult to follow. To remedy this, we first 

recommend that the report by reformatted to discuss each alternate route separately with 

archaeological findings and potential effects described by route. The alternatives should 

be clearly marked on maps in the report. 

As the preferred alternative is now known, it too can be shown on a map, and its specific 

findings and effects discussed in the report. It should be clearly pointed out that no 

federal land is involved in the preferred alternative, if that is still the case. 

The environmental document presents good maps that should be included in the revised 

archaeological report. Also, the aerials recently sent showing the final surveyed areas 

(Figure 1, Sheet 1; Figure 1, Sheet 2, etc.) should be included in the revised report. 

We will need to receive two copies of the revised report and two copies of each site form. 

A map should be attached to each site form. It appears that we do not have maps for 

isolate R1 and for archaeological sites R3 and R7 . Archaeological site forms are filed 

separately from the illSI forms, so we need a map attached to each. 

What is NNR1? It appears on figure 13, but we cannot find any other reference to it. 

3. Treatment of Site MW004 and Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts: 

We support the proposed treatment of site MW004. We should receive two copies of the 

report that documents the investigations along with two copies of photographs and other 

appendices or attachments. 

We appreciate receiving the letter report on the XRF analysis. 

4. Next steps: When the project design is fmalized and all of the archaeological survey and 

site evaluations have been completed, the NRC should draft a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) that outlines mitigation measures. The agreed upon Treatment Plan 

should be referenced as planned mitigation, and the XRF can be listed as completed 

mitigation. If monitoring is required, that too should be described in the MOA. 

We will be happy to review a draft of the MOA. NRC also needs to notify the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation of the adverse effect and determine the Council's 

participation. If the Council chooses to not participate, NRC and our office will conclude 

the agreement with Argonne (and/or AREVA) as concurring parties. Mitigation 

documentation will then be sent to our office for review and acceptance. 
 B-45 

Stephen Lemont 

Page 3 

May 3, 2010 

We appreciate your cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate 

to call me at 208-334-3847, ext. 107. 

&:P~ Susan Pengilly 

Deputy SHPO and 

Compliance Coordinator 

cc: Bruce M. Biwer, Ph.D., Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory 
 B-46 

From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date: 

SlIzj pengjlly 

I enpnt Stephen 

RE: NRC Letter to ACHP re: A::lverse Effect to Historic Pruperty and MOA for AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Wednesday, SeptemberOl,2010 10:11:59 AM 

The letter looks very thorough and complete. IT should be all they need, and they likely won't want 

to be involved, but you never know. 

Thanks, 

Suzi. 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 20109:09 AM 

To: Suzi Pengilly 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; danorourke@anl.gov; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: NRC Letter to ACHP re: Adverse Effect to Historic Property and MOA for AREVA Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Hi, Suzi. Now that we've gotten past the completion of our Draft EIS and public meetings, 

the NRC staff has been able to prepare and send the subject letter to ACHP. You will be 

receiving a copy in the mail, but I have attached an advance copy for your reference. NRC 

is now in the process of drafting the MOA discussed in the letter. 

By the way, thank you for your comments on our Draft EIS. 

Regards, 

Steve 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T -8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment referred to in this document is provided later in Section B.2 of 

Appendix B. It is the letter to Mr. Reid Nelson, Director, Federal Agency 

Programs, AdviSOry Council on Historic Preservation, dated August 31, 2010. 
 B-47 

Biwer. Bruce M. 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Suzi, 

Lemont, Stephen [Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Wednesday, September 29,20101221 PM 

Suzi Pengi lIy 

RE: Update on Section 106 Issues for the Proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Project in Bonneville County 092910 

Do you still also need two copies of the expanded footprint report, including the site forms and maps? 

Steve 

steftku ~~, 'Pk,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

From: Suzi Pengilly [mailto:SuzLPengilly@ishs.idaho.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:21 PM 

To: Lemont, Stephen 

Subject: RE: Update on Section 106 Issues for the Proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project in Bonneville 

County 

Stephen, 

Thank you for the update. With regard to the transmission line report, the only version that we have is dated December 

4,2009. Therefore, we still need two copies of the revised version. 

Thanks, 

Suzi. 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10: 12 AM 

To: Suzi Pengilly 

Cc: 'Biwer, Bruce M.'; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: Update on Section 106 Issues for the Proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project in Bonneville 

County 

Suzi, 

The purpose of this email is to follow up on your letter to me dated May 3, 2010 (see attached) and in so doing, 

provide you with an update on Section 106 activities by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the 

proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (ERE F) project. Also, I want to thank you for your July 22, 

2010 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which indicated your finding that the 

Historic and Cultural Properties sections accurately reflect the identification efforts conducted to date under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 
 B-48 

The discussion below follows the order of topics addressed in your May 3, 2010 letter, and includes some 

questions and issues to which I need your response: 

1. Expanded Footprint: You requested two (2) copies of the August 28,2009 report by Western 

Cultural Resource Management, including site forms and maps showing the site locations attached to 

each site form. I believe you are referring to the report, "Amendment to: A Class III Cultural Resource 

Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho," Prepared by 

Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., August 28, 2009. The NRC does not have the 

requested maps so I plan to ask AREVA to send you the two copies of the report and site forms with 

the maps included. However, before I do that, please let me know if you still need these items. 

2. Transmission Line: You also requested two (2) copies of the report on the transmission line portion 

of the project, including site forms, maps, and clarifications of various issues. The NRC does not have 

some of the requested items so I plan to ask AREVA to send you the two copies of the report with the 

additional items and any necessary clarifications included. However, before I do that, please note 

and/or respond to the following: 

a. First, I want to point out that it appears from statements in your letter that you were not 

reviewing the most recent version of the cultural resource survey report for the proposed 

transmission line route. In January 2010, AREVA decided to drop and no longer consider the 

proposed transmission line coming from west of the proposed EREF site, which would have 

been located partially on lands of the Bureau of Land Management and Idaho National 

Laboratory. Thus, the proposed transmission line coming from the west is no longer part of the 

proposed EREF project. Accordingly, it was not addressed in the NRC's Draft EIS. 

b. AREVA is currently proposing a single transmission line coming from the Bonneville Substation 

that is located east of the proposed EREF site, and has selected a route for that line that 

involves no Federal land. The archaeological and historical survey report on this single, 

preferred route was prepared by North Wind, Inc., and is dated January 21,2010 

("Archaeological and Historic Survey Report, Archaeological Survey of Idaho. In: Eag/e Rock 

Enrichment Facility Transmission Line," NWI 10247.001, Prepared by North Wind, Inc., 

January 21, 2010.). I thought AREVA had sent a copy of that report to your office. 

c. Please let me know if you still need the two copies of North Wind's January 21, 2010 

archaeological and historical survey report on the transmission line portion of the project, 

including site forms, maps, and clarifications (as necessary) of various issues. 

3. Treatment of Site MW004 and Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts: Thank you for your support and 

acceptance of the proposed treatment of site MW004 and of the letter report of the XRF analysis of 

obsidian artifacts. The NRC has asked AREVA to provide your office with two copies of the requested 

report that documents the investigations associated with the treatment of site MW004, along with two 

copies of photographs and other appendices or attachments. 

4. Next steps: As you know, in a letter dated August 31, 2010, the NRC notified the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the adverse effect on site MW004 and invited ACP to participate in the 

Section 106 consultation for the project. As I believe you also know, in a letter dated September 20, 

2010, the ACHP responded that they do not believe that their participation in the consultation is 

needed at this time. 

Also, the NRC is in the process of preparing a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the project. 

I believe I mentioned during our conference call on July 19, 2010, that our legal counsel had developed 

a rough draft of the MOA. That rough draft is currently being revised by our legal counsel, after which it 

will be reviewed by NRC management. We will then send the MOA to your office and to the other 

parties for review. Please note that Argonne would not be a party to the MOA as they are serving only 

as consultant to the NRC for preparation of the EIS. 

2 
 B-49 

We also discussed during our July 19, 2010 conference call that The Shoshone-Bannock (S-B) Tribes 

would not be a party to the MOA because they have shown little interest in the project. However, 

based on a meeting that NRC staff had with the S-B Tribes on August 11, 2010 (the day before our 

public meeting on the Draft EIS in Idaho Falls) and on comments received from the tribes on the Draft 

EIS, the NRC is now considering inviting the S-B Tribes to be a concurring party on the MOA. 

I look forward to receiving your responses to the questions and issues raised above. Please contact me if you 

have any questions or need additional information. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

ste;ttku .LeHtOId, f)&,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment referred to in this document is provided earlier in Section B.2 of 

Appendix B. It is the letter to Stephen Lemont, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

dated May 3, 2010. 

3 
 B-50 

Biwer. Bruce M. 

From: Suzi Pengilly [SuziPengilly@ishsidahogov] 

Thursday, October 14, 2010 938 AM 

Lemont, Stephen 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: RE: Further Update on Section 106 Activities for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Project 101410 

Thank you for the update--

suzi. 

From: Lemont, Stephen [Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:20 PM 

To: Suzi Pengilly 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: Further Update on Section 106 Activities for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project 

Hi, Suzi. This is to bring you up to date on the latest Section 106 activities for the subject project: 

• As you may already know, AREVA's consultant began work last week on the mitigation of site 

MW006. It is my understanding that they are coordinating with Ken Reid of your office regarding the 

progress and interim findings of the mitigation work. I have asked AREVA to have their consultant 

prepare and submit a report on the mitigation, in accordance with the request in your May 3, 2010 

letter; and AREVA has indicated their intention to do so. 

• On October 8, 2010, the NRC sent a letter to The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, inviting them to be a 

concurring party on the MOA. A copy of that letter is attached, although you will also be receiving a 

copy in the mail. On October 8, I gave Willie Preacher of the Tribes advance notice of this letter and 

what it is about. 

• The NRC's attorneys are continuing to work on the draft MOA for the project. 

• On October 11, 2010, I was informed by AREVA that the "expanded footprint" and "transmission line" 

reports and associated information requested in your May 3, 2010 letter were mailed out on that day. I 

had requested that they send the reports directly to you, but please keep on the lookout for them just in 

case they didn't. Please contact me if you don't receive the reports in the very near future. Also, if after 

you receive the reports you find that you have any questions or need additional information, please let 

me know. We look forward to receiving your comments on those reports. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

sUftku ~~, 'f)k,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment referred to in this document is 

provided later in Section B.2 of Appendix B. 

It is the letter to Chairman Small, the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, dated October 8, 2010. 
 B-51 

Biwer. Bruce M. 

From: Suzi Pengilly [SuziPengilly@ishsidahogov] 

Sent: Monday, October 18,2010110 PM 

To: Lemont, Stephen 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: RE: Further Update on Section 106 Activities for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Project 101810 

I recei ved the reports today, but have not looked at them. I will let you know if anything is missing. 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.govl 

Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:20 PM 

To: Suzi Pengilly 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: Further Update on Section 106 Activities for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project 

Hi, Suzi. This is to bring you up to date on the latest Section 106 activities for the subject project: 

• As you may already know, AREVA's consultant began work last week on the mitigation of site MW006. 

It is my understanding that they are coordinating with Ken Reid of your office regarding the progress 

and interim findings of the mitigation work. I have asked AREVA to have their consultant prepare and 

submit a report on the mitigation, in accordance with the request in your May 3, 2010 letter; and 

AREVA has indicated their intention to do so. 

• On October 8, 2010, the NRC sent a letter to The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, inviting them to be a 

concurring party on the MOA. A copy of that letter is attached, although you will also be receiving a 

copy in the mail. On October 8, I gave Willie Preacher of the Tribes advance notice of this letter and 

what it is about. 

• The NRC's attorneys are continuing to work on the draft MOA for the project. 

• On October 11, 2010, I was informed by AREVA that the "expanded footprint" and "transmission line" 

reports and associated information requested in your May 3, 2010 letter were mailed out on that day. I 

had requested that they send the reports directly to you, but please keep on the lookout for them just in 

case they didn't. Please contact me if you don't receive the reports in the very near future. Also, if after 

you receive the reports you find that you have any questions or need additional information, please let 

me know. We look forward to receiving your comments on those reports. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

steftku ~~, 'Pk,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment referred to in this document is 

provided later in Section B.2 of Appendix B. 

It is the letter to Chairman Small , the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, dated October 8, 2010. 
 B-52 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 201110:01 AM 

To: Suzi Pengilly 

Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.; O'Rourke, Daniel J.; Van Lonkhuyzen, Robert A. 

Subject: Section 106 Consultation Update and Questions - AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Suzi, 

This is to provide you with an update on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) 

Section 106 consultation efforts and activities related to the proposed AREVA Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility (EREF) project in Bonneville County, and to ask you some questions 

regarding the process. 

UPDATE 

Following is an update on recent Section 106 efforts and activities for the subject project: 

• On December 22, 2010, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes accepted the NRC's invitation to 

be a concurring party on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the proposed EREF 

project. 

• The NRC has developed a draft MOA that is currently undergoing internal review by our 

management and legal counsel. When that review is complete, which will be in the near 

term, it will be distributed by the NRC for review and comment, to the Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office, AREVA, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

• The NRC is currently working on completing the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the project, and will provide you with copies when it is completed. The Final 

EIS will provide updated information on impacts to historic and cultural resources and on 

associated mitigation, and will discuss that an MOA is being developed. 

QUESTIONS 

Please respond to the following questions related to the Section 106 process for the proposed 

EREF project: 

1. Regarding the two hard copies of the "expanded footprint" and "transmission line" 

reports that AREVA sent to you in October 2010, you had indicated in earlier 

correspondence that you received those reports. Does your office have any comments 

on those reports, or are they acceptable as is? 

2. AES provided other cultural resources survey reports and related documents, these are 

listed in Attachment A to this email (items 2 and 3 in the attachment are the "expanded 

footprint" and "transmission line" reports, respectively.) I believe that you are aware of, 

and have reviewed and accepted, all of the documents listed in Attachment A. However, 

do you still need two hard copies of, and/or do you have any concerns with, any of these 

reports. 

3. I understand from AREVA that their archaeological consultant, Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Inc. (WCRM) was in contact with Dr. Kenneth Reid of your 

office throughout their professional excavation and data recovery activities at site 

MW004, and that WCRM sent Dr. Reid the attached letter report dated November 17, 

2010 (Attachment B). In the first paragraph of your attached November 26, 2010 letter 
 B-53 

to AREVA (Attachment C), you referenced a "data recovery report" that Dr. Reid 

reviewed and accepted for this project. With regard to that data recovery report: 

a. Is that report the WCRM letter report dated November 17, 2010 (i.e., Attachment 

B)? 

b. Did you receive from AREVA the two hard copies of that report that you 

requested in your November 26, 2010 letter? 

c. Does your statement in your November 26, 2010 letter regarding Dr. Reid's 

acceptance of the data recovery report constitute your office's approval that the 

site MW004 mitigation has been completed to your office's satisfaction? 

d. If Dr. Reid does, in fact, consider the site MW004 mitigation to be complete, can 

you please send me a letter to that effect? 

I look forward to hearing back from you on this update and on receiving your responses to my 

questions. If you need additional information, please let me know. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

sUftku L~, 'Pk,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 
 B-54 

Attachment A 

Cultural Resource Reports and Documents Provided by AREVA 

for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project 

1. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, 

Bonneville County, Idaho (Volume I: Report and Volume II: Cultural Resource 

Documentation). Prepared by Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. November 21, 

2008. 

2. Amendment to: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc. August 28,2009. NOTE: This is the "expanded footprint" report. 

3. Archaeological and Historic Survey Report, Archaeological Survey of Idaho. In: Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility Transmission Line. NWI 10247.001. Prepared by North Wind, Inc. 

January 21, 2010. NOTE: This is the "transmission line" report. 

4. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Jim A. Kay, Licensing Manager, AREVA 

Enrichment Services LLC. Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information -

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC Environmental Report for the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility - RAI 6.a. Unanticipated Discovery Plan. September 18, 2009 

5. A Treatment Plan for Historic Site MW004 in the Area of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc. January 28, 2010. (This includes the obsidian artifacts report at the 

end.) 
 B-55 

Attachment B 

WCRM 

WESTERN CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC. 

November 17, 2010 

Kenneth Reid, Ph.D. 

State Archaeologist 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

Idaho State Historical Society 

210 Main Street 

Boise, ID 83702 

Dear Dr. Reid, 

This letter is to summarize Western Cultural Resource Management's data recovery activities for 

the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project located in Bonneville County, Idaho (west ofIdaho 

Falls) and to request a notice-to-proceed for our client, AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC 

(AES). Data recovery was conducted by WCRM from October 5 to November 8,2010, and is 

now complete. 

Project Background 

AES is preparing an application to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, 

operate, and decommission a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant called the Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County. WCRM conducted cultural resource inventories of 

the proposed project area in 2008 and 2009, surveying a total of 1,005 acres and identifying and 

recording 13 new archaeological sites and 25 isolated finds (Ringhoff et al. 2008; Estes and 

Raley 2009). One of the sites, MW04 (a historic homestead with a small prehistoric lithic 

scatter), was determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places by the NRC under 36 

CFR part 60.4, Criteria A and D. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with 

this determination in a letter dated September 29, 2009. 

WCRM prepared a data recovery plan detailing treatment recommendations to mitigate adverse 

impacts of the proposed facility to the eligible archaeological site, MW04 (Ringhoff and Stoner 

2010). This plan also includes the collection of all known obsidian bifacial tools within the 

project so that they can be chemically sourced through x-ray fluorescence analysis, per the 

recommendation of the Idaho SHPO. 

Summary of Recommended and Completed Treatment 

Table 1 shows the recommended treatment described in the data recovery plan as well as what 

activities took place during the data recovery effort. Recommended treatment for site MW04 

included mapping the entire site with a total station transit, collecting a representative sample of 

surface historic artifacts, excavating up to six 1 x 1 m units in Feature 1 (a dugout), doing a Class 

III+ artifact inventory of Feature 8 (a historic refuse concentration) as well as excavating one 1 x 

COLORADO 7765 DURHAM CIRCLE. P.O. BOX 2326. BOULDER. co 80306 303449·1151 FAX 303530·7716 

NEW MEXICO 2603 W. MAIN ST .. SUITE B. FARMINGTON. NM 87401 505326·7420 FAX 505324·1107 

NEVADA 50 FREEPORT BLVD .. SUITE 15. SPARKs. NV 89431 775 358·9003 FAX 775358·1387 
 B-56 

1 m unit in that feature, and excavating one 1 x 1 m unit in Feature 7 (a possible privy). 

Additionally, 11 obsidian bifacial tools from multiple sites and isolated finds in the project area 

were to be collected. 

All treatment proposed in the data recovery plan was completed or attempted. Not all the 

obsidian tools could be relocated, but all other activities were completed at least to the extent 

described in the treatment plan. Additionally, the treatment of Feature 1 required more work 

than originally proposed due to the unexpected discovery of a wood floor. While only six 

excavation units were initially recommended for that feature, 27 units were ultimately excavated 

in order to expose the extent of the wood floor (see Figures 1-4). 

Table 1. Recommended and Completed Treatment of Cultural 

R esources DthE1RkE·h or e agle oc nnc men tFTtP aCI ny rOlec t 

Location Recommended Treatment Com pleted Treatment 

MW04 - General site Detailed mapping of entire site using Detailed mapping of entire site using 

total station transit. total station transit. 

MW04 - General site Collection of a representative sample Collection of a representative sample 

of diagnostic historic artifacts. of diagnostic historic artifacts. 

MW04 - Feature 1 Linear series of up to six 1 x 1 m units Grid of27, 1 x 1 m units (including 

(dugout) to be excavated by hand, with at least one placed outside the feature) 

one placed outside the featnre. excavated by hand. Initial 6 units 

placed in a line along middle of 

feature, with additional units added as 

necessary to expose entire extent of 

feature's wood floor (an unexpected 

discovery ). 

MW04 - Feature 7 One 1 x 1 m unit placed over featnre One 1 x 1 m unit placed over feature 

(possible privy) and excavated by hand to a sufficient and excavated by hand in ten arbitrary 

depth to detennine iffeatnre is 10 cm deep levels, with a 1.25 m deep 

cultnral. auger test placed at the bottom. No 

cultural materials were revealed. 

MW04 - Feature 8 Set up a surface grid of 1 x 1 m units Set up a surface grid oftwelve 1 x 1 m 

(historic refuse to cover entire featnre and do a Class units to cover entire feature and did a 

concentration) III+ artifact inventory for each unit. Class III+ artifact inventory for each 

Collect a representative surface sample unit. Collected a representative surface 

ofthe featnre' s artifacts. Excavate by sample ofthe featnre's artifacts. 

hand one 1 x 1 m unit to detennine Excavated by hand one 1 x 1 m unit to 

presence or absence of subsurface detennine presence or absence of 

materials. subsurface materials; no subsurface 

cultural materials were identified. 

Multiple sites and IFs Collect 11 obsidian bifacial tools. Collected 4 ofthe 11 known obsidian 

throughout the area bifacial tools; 7 could not be relocated. 

previously One previously unidentified tool was 

inventori ed by also found and collected, bringing the 

WCRM total number of obsidian tools collected 

up to 5. 

COLORADO 

NEW MEXICO 

NEVADA 

7765 DURHAM CIRCLE. P.O. BOX 2326. BOULDER. co 80306 303449·1151 FAX 303530·7716 

2603 w. MAIN ST .. SUITE B. FARMINGTON. NM 87401 505326·7420 FAX 505324·1107 

50 FREEPORT BLVD .. SUITE 15. SPARKs. NV 89431 775 358·9003 FAX 775358·1387 

2 
 B-57 

At this time, field work related to the treatment of cultural resources related to this project is 

complete. WCRM is preparing a detailed final report that will contain discussion and analysis of 

the results of the data recovery. We respectfully request that a notice-to-proceed be granted to 

the project proponent, AES. 

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to call me (775-358-9003). 

Sincerely, 

Je~fe~t:A' RPA 

Project Manager 

WCRM,Inc. 

Jim Kay (AES) 

Stacy Thomson (Areva NP) 

Tom Lennon (WCRM) 

COLORADO 

NEW MEXICO 

NEVADA 

7765 DURHAM CIRCLE, P.O. BOX 2326, BOULDER, CO 80306 303449-1151 FAX 303530-7716 

2603 W. MAIN ST., SUITE B, FARMINGTON, NM 87401 505326-7420 FAX 505 324-1107 

50 FREEPORT BLVD , SUITE 15, SPARKS, NV 89431 775358-9003 FAX 775 358-1387 

3 
 B-58 

Figure 1. Feature 1 during excavation, with bed frame on wood floor of dugout. View facing southwest. 

Figure 2. Wood floor of dugout (Feature 1) exposed in its entirety. View facing south. 

COLORADO 

NEW MEXICO 

NEVADA 

7765 DURHAM CIRCLE, P.O. BOX 2326, BOULDER, co 80306 303449-1151 FAX 303530-7716 

2603 W. MAIN ST., SUITE B, FARMINGTON, NM 87401 505326-7420 FAX 505324-1107 

50 FREEPORT BLVD., SUITE 15, SPARKS, NV 89431775358-9003 FAX 775 358-1387 

4 
 B-59 

Figure 3. Wood floor of dugout (Feature 1) exposed in its entirety. View facing west 

COLORADO 

NEW MEXICO 

NEVADA 

Figure 4. Feature 1 with all excavation completed. View facing east 

7765 DURHAM: CIRCLE, P.O. BOX 2326, BOULDER, CO 80306 303449-1151 FAX 303530-7716 

2603 W. MAIN ST. , SUI1E B, FARMINGTON, NM 87401 505326-7420 FAX 505324-1107 

50 FREEPORT BLVD., SUI1E 15, SPARKS, NV 89431 775 358-9003 FAX 775 358-1387 

5 
 B-60 

References Cited 

Estes, Mark and Jaclyn Raley 

2009 Amendment To: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle 

Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western 

Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Sparks, Nevada for AREV A Enrichment 

Services, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Ringhoff, Mary and Edward J. Stoner 

2010 A Treatment Plan for Historic Site MW04 in the Area of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural 

Resource Management, Inc., Sparks, Nevada for AREV A Enrichment Services, 

LLC, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Ringhoff, Mary, Edward J. Stoner, Collette Chambellan, and Steve Mehls 

2008 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc., Sparks, Nevada for AREV A Enrichment Services, LLC, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

COLORADO 7765 DURHAM CIRCLE. P.O. BOX 2326. BOULDER. co 80306 303449·1151 FAX 303530·7716 

NEW MEXICO 2603 W. MAIN ST .. SUITE B. FARMINGTON. NM 87401 505326·7420 FAX 505324·1107 

NEVADA 50 FREEPORT BLVD .. SUITE 15. SPARKs. NV 89431 775 358-9003 FAX 775358-1387 

6 
 B-61 

Attachment C 

"The Hisrory and Preservarion People " 

Our mission: to educate 

through the identification, 

preservation, and interpretation 

of Idaho's cultural heritage. 

www.idahohistory.nct 

c.L. "Butch" Otter 

Governor of Idaho 

Janet L. Gallimore 

Executive Director 

Adminislntlion 

2205 Old Pemlelllillry Rood 

Boise. Idnho 83712·8250 

Ollice: (208) 334·2682 

Fnx: (208) 3)4·2774 

Arch:u!olulo:ic:l 1 Surveyor Idllho 

110M3inStreei 

Boise. Idoho 83702· 7264 

Ollice: (208) 334·3847 

Fox: (208) 334·2775 

Hjslorielll Museum !lOU 

Educ.arion Progr:.mu 

610 onh Julin Davis Drive 

Boise. Idaho 83702·7695 

Olliee: (208) 334·2120 

Fox : (208) 334-4059 

Historic Preservluion Orricc 

210MninSIreei 

Boise. Idaho 83702· 7264 

Ollice: (208) 334·3861 

Fox: (208) 334-2775 

HisluricSitesomce 

2445 Old Penilenli'ryRood 

Boise. Idoho 83712·8254 

0Ilice:(208)334·2844 

Fax: (208) 334·3225 

PublicArchivC:SOlnd 

Research Librury 

2205 Old Pcnncnlinry Ro.,d 

Boise. Idaho 83712·8250 

Public Arch i\' c~ 

Ollice: ~08) 334·2620 

Fnx: (208) 334·2626 

Rc:"clI rch Librllry 

Ollice: (208) 334·3356 

Fox: (208) 334·3 198 

Orlll Hi!ilory 

Olliee: (208) 334·3863 

F:lX: (208) 334·3198 

James A. Kay 

Licensing Manager 

AREVA 

Solomon Pond Park 

400 Donald Lynch Boulevard 

Marlborough MA 01752 

ovember 26,2010 

RE: Geotechnical Borings at the Propose Twin Buttes Substation within Cultural 

Resource Site 10BV246 (MW004), Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville 

County, Idaho 

Dear Mr. Kay: 

Thank you for requesting our views on geotechnical drilling within the 

boundaries of site 10BV246 (MW004) for the proposed Twin Buttes Substation. 

While Dr. Reid did review and accept the data recovery report for this project, we 

will need two hard copies of the report sent to us in the mail. We do not accept 

reports via email. 

With this said, we agree that you can proceed with the geotechnical 

drilling at this location. As you know, however, we will need to have a fully 

signed Memorandum of Agreement from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

before construction of the facility can begin. 

We appreciate your cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel 

free to contact me at 208-334-3847, ext. 107. 

Cc: Stephen Lemont, NRC 

Sincerely, 

&2 . Susan pengill~ Deputy SHPO and 

Compliance Coordinator 

The Idaho State Historical Society is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 
 B-62 

Mr. Reid Nelson 

Director, Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Old Post Office Building 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 803 

Washington, DC 20004 

August 31,2010 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF ADVERSE EFFECT TO A HISTORIC PROPERTY AND 

ASSOCIATED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PROPOSED AREVA 

ENRICHMENT SERVICES LLC EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

PROJECT IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Nelson: 

With this letter, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is notifying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of an 

adverse effect to site MW004 (John Leopard Homestead), as a result of the proposed AREVA 

Enrichment Services LLC (AES) Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) project in Bonneville 

County, Idaho. The John Leopard Homestead is a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-

eligible site. The NRC is drafting a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the mitigation 

of the adverse effect to the John Leopard Homestead. 

For your reference, this letter includes background on the NRC's activities pursuant to Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) to date, as well as a 

summary of the cultural resource information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (NUREG-1945) for the proposed EREF. A copy of the EREF Draft EIS was 

provided to you by the NRC with a letter dated July 14, 2010 (Enclosure 1). In addition, the 

Draft EIS is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this website, enter the 

Accession Number for the Draft EIS, ML 101890384. The Draft EIS also may be accessed on 

the internet at http://webwork. nrc.gov:300/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1945/. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1), the NRC staff invites the ACHP to participate in the NHPA 

Section 106 consultation for this project and requests your response within 15 calendar days of 

receipt of this letter and enclosures. 

BACKGROUND 

The NRC staff is reviewing an application submitted by AES for a license to construct, operate, 

and decommission a uranium enrichment facility, the proposed EREF, near Idaho Falls in 

Bonneville County, Idaho. AES submitted the original license application to the NRC on 

December 30, 2008. AES proposes to locate the facility in Bonneville County, Idaho, 

approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) west of Idaho Falls. Revisions to the license application 

were submitted on April 23, 2009 (Revision 1), and April 30, 2010 (Revision 2). The proposed 

EREF, if licensed, would use a gas centrifuge process to enrich uranium-235 isotope found in 

natural uranium to concentrations up to 5 percent by weight. The enriched uranium would be 
 B-63 

R. Nelson 2 

used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. As part of the review 

of the application, the NRC has conducted an environmental review and prepared a Draft EIS, 

which includes an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential impacts on 

historic and cultural resources, and documents the NRC staff's preliminary determination 

regarding the environmental impacts from the preconstruction (e.g., site preparation), 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed EREF. The NRC is the lead 

Federal agency, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.1 (a). 

Note that many of the activities required to build a uranium enrichment facility (e.g., site clearing 

and grading, excavation, erection of fences, erection of support buildings) do not fall within the 

NRC's regulatory authority and, therefore, are not "construction" as defined by the NRC (see 

10 CFR 51.4). Such activities are referred to as "preconstruction" activities in 1 0 CFR 51.45(c). 

SECTION 1 06 CONSULTATION 

By letter dated June 17, 2009 (Enclosure 2), the NRC staff initiated consultation under Section 

106 of the NHPA with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (lD SHPO) concerning the 

proposed EREF project. Also, by the letter dated June 17, 2009 (Enclosure 2), and a 

supplemental letter dated February 17, 2010 (Enclosure 3), the NRC staff notified the ID SHPO 

that it will comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA, using the process set forth 

in 36 CFR 800.8(c). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the preparation of the 

EIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to comply 

with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. The NRC staff is using 36 CFR 800.8(c) in 

lieu of the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. As indicated below, 

consultation with the ID SHPO is ongoing. 

In letters dated July 29,2009 (Enclosure 4), and February 19, 2010 (Enclosure 5), the NRC staff 

also contacted the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, identified as having potential interest in the 

proposed undertaking. To date, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have not responded to our 

consultation letters. 

DRAFT EIS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 

To evaluate the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources resulting from the proposed 

EREF project, the NRC staff visited the proposed EREF site in June 2009, reviewed cultural 

resources survey reports prepared by AES's archaeological contractors, and conducted an 

independent historic and cultural resources records review. Preliminary findings regarding 

historical and cultural resources are summarized below and further discussed in the Draft EIS, 

Sections 3.3, 4.2.2, 4.2.16.2, and 4.3.2. 

NOTE: Enclosures 6, 7, 10 and 12 identified below contain sensitive information and are 

withheld from public disclosure. 

Proposed EREF Project Site 

In the Draft EIS, the NRC staff presented its determination that the Area of Potential Effect 

(APE) for the NHPA Section 106 review of the proposed EREF project site is the 240-hectare 

(592-acre) portion of the proposed site that would be directly affected by preconstruction, 

construction, and operations activities. Two archaeological surveys have been undertaken by 
 B-64 

R. Nelson 3 

an AES archaeological contractor for the proposed project site (Enclosures 6 and 7). The 

contractor directly examined 407 hectares (1005 acres) of the proposed AES property, within 

which the 240-hectare (592 acre) APE is included. The acreage surveyed included additional 

areas for expansion outside the presently proposed preconstruction, construction, and 

operations areas, which are no longer deemed necessary by AES for the proposed project. 

Thirteen archaeological sites and 24 isolated finds were identified within the APE of the 

proposed EREF project site. Isolated finds are isolated occurrences of cultural resource 

material that are not associated with subsurface remains and are not considered archaeological 

sites. Three of the archaeological sites were prehistoric in age, six were from the historic era, 

and four contained evidence from both the historic and prehistoric periods. The prehistoric sites 

consisted of stone tools or evidence of stone tool manufacture. The historic sites were primarily 

historic trash scatters consisting of cans and glass. None of the isolated finds are considered 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. On the basis of the survey results, nine of the sites were 

recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site MW004, the John Leopard Homestead, 

is recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP for its potential to provide information on the 

practices of historic era farmers in the region. Several other sites of this type have been 

previously identified on Idaho National Laboratory property north of the proposed EREF site 

(see Enclosure 8), so removal of all sites of this type from the region is unlikely. Site MW004 

consists of several structural remains including a cistern, privy and historic dugout house 

foundation. AES's archaeological contractor conducted additional research for the three other 

sites found during the survey and found that these sites lacked sufficient information to be 

considered significant (see Enclosure 6). 

Site MW004 would be directly impacted by preconstruction of the proposed EREF. 

Preconstruction activities would destroy this site because it would be under the footprint of the 

proposed facility's security fence and an electrical substation for a transmission line that would 

bring power to the proposed EREF (see below). In a letter dated September 29,2010 

(Enclosure 9), the ID SHPO concurred with the evaluations and recommendations in the two 

AES survey reports, and agreed that site MW004 is the only one of the 13 sites located in the 

proposed EREF site eligible for listing on the NRHP, and recommended mitigation for the 

impacts to site MW004 to be included as stipulations in an MOA, discussed below. 

Proposed 161-kilovolt (kV) Transm iss ion Line Project 

On January 19, 2010, AES informed the NRC of a license application change involving the 

addition to the proposed project of an electrical transmission line to power the proposed EREF. 

This new 161-kV transmission line would be run to the proposed EREF from Rocky Mountain 

Power's Bonneville Substation located to the east of the proposed EREF site, mostly along the 

right-of-way (ROW) of an existing 69-kV transmission line. 

In the Draft EIS, the NRC staff presented its determination that the APE for AES's proposed 

161-kV transmission line project is 202.3 hectares (500 acres) for the line itself. This is derived 

from the 22.12-kilometer (13.74-mile) proposed transmission line ROW length and 45.72 meters 

(150 feet) on either side of the centerline (91.4-meter [300-foot] total width). In addition to that, 

there is the fenced area at the proposed modified Bonneville Substation, which is 1.3 hectares 

(3.1 acres), and the proposed new Twin Buttes Substation that will occupy a 2.1-hectare 

(5.2-acre) fenced area on the proposed EREF site itself. 
 B-65 

R. Nelson 4 

Portions of the proposed Twin Buttes Substation and of the proposed transmission line adjacent 

to the proposed EREF were surveyed previously as part of the survey for the main portion of the 

proposed EREF site (Enclosure 6). The ROW for the proposed transmission line has also been 

surveyed by an AES archaeological contractor for the presence of historical and cultural 

resources (Enclosure 10). This survey examined the 202.3-hectare (500-acre) APE. No 

historic and cultural resources were identified in these surveys. It is currently unclear whether 

additional areas would be needed for some aspects of the transmission line construction 

(e.g., pulling and tensioning sites). AES has provided an unanticipated discoveries and 

monitoring plan (Enclosure 11) to the NRC and Idaho SHPO, which will be in place during 

preconstruction and construction and which the NRC proposes to reference in the MOA. 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

As discussed above, during its environmental review and as documented in the Draft EIS, the 

NRC staff identified an adverse effect to the NRHP-eligible John Leopard Homestead (site 

MW004) located on the proposed EREF site. Preconstruction activities would destroy site 

MW004 because it would be under the footprint of the proposed EREF's security fence and an 

onsite electrical substation for the proposed 161-kV transmission line. In its letter dated 

September 29,2009 (Enclosure 9), the ID SHPO recommended mitigation of the adverse effect 

through data recovery, historic research for the John Leopard Homestead site, and that all 

obsidian bifacial tools within the EREF project area be chemically traced to their geologic 

sources through x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Further, the ID SHPO stated that these 

mitigation measures should be drafted as stipulations in an MOA. 

AES subsequently provided a Treatment Plan for site MW004 (Enclosure 12) that addresses the 

procedures that will be employed to conduct mitigation measures recommended by the I D 

SHPO. At the end of this plan is a letter that reports on the completed geochemical XRF 

analysis of obsidian artifacts collected at the ID SHPO's request (Letter to Kenneth Reid, State 

Archaeologist and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, 

from Edward J. Stoner, Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. December 18, 2009.). In 

a letter dated May 3,2010 (Enclosure 13), the ID SHPO expressed its support for the proposed 

treatment of site MW004 and requested a report from AES that documents the investigations 

conducted as part of the mitigation along with photographs and other appropriate appendices 

and attachments. 

The NRC is currently in the process of drafting an MOA as requested by the ID SHPO. As 

recommended in the ID SHPO's September 29,2009, letter (Enclosure 9), AES's Treatment 

Plan (Enclosure 12) will be referenced with regard to the mitigation of site MW004; and as 

additionally stated in the ID SHPO's May 3,2010, letter (Enclosure 13), the XRF analysis will be 

listed as completed mitigation, and any required monitoring will be described. Also, because 

AES has indicated that final design of the proposed EREF and associated 161-kV transmission 

line project will not be completed until after the NRC license is issued, the draft MOA will also 

address the survey by AES for historic cultural resources of any previously un-surveyed areas 

that may be identified following final design (e.g., transmission line construction pulling and 

tensioning sites). As such, AES's unanticipated discoveries and monitoring plan mentioned 

above (Enclosure 11) will be referenced in the draft MOA. The purpose of this plan is to: (1) 

monitor and protect existing and known archaeological sites and historic properties located 

within the proposed EREF site; (2) set forth the process for dealing with discoveries of human 

remains or previously unidentified archaeological sites that are discovered during activities that 
 B-66 

R. Nelson 5 

cause surface or subsurface disturbances and may result in an irreversible loss of the resource; 

and (3) establish procedures for evaluation and treatment of unanticipated discoveries in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.13. 

Proposed signatories to this MOA will be the NRC, the ID SHPO, AES, and the ACHP, if it so 

chooses. Because the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have not responded to our consultation 

letters, they are not included as either a signatory or concurring party. 

As mentioned in the introduction to this letter, the NRC staff invites the ACHP to participate in 

the NHPA Section 106 consultation for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1) and requests 

your response within 15 calendar days of receipt of this letter and enclosures. If you have any 

questions or require additional information, please contact the Stephen Lemont, Senior Project 

Manager, at (301) 415-5163, or by email at Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosures: See attached list 

cc wlo enclosures: S. Pengilly, ID SHPO 

J. Kay, AES 

Sincerely, 

IRAI 

Diana Diaz-Toro, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch A 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-67 

LIST OF ENCLOSURES 

1. Letter to Reid Nelson, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, from D. Diaz-Toro, Chief, Environmental Review Branch A, 

Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: 

Section 106 Consultation, Notification of the Issuance of, and Request for Comments on the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed AREVA Enrichment Services LLC 

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho. July 14, 2010. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML 101650142. 

2. Letter to Janet Gallimore, Executive Director, Idaho State Historical Society, from Andrea 

Kock, Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Environmental Protection and Performance 

Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Initiation of the National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 Process for AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. June 17, 2009. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091660205. 

3. Letter to Janet Gallimore, Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, Idaho 

State Historical Society, from Andrea Kock, Chief, Environmental Review Branch, 

Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: 

Continuing Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process 

for the Proposed AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. February 17, 2010. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML 100471023. 

4. Letter to Chairman Alonzo A. Cohy, The Shoshone Bannock Tribes, from Andrea Kock, 

Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Environmental Protection and Performance 

Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Initiation of the National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 Process for AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. July 29,2009. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML092090444. 

5. Letter to Chairman Alonzo A. Cohy, The Shoshone Bannock Tribes, from Andrea Kock, 

Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Environmental Protection and Performance 

Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Continuing Consultation under the National 

Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process for the Proposed AREVA Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility. February 19, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML 100480141. 
 B-68 

2 

6. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, 

Bonneville County, Idaho (Volume I: Report and Volume II: Cultural Resource 

Documentation). Prepared by Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. November 21, 

2008. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 101330115, ML 101330103, ML 101330104, 

ML 101330106, ML 101330107, ML 101330108, ML 101330109, ML 101330110, 

ML 101330125, ML 101330112, ML 101330113, and ML 101330114. NOTE: These 

documents contain sensitive information and are withheld from public disclosure. 

7. Amendment to: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc. August 28,2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML 101330102. NOTE: This 

document contains sensitive information and is withheld from public disclosure. 

8. Personal communication from Holly Gilbert, Idaho National Laboratory, to Daniel O'Rourke, 

Argonne National Laboratory. Subject: Uniqueness of Late 19'h Century Homestead Sites 

in the General Vicinity of the EREF Property. April 26, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML 101790310. 

9. Letter to George A. Harper, Vice President, Engineering, Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, 

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC, from Kenneth C. Reid, State Archaeologist and Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer, Idaho State Historical Society. Subject: Class III 

Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville 

County, and amendment. September 29, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML09281 0293. 

10. Archaeological and Historic Survey Report, Archaeological Survey of Idaho. In: Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility Transmission Line. NWI 10247.001. Prepared by North Wind, Inc. 

January 21, 2010. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 101330124 and ML 101330101. NOTE: 

These documents contain sensitive information and are withheld from public 

disclosure. 

11. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Jim A. Kay, Licensing Manager, AREVA 

Enrichment Services LLC. Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information -

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC Environmental Report for the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility - RAI 6.a. Unanticipated Discovery Plan. September 18, 2009. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092640684. 

12. A Treatment Plan for Historic Site MW004 in the Area of the Proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. Prepared by Western Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc. January 28,2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML 100540693. NOTE: This 

document contains sensitive information and is withheld from public disclosure. 

13. Letter to Stephen Lemont, Environmental Review Branch, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

from Susan Pengilly, Deputy SHPO and Compliance Officer, Idaho State Historical Society. 

Subject: AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho. May 3,2010. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML 101330126. 
 B-69 

September 20, 2010 

Diana Diaz-Toro, Chief 

Envirornnental Review Branch A 

Preservin g Ame ri ca's He ri tage 

Envirornnental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management and Envirornnental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Envirornnental Management Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornurission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Ref: Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Project 

Bonneville County, Wyoming 

Dear Ms. Diaz-Toro: 

On September I, 2010, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received your notification 

regarding the adverse effects ofthe referenced undertaking on the John Leopard Homestead, which is 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information you provided, 

we have concluded that Appendix A, Criteria/or Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual Section 

106 Cases, of our regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), does not apply to this 

undertaking. Accordingly, we do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse 

effects is needed at this time. However, if we receive a request for participation from the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian tribe, consulting party, 

or other party, we may reconsider this decision. Should circumstances change, and you determine that our 

participation is needed, please notifY us accordingly. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(I)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 

developed in consultation with the Idaho SHPO and any other consulting parties, and related 

documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion ofthe consultation process. The filing ofthe MOA and 

supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to complete the requirements of Section 106 

ofthe National Historic Preservation Act. 

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this undertaking. If you have any questions, 

feel free to contact Torn McCulloch at 202-606-8554, or via email at tmcculloch@achp.gov. 

Sincerely, 

;(~ IIA/~ 

Raymond V . Wallace 

Historic Preservation Technician 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 

ADVI SORY COUNCIL ON HI STORI C PRESERVATI ON 

llOO Pe n ns y l v ania Ave n ue NW, Suite 803 I v.,T ashington, DC 70004 

Phone : 202-606-8503 D Fax : 202-606-864 7 D a c hp@a c hp .gov D www . a c hp .gov 
 B-70 

Chairman Alonzo A. Cohy 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

P.O. Box 306 

Fort Hall, ID 83203 

July 29, 2009 

SUBJECT: INITIATION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 

PROCESS FOR AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

Dear Chairman Cohy: 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an environmental report 

(ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an application 

for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. The NRC is in the initial stages of developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located near Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville 

County. The facility, if licensed, would use a gas centrifuge enrichment technology to enrich the 

isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by weight. The EIS that NRC is 

preparing will document the environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, 

and decommissioning of the proposed facility. 

The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres). In November 2008, 

AES commissioned an archeological survey of the facility's footprint which involves 

approximately 381 hectares (941 acres) of the total parcel. The report is attached along with a 

map showing the area of potential effect, as it appears in the AES ER. As a result of the 

surveys, AES recorded a number of isolated finds and concluded that one find (MW004) was 

potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. AES proposes 

minimizing any adverse impacts through a mitigation plan for this find. 

In the ER, AES indicated their submission of the archeological surveys to your office. As 

required by 36 CFR 800.4(a), the NRC is requesting the views of the tribe on any further actions 

necessary to identify historic properties that may be affected by the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed facility, including whether find MW004 should be included in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 
 B-71 

Chairman Cohy 2 

We intend to use the EIS process to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as described in 36 CFR Part 800.8. After assessing information you 

provide, we will determine any additional actions that are necessary to comply with the Section 

106 consultation process. If you have any questions or comments, or need any additional 

information, please contact Mathews George of my staff on 301-415-7065. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosure: Volume Report 

cc: Willie Preacher 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

Stan Day 

AES Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

George A. Harper, P. E. 

AES Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-72 

September 16, 2009 

Chairman Alonzo A. Cohy 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

P.O. Box 306 

Fort Hall, ID 83203 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF AN EXEMPTION REQUEST FROM U.S. NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION'S (NRC) REGULATED ACTIONS SUBMITTED 

BY AREVA ENRICHMENT SERVICES (AES) 

Dear Chairman Cohy: 

On July 29,2009, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff sent a letter to the office of 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. My staff requested input from the tribe on identifying any cu~ural 

or historic properties that may be affected by the construction, operation and decommissioning 

of the proposed facility. We look forward to receiving your written feedback soon and will 

incorporate the details of your response within our environmental impact statement (EIS). 

In addition, we want to communicate pertinent and new information to your office. On June 17, 

2009, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) requested an exemption that would allow them to 

commence certain activities prior to NRC's completion of its environmental review under 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR 51) and the NRC's issuance of a 

Materials License for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility under 10 CFR 70. 

NRC's approval of the exemption would permit AES to undertake the following list of actions. 

These actions do not affect radiological health and safety or common defense and security. 

• Clearing, Grading and Erosion Control 

• Excavation, Including Rock Blasting and Removal 

• Construction of Storm Water Detention Pond, Highway Access and Site Roads 

• Installation of Utilities, Storage Tanks and Fences 

• Installation of Parking Areas, Construction Buildings, Offices, Warehouses and 

Guardhouses. 

If approved, the exemption would allow AREVA to commence the above pre-construction 

activities before NRC completes its licensing determination. AREVA plans on performing this 

pre-construction work in September 2010. The approval to perform pre-construction does not 

equate to approval of a license to construct, operate and decommission a facility. AREVA 

assumes the risk of completing these activities and then not receiving a license to construct and 

operate the facility. 
 B-73 

A. Cohy 2 

The pre-construction activities of both the environmental impacts above and construction of the 

facility will be considered in NRC's environmental impact statement which will be issued after 

pre-construction activities begin. We will continue to communicate with you regarding important 

issues for NRC to consider on assessing the environmental impacts of these pre-construction 

and construction activities 

NRC anticipates completing its review of the exemption request by mid December 2009. 

If approved, AES will supplement its Environmental Report to distinguish between the 

environmental impacts of the construction activities covered by the exemption and construction 

activities which will not be undertaken until after issuance of a license by the NRC. This 

supplement will allow NRC staff to consider the impacts of pre-construction in its cumulative 

impact analysis within the EIS. 

Please respond by October 15, 2009 with any comments or concerns that you may have on this 

subject. If you have any questions or comments with regard to this request from AES, or need 

any additional information, please contact Mathews George of my staff on 301-415-7065. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

cc: 

Willie Preacher 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

Stan Day 

AES Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

George A Harper, P.E. 

AES Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-74 

Chairman Alonzo A. Cohy 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

P.O. Box 306 

Fort Hall, Idaho 83203 

February 19, 2010 

SUBJECT: CONTINUING CONSULTATION UNDER THE NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED 

AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

Dear Chairman Cohy: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) previously contacted you by letter dated 

July 29,2009, informing you of the AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) submittal of an 

application to NRC for a license to construct, operate, and decommission a gas centrifuge 

uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho, and NRC's preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of its licensing action for the facility. The 

proposed facility, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF), would be located about 20 miles 

west of Idaho Falls. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scope of the project has 

been modified to include the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line and 

associated structures needed to power the proposed EREF. 

On January 29,2010, AES submitted supplemental information to NRC for the construction and 

operation of a proposed transmission line, an electrical substation, and substation upgrades. 

The locations of the transmission line and substations are shown in the January 29, 2010, 

submittal, a copy of which is enclosed. Also, AES commissioned an archeological survey of the 

area of potential effect (APE) associated with the transmission line route; the Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Officer has a copy of the survey report. As discussed in AES' January 29, 

2010, submittal, no historic properties were identified in the APE of the proposed transmission 

line project. NRC's EIS for the proposed EREF will include a discussion of the impacts 

associated with the construction and operation of this transmission line project. Likewise, 

NRC's Section 106 consultations for the EREF project will expand to include cultural resources 

along the proposed transmission line right-of-way. 

The new transmission line and associated structures would be located entirely on private land 

within Bonneville County. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a division of PacifiCorp, will be the 

builder, owner, and operator. The transmission line would originate from the existing RMP 

Bonneville Substation and extend in a general westward direction to the new point of service, 

the Twin Buttes Substation on the proposed EREF site. Beginning at the Bonneville Substation, 

the proposed transmission line route is west along the county road (West 65 North Street) to the 

existing RMP Kettle Substation, a distance of approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles), 

continuing west to the eastern portion of the EREF site, a distance of approximately 1.2 

kilometer (0.75 mile), then north within the EREF site to its northern end, then west and south to 

the new RMP Twin Buttes Substation, for a distance of approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles). 

The area being affected by the transmission line is approximately 84 hectares (208 acres). 
 B-75 

A. Cohy 2 

As noted in our earlier letter, NRC intends to use the EIS process to comply with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, as described in 36 CFR Part BOO.B. As required by 

36 CFR BOO.4(a), NRC is requesting the views of the tribes on any further actions necessary to 

identify historic properties that may be affected by the construction and operation of the 

proposed transmission line and associated structures. After assessing information you provide, 

we will determine any additional actions that are necessary to comply with the Section 106 

consultation process. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for 

public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records 

component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

If you have any questions regarding the project, or need additional information, please contact 

Stephen Lemont, of my staff at 301-415-5163 or Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Enclosure: As stated 

Docket No: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

lRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-76 

Lemont. Stephen 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Willie, 

Lemont, Stephen 

Friday, March 12, 2010 11 :26 AM 

'Willie Preacher' 

RE: Follow-up to Consultation Letters Regarding AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium Enrichment 

Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho 

Thank you for responding. I apologize for the misspelling of Chairman Coby's name in the letters. I noticed 

that too when I was preparing my email. 

I look forward to hearing back from you regarding the letters. 

Thanks again. 

Steve 

s~~~ 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

From: Willie Preacher [mailto:wpreacher@sbtribes.com] 

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:06 AM 

To: Lemont, Stephen 

Subject: RE: Follow-up to Consultation Letters Regarding AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium Enrichment Facility, Bonneville 

County, Idaho 

Stephen the name of our Chairman in Alonzo A. Coby, you do have it right in this letter to me, but the letter that was 

sent to him personally is addressed to Alonzo A. Cohy. We are reviewing the letters and will get back with you and as 

soon as we can. -Willie 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:39 AM 

To: Willie Preacher 

Subject: Follow-up to Consultation Letters Regarding AREVA Eagle Rock Uranium Enrichment FaCility, Bonneville County, 

Idaho 

Dear Mr. Preacher: 

I am Steve Lemont, the new U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Project Manager for the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the NRC is preparing in support of its licensing action for the 

proposed AREVA Eagle Rock uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County. NRC contacted Chairman 

Coby regarding this project in a letter dated July 29, 2009, and more recently in a letter dated February 19, 
 B-77 

2010. regarding the proposed electrical transmission line for the AREVA Eagle Rock facility. For your 

reference, I have attached these two letters to this email. 

The purpose of this email is to follow-up on the two letters, to request the views of the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes regarding any further actions necessary to identify historic properties that may be affected by the 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed AREVA Eagle Rock facility and the proposed 

transmission line and associated structures. Find MW004, which is discussed in the July 29 letter, has been 

determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Any other information you may 

have would also be appreciated. After assessing information you provide, we will identify any further actions 

that are necessary to comply with the consultation process under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

If you have any questions regarding the project, or need additional information, please contact me at 301-415-

5163 or Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. I appreciate your assistance in this matter, and look forward to receiving 

your response. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Lemont 

S~L~ 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 
 B-78 

Chairman Nathan Small 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

P.O. Box 306 

Fort Hall, Idaho 83203 

October 8, 2010 

SUBJECT: CONTINUING CONSULTATION UNDER THE NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE AREVA ENRICHMENT 

SERVICES LLC EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY PROJECT IN 

BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Chairman Small: 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) previously contacted The Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes concerning the AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) proposed Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility (EREF) in Bonneville County. Our most recent consultation letter, dated 

February 19, 2010, concerned alterations to the project's scope for the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review. Also, with a letter dated July 14, 2010, the NRC 

provided a copy of the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for comment. 

Preliminary findings regarding historical and cultural resources are discussed in the Draft EIS, 

Sections 3.3, 4.2.2, 4.2.16.2, and 4.3.2. One of these findings is that the proposed project is 

expected to cause an adverse effect on historic site MW004, the John Leopard Homestead. 

Site MW004 is a mUlti-component site consisting of a late nineteenth century to early twentieth 

century homestead component and a prehistoric component. The historic component of this 

site has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

and consists of a dug out depression, one possible privy depression, a cement lined cistern, one 

trash concentration, two rock piles, and a scatter of domestic trash. The prehistoric component 

consists of two non-diagnostic obsidian biface fragments and two flakes. 

The NRC is in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office (ID SH PO) and AES, which will address the mitigation of the 

impacts to site MW004. In addition, because AES has indicated that final design of the 

proposed EREF and associated 161-kV transmission line project will not be completed until 

after the NRC license is issued, the draft MOA will also address the survey by AES for historical 

and cultural resources of any previously un-surveyed areas that may be identified following final 

design (e.g., transmission line construction pulling and tensioning sites). The draft MOA will 

also include reference to AES's unanticipated discoveries and monitoring plan. 

Pursuant to Title 36 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800.6(c)(3), the 

NRC staff invites The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to participate in the development of the MOA 

for this project as a concurring party, and requests your response within 15 calendar days of 

receipt of this letter. As a concurring party, The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes will have the 

opportunity to review the draft MOA and provide comments prior to enactment of the 

agreement. If you accept the NRC's invitation, please provide the name and title of, and contact 

information for, the tribal member with whom we would coordinate for the MOA development. 
 B-79 

2 

If you have any questions regarding the MOA or the EREF project, or need any additional 

information, please contact Stephen Lemont at 301-415-5163, or by email at 

Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

cc: S. Pengilly, ID SHPO 

J. Kay, AES 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Diana Diaz-Toro, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch A 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-80 

Biwer. Bruce M. 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Lemont, Stephen [Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Friday, October 29, 2010654 AM 

wpreacher@sbtribes.com 

RE: Invitation to Participate as Concurring Party in Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement 

for AREVA Eagle Rock Project 102910 

Leiter to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes re Section 106 MOA Participation (ML 102740387). pdf 

Hi, Willie. I am just following up to find out if the council has considered the invitation in the attached letter, and 

if The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes would like to be a concurring party on the subject Memorandum of 

Agreement. 

Thanks, 

Steve 

sUftku ~~, 'f)k,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

From: Lemont, Stephen 

Sent: Friday, October 08,20103:30 PM 

To: 'wpreacher@sbtribes.com' 

Subject: Invitation to Participate as Concurring Party in Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement for AREVA Eagle Rock 

Project 

Hi, Willie. This is to give you advance notice of a letter the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

sending to Chairman Small regarding the development of a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility project. 

The letter, a copy of which is attached, discusses the need for, and basic content of, the MOA. However, the 

main purpose of the letter is to invite The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to participate in the development of the 

MOA as a concurring party. In that role, The Tribes will have the opportunity to review the draft MOA and 

provide comments prior to enactment of the agreement. The MOA is currently being drafted by the NRC's 

attorneys and when ready, will be distributed for review by the parties to the agreement. These parties already 

include the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and AREVA, in addition to the NRC. 

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the letter or if you need additional information. We 

hope the Tribes will accept the NRC's invitation and look forward to working with you on the development of 

the MOA. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Steve 

sUftku ~~, 'f)k,1), 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 
 B-81 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment refelTed to in this document is included in Section B.2 of 

Appendix B, directly preceding this document. 

2 
 B-82 

Page 1 

NRC FORM 699 

(9-2003 ) 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE 

11/30/2010 

CONVERSA liON RECORD 

NAME OF PERSON{S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU 

Willie Preacher 

ORGANIZATION 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho 

SUBJECT 

I 

TELEPHONE NO 

208-478-3707 

Follow-up on NRC Invitation to The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to be a Concurring Party on the 

Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement for the AREVA Eagle Rock Project 

SUMMARY (Continue on Page 2) 

TIME 

TYPE OF CONVERSATION 

D VISIT 

D CONFERENCE 

[8J TELEPHONE 

o INCOMING 

[8J OUTGOING 

I told Mr. Preacher that I was calling to follow up on the October 8, 2010, letter that the NRC sent to Chairman Small of 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, inviting the Tribes to be a concurring party on the National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement, or MOA, for the AREVA Eagle Rock project. Mr. Preacher said that he gave 

the letter to Carolyn Smith, the Tribes' cultural resources person; and that he would check with her and get back to me. 

Continue on Page 2 

ACTION REQUIRED 

None. 

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION 

Stephen Lemont 

ACTION TAKEN 

TITLE OF PERSON TAKING ACTION 

NRC FORM 699 (9-2003) 

DATE 

I 11/30/2010 

I SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACTION I DATE 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
 B-83 

From: Lemont, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:19 AM 

To: 'wpreacher@sbtribes.com' 

Subject: Follow-up on NRC Invitation to Participate as Concurring Party in Section 106 Memorandum of 

Agreement for AREVA Eagle Rock Project 

Willie, 

The purpose of this email is to check back with you once more to find out if the ShoshoneBannock Tribes would like to be a concurring party on the subject Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) for the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility project. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission's (NRC's) invitation to be a concurring party was provided in the attached letter that 

was sent to Chairman Small on October 8, 2010. When I called you about this invitation on 

November 30, you mentioned that you had given the letter to Carolyn Smith, the Tribes' Cultural 

Resources Coordinator, and that you would check with her and get back to me. 

The purpose and basic content of the MOA is discussed in the attached letter. As a concurring 

party, the Tribes will have the opportunity to review the draft MOA and provide comments prior 

to enactment of the agreement. The draft MOA is currently being completed by the NRC's 

attorneys and when ready, will be distributed for review by the parties to the agreement. 

Presently, these parties include the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and AREVA, in 

addition to the NRC. 

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the attached letter or if you need 

additional information. We hope the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes will accept the NRC's invitation 

and look forward to working with you on the development of the MOA. 

I look forward to receiving your reply soon. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Steve 

steftku~~ 

Senior Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs 

Mail Stop: T-8F5 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-5163 

Fax: 301-415-5369 

Email: Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov 

The attachment referred to in this document 

precedes the October 29, 2010, email to 

Willie Preacher included in Section B.2 of 

Appendix B. 
 B-84 

Page 1 . 

NRC FORM 699 (9-2003) 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE 

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME 

12/22/2010 

NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU I TELEPHONE NO. TYPE OF CONVERSATION 

Carolvn Smith, Cultural Resources Coordinator 208-221-0326 D VISIT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------~----------------~ 

ORGANIZATION D CONFERENCE 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho ~~~~~~--~------~------~--------------------------------------------~ ~ TELEPHONE S,-!BJECT IY..J D INCOMING NRC Invitation to the Tribes to be a Concurring Party on the Section 106 MOA fo r AREVA Eagle 

Rock Project OUTGOING 

SUMMARY (Continue on Page 2) 

I confirmed the phone message I received today from Ms. Smith that the Tribes do want to be a party to the MOA. I 

explained that the Tribes would be a concurring party, meaning that they would be able to comment on the draft MOA. 1 

said that the NRC is in the process of completing the draft MOA, and that it wi II be sent to the Idaho SHPO, AREVA, and 

the Tribes for review; and that I intend to hold a conference call to discuss a II of our comments. 

Ms. Smith said to mail the draft MOA to her and to Willie Preacher. I said tha t I will probably send an advance copy of the 

draft MOA and transmittal letter to them by email, and asked for Ms. Smith's email address. It is csmith@sbtribes.com. 

Continue on Page 2 

ACTION REQUIRED 

None 

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTI NG CONVERSATION 

Stephen Lemont 

ACTION TAKEN 

TITLE OF PERSON TAKING ACTION 

~ .' . 

---- [ SIGNATURE ~ DATE 

1212212010 

I SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACTION DATE 

. 

NRC FORM 699 (9-2003) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . 
 B-85 

B.3 Other Consultation 

Mr. Keith Dunbar 

National Park Service 

Chief of Park Planning 

and Environmental Compliance 

909 First Avenue, 

Seattle, WA 981 04 

Dear Mr. Dunbar: 

October 2, 2009 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an Environmental 

Report (ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an 

application for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a 

proposed uranium enrichment facility. The NRC staff is in the initial stages of developing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located 20 miles west of 

Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville County. The facility, if licensed, would use a gas centrifuge 

based technology to enrich the isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by 

weight. The EIS will document the impacts associated with the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed facility. 

The proposed location for the facility is due north of the Hell's Half Acre National Natural 

Landmark. The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres). AES 

states that the facility footprint encompasses 381 hectares (941 acres) of the site for which 

construction, operation, and decommissioning activities will occur. The proposed site is situated 

on the north side of U.S. Highway 20. The coordinates for the center of the action area are 43 

degrees, 35 minutes, 7.37 seconds North and longitude 112 degrees, 25 minutes, 28.71 

seconds West. The project area is currently mixed used for open range land and agriculture. 

The Hell's Half Acre National Natural Landmark is managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) as a Wildlife Study Area. The BLM has been contacted by both the NRC 

and AES concerning the project. The NRC wants to provide the National Park Service with an 

opportunity to comment on the abovementioned project. The NRC is requesting the views of 

your office on any impacts that may be caused by the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of the proposed facilitity. After assessing information you provide, we will 

determine if any additional actions or mitigation actions are necessary. 
 B-86 

K. Dunbar 2 

We would like a response from your office by Oct 31, 2009, if possible. If you have any 

questions or comments with regard to this, or need any additional information, please contact 

Mathews George of my staff on 301-415-7065. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-87 

Un ited States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO 

E(-Hel!"s Half-Acre 

Andrea Kock. Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

NATIONAL PARK SERV ICE 

Pacific Wesl Region 

909 Firsl A venue. Fifth Floor 

Scattle. Washington 98104-\ 060 

December 28. 2009 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Manae:cmcnt 

and Environmental Pro~ection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 

U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington. D.C. 20555 -000 I 

RE: Application for license for proposed uranium enrichment facility north of HeW s HalfAcre Lava Field National Natural Landmark 

Dear Ms. Kock: 

Thank you for your lener dated October 2. 2009. concerning AREV A Enrichment Services' proposed 

uranium enrichment facility near Hell's Half-Acre Lava Field National Natura l Landmark (NNLJ. which 

the Nat ional Park Service (NPS) oversees as part of the NNL program. As you know, Hell's Half-Acre 

Lava Field NNL is located on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is a 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). (Please note that it is not a Wildlife Study Area as the October lener 

stated.) It also appears that the State of Idaho mav own sections of land within the NNL. 

Hell's Half-Acre Lava Field NNL was designated in 1976 primarily for its geologic significan ce (e.g .. 

single event. geologic process with a fully exposed pahoehoe lava flow). However, the NNL also provides 

an outstanding example of pioneer vegetation establishing itself on a lava flow. This is evidenced by 

numerous mosses, lichens. and ferns that have established themselves in, on, and among fractures. 

depressions. and small lava caves throughout the NNLlWSA. In addition, a significant number of visitors 

hike on tra ils located adjacent to the NNL/\VSA, and many recreate on the lava flow with in the 

NNLlWSA. 

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL). administered b) the U.S. Department of Energy. is located directlv 

adjacent to the proposed project. The rNL is an ecological field laborarory where scientists may set up 

long-term experiments which answer questions about human impact on the natural environment. It is a 

leading center for nuclear safety research. defense programs. nuclear waste technology and advanced 

energy concepts. and has an extensive environmental monitoring program both on- and off-site. Off-site 

monitoring data and information can be found at: hnp:/! \V\.v\.\.stolier-eser.com/ index.htm. DOE also funds 

a similar state-run monitoring program: hnp:llwww.deq.idaho.gov/ inl_oversightlindex .cfm. 

The greatest concern that has been identified on the INL is on-site groundwater contamination. Airborne 

radioactive contamination has not been detected off-site. While the proposed AREV A facili~ is not a 

TAKE PR ID ..I 

INAM ER ICA~ 
 B-88 

DOE project and is not offic ially connected with the INL. the INL has extensive information that should 

be relevant for developing impact analyses in the Environmentallmpacl Statement (EIS), because of the 

proposed project's c lose proxim ity to the IN L. NPS recommends the following areas of analysis: 

Potential groundwater and airborne radioactive contamination that might impact the NN L/WSA. 

Lighting impacts to the dark night sky at the NNL, as well as at Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve (CRMO) located 45 miles west from the proposed facility. 

Cumulati ve impacts on the dark night sky at the NNL and CRMO, especia lly since there is 

already a significant light dome associated with the INL.. 

Construction impacts, especially from excessive dust, to the unique botanical resources of the 

NNL (e.g., dust could settle and accumulate on these plants, including outlier juniper trees. 

depriving them of needed sunlight). 

We woul d appreciate receiving a copy of the Draft EIS (please see attached in structions). Please also 

notify the following persons when the Draft EIS is avai lab le for review: 

Mr. Steve Gibbons, 

Coord inator 

National Natural Landmarks 

Program 

National Park Service 

810 State Route 20 

Sedro Woolley_ WA 98284 

Telephone: (360) 854-7203 

FAX: (360) 856-1934 

Email: 

steve !!ibbons(@nps.!:!ov 

Mr. Doug Neighbor, 

Superintendent 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument & Preserve 

PO Box 29 

Arco, ID 83213 

Phone: (208) 527-1 310 

FAX: (208) 527-3073 

E·mail: 

doug neighborfa)nps.oov 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Sincerely, 

4fJ. V£4~ Rory D. Westberg 

Acting Regional Director 

Ph one : (206) 220-4106 

FAX : (206) 220-4159 

ROI\ \"'estberg(a)nps.go\ 

Anachment 

Ms. Kelly Powell 

Realty Specialist 

168 S. Jackson SI.. 2'" Floor 

Seattle, WA 98104-2853 

Phone: (206) 220-4106 

FAX: (206) 447-4246 

Email : 

kelly _powel l@nps.gov 
 B-89 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS 

September 2007 

To expedite requests to the Department of the Interior (Department) for the review of 

environmental documents under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Section 

4(1) of the Department of Transportation Act: project planning, design, and application 

documents under various Federal authorities; and requests for coordination and 

consultation early in project planning; please note the following: 

Appendix III to the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations (49 FR 

49778; December 21, 1984) lists the Director, Office of Env ironmental Project Review 

(now the Office of Env ironmental Policy and Compl iance (OEPC», as the indi vidual 

responsible for receiving and commenting on other agencies' environmental documents. 

If properly fo llowed, this process results in your agency receiving one set of comments 

consolidating the views of all commenting bureaus and offices within the Department. 

Therefore, please send all officially approved documents requesting env ironmental and 

other project review to the follow ing address: 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interi or 

Main Interior Building (MS 2462) 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

OEPC is the central coordination office for the Department on all environmental 

reviews proposed bv other federal agencies. Jt is unnecessary to send copies of 

environmental and other project review requests to any other bureau or office within 

Interior. unless that bureau or office has been a part ofvour coord ination or cooperatinQ 

aQencv processes. However, a suffic ient number of copies must sti ll be sent to OEPC to 

allow distribution of the document to those Interior bureaus identified by OEPC to 

participate in the review process. The requested numbers of copies allow for 

simultaneous review throughout each bureau thus producing the Department's 

consol idated rev ie" in the shortest possible time. The following numbers of copies 

should be prov ided: 

Twe lve (12) copies of a draft and six (6) copies ofa final document for projects in 

the Eastern United States including MN . IA. MO. AR. and LA. The same 

numbers of copies shou ld be provided for projects in HI and the U.S. Territories 

(Ameri can Samoa. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Guam, Puerto 

Rico. and U.S. Virgin Islands). 

Eightecn (18) copies of a draft and nine (9) copies of a final document for projects 

in the Western United States westward of the western boundaries of MN. IA. MO. 

AR. and LA. 
 B-90 

2 

Eighteen (18) copies of a draft and nine (9) copies of a final document for rev ie" 

requests wh ich are national in scope (e.g. agency regulations. scientific reports. 

special reports. program plans. and other interagency documents). 

Sixteen (16) copies ofa draft and eight (8) copies ofa final document for projects 

in AK. 

When a review document does not have draft an d final versions. the large r number of 

copies is requested. 

In an effort to help reduce the Federal government's cost for the reproduction of 

paper documents and to help reduce waste, we ask that yo u provide the URL for 

projects available on the Internet. Copies of environmental and project review 

documents that are available in CD-ROM or any other widely used electronic 

method may also be furnished in lieu of paper copies. When this is the case, we 

would still appreciate receiving one paper copv for our official file. Please provide 

an Internet address, CDs, one paper copy, or paper copies, as appropriate, directly 

to th is office. 

Appendix II to the CEQ regulations (49 FR 49754; December 21, 1984) lists Interior 

bu reaus and offices having jurisdiction by law o r specia l expertise on environmental 

quality issues. Appendi x II should be used to determine appropriate Interior contacts for 

coordinati on during early planning, NEPA scoping, and other preliminary activities. 

Since this document may be out of date, it is recommended that you consult the fol lowing 

Internet addresses for the latest bureau contacts. htlp: //ceg.eh.doe.~ov nepa nepanet.htm 

Or htlp:Jiwww.doi.!Zov/oepc/nepacontacts.htll1l . 

All early coordination and scoping req uests. environmental assessments or repon s not 

accompanied by project plann ing or design documents, find in gs of no signifi cant impact. 

preliminary or working draft or final environmental impact statements, and similar 

material of a regional nature should be sent directly to Interior bureaus at the field leve l. 

It is not necessary to send copies of earl y coord ination documents to the OEPC in 

Washington. DC. Please note that our Regional Env ironmental Officers (REO) serve as 

representatives of OEPC and should be contacted if there are questions about these 

procedures at the fie ld level. A REO list is anached and is also available on our web site 

at: hup:l/www.doi.gov/oepc/reo.html. 

Representatives of your organization should establish direct working relationships with 

Departmental and bureau field level offi ces. which welcome such contact. This type of 

relationship is important not only during early project coord ination. but also to expedite 

the ea rly resolution of environmental issues that wou ld otherwise surface during the 

formal reviev.1 of a project document. In many cases, Interi or's comments on an 

environmental rev iew will designate an office at the field level fo r follow-up acti viti es. 

We ask that you make a wide distribution of this information throughout your 

organization . Such a distribution \.\ ill greatly assist OUf agencies in better meeting our 

obligations under ex isting lavls and in planning projects thal will be lllutLIally beneficial. 

Allachment (REO List) 
 B-91 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY and COMPLIANCE 

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICES 

DIRECTOR 

WILLIE R. TAYLOR 

1849 C STREET, NW., MS 2342 

WASHINGTON, DC 20240 

PHONE, 202-208-3891 

FAX, 202-208-6970 

MAy 7, 2007 

BOSTON - CT,~A,ME,NH,NJ,NY,RI,VT 

Andrew L. Raddant Diane Lazinsky 

PHILADELPHIA - DC,DE,IL,IN,MD,MI,MN,OH,PA,VA,WI,wV 

Michael T. Chezik Robert M. Burr Valincia Darby 

ATLANTA - AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC,PR,TN,SC , VI 

Gregory L.Hogue 

Joyce A. Stanley 

ALBUQUERQUE - AR,LA,NM,OK,TX 

Stephen R. Spencer 

Shirley Martinez 

DENVER - CO,IA,KS,MO,MT,NE,ND,SD,UT,WY 

Robert F. Stewart Diane Niedzwiecki 

OAKLAND AS,AZ,CA,CM,GU,HI,NV 

Patricia S. Port Harry (Chip ) E . Demarest John A. Perez 

PORTLAND - ID,OR,WA 

Preston A. Sleeger Trisha Allison O'Brien Mandy Stanford 

ANCHORAGE - AK 

Pamela A. Bergmann 

Douglas L. Mutter 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

MARy J OSI E BLANCHARD 

Phone 617-223-8565 Fax, 617-223-8569 408 Atlantic Avenue, Koarn :42 Boston, MA 02210-3334 

Phone, 215-597-5378 FAX: 215-597-9845 (Primary ) 215-597-5012 (Alternate ) 

Custom House, Room 244 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 

Phone' 404-331-4524 FAX, 404-331-1736 Russell Federal Bldg . , Suite 1144 75 Spring Street, S . W. Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: 505-563-3572 FAX, 505-563-3066 P . O. Box 26567, (MC-9 ) 

Albuquerque, NM 87125-6567 

1001 Indian School NW, Suite 348 Albuquerque, NM 87104 

Phone, 303-445-2500 FAX, 303-445-6320 P . O. Box 25007 (D-108 ) Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 - 0007 

(Bldg . 56, Rm . 1003, 6 t n & Kipling ) 

Phone: 510-817-1477 FAX, 510-419-0177 Jackson Center One 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 520 Oakland , CA 94607 

Phone, 503-231-6157 Fax, 503-231-2361 500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 356 

Portland, OR 97232-2036 

Phone: 907-271-5011 Fax: 907-271-4102 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage , AK 99501-5126 
 B-92 

Mr. Paul Kjellander 

Office of Energy Resources 

322 East Front Street 

P.O. Box 83720 

Boise, ID 83720 

June 24, 2009 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 

CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE PROPOSED AREVA EAGLE ROCK 

ENRICHMENT FACILITY LOCATED IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Kjellander: 

On December 30,2008, AREVA Enrichment Services (AES) submitted an environmental report 

(ER) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ER is one part of an application 

for a license to authorize construction, operation, and decommissioning of a proposed uranium 

enrichment facility. The NRC staff is in the initial stages of developing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located near Idaho Falls, Idaho in Bonneville 

County. The facility, if licensed, lNOuld use a gas centrifuge based technology to enrich the 

isotope uranium-235 in uranium hexafluoride up to 5 percent by weight. The EIS will document 

the impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

facility. 

NRC requests information on the following items within the action area for the proposed facility, 

if available: 

• Endangered or threatened species, or other species of concern to the state of Idaho, 

that are known to be or likely to be at the proposed AREVA site, and nearest known 

locations based on the element occurrence database. Enclosed is a preliminary list of 

species compiled from Idaho Fish and Game (I DFG) county lists (plants) and the I DFG 

Snake River Basalts Ecological Section list (animals). Habitat on the site consists of 

sagebrush steppe, non-native grassland (primarily crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass), 

and irrigated crops. 

• Nearest known lek sites (based on the element occurrence database), nesting habitat, 

brood-rearing habitat, and winter habitat for greater sage grouse, migratory status of the 

local population, the number of leks nears the site, and trends. 

• Information on Sagebrush Reserves (location, size, species, management) or other 

sensitive or rare habitats in the project vicinity. 

• Information on mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herds, including seasonal habitat (such as 

crucial winter habitat areas), local migration routes, and concerns such as population 

trends. 

• Important migration routes for migratory birds. 

• Maps or GIS shapefiles regarding species or habitats. 

• Concerns of I DFG regarding potential impacts of the proposed project. 
 B-93 

P. Kjellander 2 

The proposed AES parcel is approximately 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres). AES states that the 

facility footprint encompasses 381 hectares (941 acres) of the site for which construction, 

operation, and decommissioning activities will occur. The proposed site is situated within 

Bonneville County, Idaho, on the north side of U.S. Highway 20, about 113 km (70 miles) west 

of the IdaholWyoming State line. The coordinates for the center of the action area are 43 

degrees, 35 minutes, 7.37 seconds North and longitude 112 degrees, 25 minutes, 28.71 

seconds West. 

We have enclosed additional background information relating to ecological resources on the 

site, including a map showing the action area, as it appears in the AES ER. 

We intend to use the EIS process to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. After assessing information you provide, we will determine what additional 

actions are necessary to comply with the Section 7 consultation process. If you have any 

questions or comments, or need any additional information, please contact Gloria Kulesa of my 

staff at 301-415-5308. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

Enclosures: 

1. Special Status Plants and Species 

2. Ecology Field Survey Report 

3. Fall 2008 Survey 

4. Sage Grouse Survey Report 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-94 

Idaho Special Status Plants and Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

Earth lichen (Catapyrenium congestum) 

Gray willow (Salix glauca) 

Green spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum) 

Iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis) 

Meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius) 

Payson's bladderpod (Lesquerella paysonii) 

Payson's milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) 

Red glasswort (Salicornia rubra) 

Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) 

Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

Western Sedge (Carex occidentalis) 

Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) 

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

Ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) 

Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

Blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

California gull (Larus californicus) 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Franklin's gull (Larus pipixcan) 

Juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) 

Lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

Northern pintail (Anas acuta) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) 

Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae) 

White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

Great Basin ground squirrel (Spermophilus mollis) 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) 

Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis) 

Little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris) 

Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami) 

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

Townsend's big-eared bat (CorynorhinuslPlecotus townsendii) 

Townsend's pocket gopher (Thomomys townsendii) 

Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans) 

Enclosure 1 
 B-95 

Paul Kjellander 

Idaho Office of Energy Resources 

322 East Front Street, Suite 560 

Post Office Box 83720 

Boise, Idaho 83720-0199 

February 18, 2010 

SUBJECT: COORDINATION REGARDING ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FOR 

PROPOSED AREVA EAGLE ROCK URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY, 

BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. Kjellander: 

As discussed in our earlier letter to you dated June 24, 2009, AREVA Enrichment Services LLC 

(AES) has submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) for a 

license to construct, operate, and decommission a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. 

The proposed facility, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF), would be located in 

Bonneville County, Idaho, near Idaho Falls. NRC is preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) in support of its licensing action for this facility. The purpose of the present 

letter is to report an addition to the scope of the EREF project, a 161-kilovolt (KV) transmission 

line to power the facility. 

On January 29, 2010, AES submitted information to NRC for the construction and operation of a 

proposed transmission line, an electrical substation, and substation upgrades. The locations of 

the transmission line and substations are shown in the January 29, 2010 submittal, a copy of 

which is enclosed. NRC's EIS for the proposed EREF will include a discussion of the impacts 

associated with the construction and operation of the transmission line project. NRC requests 

your office's feedback on potential impacts to electrical distribution in the area of the EREF or 

on any other matter related to the proposed transmission line or the EREF project itself. Also, 

we understand that your office coordinates with other State of Idaho agencies on energy 

resource matters. Therefore, please feel free to share this letter with other State agencies. NRC 

is already coordinating separately with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

The new transmission line and associated structures would be located entirely on private land 

within Bonneville County. Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a division of PacifiCorp, will be the 

builder, owner, and operator. The transmission line would originate from the existing RMP 

Bonneville Substation and extend in a general westward direction to the new point of service, 

the Twin Buttes Substation on the proposed EREF site. Beginning at the Bonneville Substation, 

the proposed transmission line route is west along the county road 0fVest 65 North Street) to 

the existing RMP Kettle Substation, a distance of approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles), 

continuing west to the eastern portion of the EREF site, a distance of approximately 

1.2 kilometer (0.75 mile), then north within the EREF site to its northern end, then west and 

south to the new RMP Twin Buttes Substation, for a distance of approximately 6.4 kilometers 

(4 miles). The area being affected by the transmission line is approximately 84 hectares 

(208 acres). 
 B-96 

P. Kjellander 2 

If you have any questions regarding this request, or need additional information, please contact 

Stephen Lemont of my staff at 301-415-5163 or Stephen.Lemont@nrc.gov. 

Enclosure: 

January 29, 2010 Ltr. 

Docket No: 70-7015 

Sincerely, 

IRAJ 

Andrea Kock, Chief 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 B-97 

Mr. Matt McMillen, Director 

Environmental Compliance Division 

Loan Programs Office, DOE 

U.S. Department of Energy LP 10 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

November 23,2010 

SUBJECT: OCTOBER 21,2010, TELEPHONE CONVERSATION REGARDING 

COMPLIANCE WITH FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT FOR THE 

PROPOSED AREVA ENRICHMENT SERVICES LLC EAGLE ROCK 

ENRICHMENT FACILITY IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO 

Dear Mr. McMillen: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appreciates the participation of U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO) staff in telephone conversations with 

NRC staff regarding compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) for the 

proposed AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). For 

this project, the NRC is currently reviewing the license application from AES, and the DOE LPO 

has offered AES a conditional loan guarantee. 

During an October 21, 2010, telephone conversation between Mr. Joseph Montgomery, DOE 

LPO consultant, and Mr. Stephen Lemont of the NRC, Mr. Montgomery related the DOE LPO's 

decision to go through the FPPA process for the proposed EREF project, including the 

completion of the necessary U.S. Department of Agriculture forms over the next few weeks. 

This is appropriate because the DOE's loan guarantee action is subject to the requirements of 

the FPPA, but the NRC's licensing action is not. It was also discussed that in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement the NRC is currently preparing in support of its licensing 

action, there will be language to the effect that (1) the DOE conditional loan guarantee action is 

subject to the requirements of the FPPA for purposes of the EREF project, and (2) the DOE has 

completed/will complete the required farmland conversion impact rating and any associated 

actions or determinations in compliance with the FPPA, as necessary. 
 B-98 

M. McMillen 2 

Please contact Mr. Stephen Lemont of my office at 301-415-5163, or by email at 

Stephen.Lemont@nrc gov, if you have any questions. Thank you. 

Docket No.: 70-7015 

cc: Joseph Montgomery, DOE 

Sincerely, 

IRAI 

David L. Skeen, Acting Deputy Director 

Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs 
 C-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX C 

15 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 

 C-3 

1 APPENDIX C 

2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 

3 

4 Air quality modeling was performed to estimate concentration increments at the property 

5 boundary as a result of air emissions during the construction phase at the proposed Eagle Rock 

6 Enrichment Facility (EREF). Air quality modeling was performed for criteria air pollutants 

7 including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate 

8 matter (PM) (particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic 

9 diameter [PM10] and particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic 

diameter [PM2.5]). Air quality modeling for ozone (O3) and lead was not conducted.1 10 The 

11 following sections describe the air dispersion model, determination of surface characteristics, 

12 meteorological data processing, terrain data processing, and the modeling assumptions behind 

13 the results and the discussions presented in Section 4.2.4. 

14 

15 C.1 Selection of Air Dispersion Model 

16 

17 For this modeling analysis, the latest version of the AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel (AERMOD) 

18 modeling system (Version 07026) (EPA, 2009) was used. AERMOD is the U.S. Environmental 

19 Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) preferred or recommended model for a wide range of regulatory 

20 applications (EPA, 2009). AERMOD is a refined, steady-state plume model that incorporates air 

21 dispersion based on state-of-the-art planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling 

22 concepts, building wake effects, and plume downwash for point sources. It includes treatment 

23 of both surface and elevated sources (including multiple-point, area, and volume sources) and 

24 both simple and complex terrain, and can be applied to rural and urban areas. The model uses 

25 hourly sequential preprocessed meteorological data to estimate not only airborne 

26 concentrations but also dry and wet deposition fluxes for both particulate and gaseous 

27 emissions of nonreactive pollutants for averaging times ranging from one hour to periods as 

28 long as one to multiple years. 

29 

30 AERMOD contains three major separate components: 

31 

32 • AERMET – meteorological data preprocessor that incorporates air dispersion based on 

33 planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts 

34 

35 • AERMAP – terrain data preprocessor that incorporates complex terrain using digital 

36 elevation data 

37 

 

1

 At a regional level, ozone is formed by highly complex and nonlinear reactions involving nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) precursors. Air quality modeling for ozone requires 

extensive meteorological and emission data processing and substantial computational resources. 

Neither construction- nor operation-related activities would produce impacts high enough to have 

significant influence on regional ozone levels. No ozone modeling is therefore warranted. Air quality 

modeling for lead was not conducted because there are no significant sources of lead emissions 

related to the projected activities at the proposed EREF. Since the phase-out of leaded gasoline in 

the 1970s, ambient air impacts from lead emissions during construction and operation of the proposed 

EREF would be insignificant. 
 C-4 

1 • AERMOD – air dispersion model to estimate airborne concentrations and dry/wet deposition 

2 fluxes 

3 

4 In addition, AERSURFACE, a surface characteristics preprocessor part of AERMOD that 

5 estimates surface characteristics including surface roughness length, albedo, and Bowen ratio 

6 for input to the AERMET was also run to complement and refine the AERMOD results. Two 

7 other related modeling programs, BPIPPRIME (a tool that calculates building parameters to 

8 account for building downwash effects of point source(s) for input to the AERMOD) and 

9 AERSCREEN (a screening model for AERMOD that produces estimates of regulatory design 

10 concentrations without the need for meteorological data and is designed to produce more 

11 conservative results than AERMOD) are also part of the AERMOD dispersion modeling system. 

12 However, neither would have produced relevant or more accurate results applicable to the 

13 proposed EREF site and were therefore not used. 

14 

15 C.2 Determination of Surface Characteristics 

16 

17 In order to compute the fluxes and stability of the atmosphere, AERMET needs three surface 

18 characteristic parameters: surface roughness length, albedo, and the Bowen ratio. The surface 

19 roughness length is a measure of irregularities at the surface, including vegetation, topography, 

20 and structures, which influence the near-surface wind stress. Surface roughness length plays 

21 the most crucial role in determining the magnitude of mechanical turbulence and the stability of 

22 the boundary layer. The typical values range from 0.001 meter (0.003 feet) over calm water 

23 surfaces and 1 meter (3.3 feet) or more over a forest or urban area. Albedo is the ratio of the 

24 amount of radiation reflected from the surface to the amount of radiation incident on the surface. 

25 Typical values range from 0.1 for thick deciduous forests to 0.9 for fresh snow. The Bowen 

26 ratio, an indicator of surface moisture, is the ratio of sensible heat flux to the latent heat flux. 

27 The Bowen ratio is used to determine the planetary boundary layer parameters for convective 

28 conditions. The typical values range from 0.1 over water to 10 over desert at midday. 

29 

30 Surface characteristics should represent the meteorological data at the application site. If such 

31 data is not available for the application site, then data from a nearby representative 

32 measurement site must instead be used. The proposed EREF has no onsite meteorological 

33 station. The nearest meteorological station is near the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) 

34 within the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site, which is located about 11 miles (18 kilometers) 

35 west of the proposed EREF. The MFC and proposed EREF sites are located in the middle of 

36 the Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP), which is a wide flat bow-shaped depression extending 

37 about 400 miles (640 kilometers). The elevation and terrain features and land uses surrounding 

38 the MFC area are comparable to those of the proposed EREF site. Accordingly, the MFC site is 

39 considered adequately representative of the proposed EREF site and was used as a substitute 

40 for onsite meteorological data for this assessment. 

41 

42 The AERSURFACE tool was developed to aid users in obtaining realistic and reproducible 

43 surface characteristic values, which is, in turn, input to AERMET. AERSURFACE requires land 

44 cover data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Data 1992 archives 

45 (NLCD92). These surface characteristics for the MFC site, downloaded from the USGS Web 

46 site (http://seamless.usgs.gov/), were used as representative of the land cover types around the 

47 proposed EREF site. 

48 
 C-5 

1 Seasonal surface characteristics were determined for each of twelve 30-degree sectors for this 

2 analysis. A default upwind distance of 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) from the measurement sites on the 

3 proposed EREF property was used to determine the surface roughness values, per 

4 recommendation in EPA’s AERMOD Implementation Guide (EPA, 2009). A default domain 

5 defined by a 10-kilometer by 10-kilometer (6.2-mile by 6.2-mile) area centered on the 

6 measurement sites at the proposed EREF property was used for determination of albedo and 

7 Bowen ratio. To determine the Bowen ratio, the surface moisture condition around the 

8 proposed site was needed to characterize the proposed EREF site relative to climatological 

9 normals. Surface moisture conditions for the Bowen ratio were determined by year, based on 

10 the 30-year (19712000) annual precipitation record at the Pocatello Municipal Airport, which 

11 has more comprehensive precipitation data than other nearby meteorological sites, including 

12 National Weather Service’s (NWS) MFC station (NCDC, 2009a,b). For this analysis, annual 

13 precipitation data from the MFC site for the years 2004–2008 were compared to the 

14 representative dry, normal, and wet conditions established using the 30-year Pocatello Airport 

precipitation data. If annual precipitation for each of these years falls within lower-30th 15 

percentile or the upper-30th 16 percentile of the 30-year record, dry and wet conditions, 

17 respectively, are assigned. Otherwise, average moisture conditions are assigned. Year 2005 

18 was characterized as a wet condition; 2008 was characterized as a dry condition; 2004, 2006, 

19 and 2007 were characterized as average with respect to annual rainfall. Additional inputs to 

20 affect surface characteristic values include whether the site is an airport, an arid region, or 

21 experiences continuous snow cover most of the winter. For this analysis, the MFC site was 

22 identified as a non-airport site, so the AERSURFACE model would select high surface 

23 roughness values representative of commercial and industrial land cover. For selection of an 

24 arid region such as the location of the proposed EREF, the AERSURFACE model uses the 

25 seasonal characteristics for shrubland and bare rock/sand/clay categories that are more 

26 representative of a desert area. Appropriate seasonal values for the three parameters are 

27 applied, depending on whether the site experiences continuous snow cover most of the winter. 

28 

29 C.3 Meteorological Data Processing 

30 

31 The meteorological data preprocessor AERMET requires three types of data: data collected 

32 from an onsite measurement program such as from an instrumented tower, if available; NWS 

33 hourly surface observations; and NWS twice-daily upper air soundings. As discussed above, 

34 the MFC site was assumed to represent the proposed EREF site for this assessment. 

35 

36 Meteorological data at the MFC site, including wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, 

37 and standard deviation of horizontal wind direction, were collected at two heights (10 and 

38 76 meters [33 and 249 feet]). Surface wind data measured at an elevation of 1.5 meters from a 

39 nearby airport are typically used to describe surface characteristics for the site. Three airports 

40 exist within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the proposed EREF: Idaho Falls (31 kilometers 

41 [19 miles]), Pocatello (76 kilometers [47 miles]), and Rexburg (58 kilometers [36 miles]). 

42 Because of its proximity to the proposed EREF site, hourly surface meteorological data from 

43 Idaho Falls Fanning Field were used for estimating boundary layer parameters. Twice-daily 

44 upper soundings data from the NWS station in Boise, Idaho, were used. This station is located 

45 in the Western Snake River Plain and is the only station in Idaho at which upper soundings data 

46 are collected. The most recent five years (2004 to 2008) of meteorological data from the NWS 

47 station at the Idaho Falls Fanning Field Airport, together with meteorological data from MFC and 

48 upper sounding data from the NWS station in Boise, Idaho, were processed as inputs to the 
 C-6 

1 AERMOD model. Table C-1 presents detailed information on surface, upper-air, and onsite 

2 meteorological stations, data file formats, anemometer heights, and distance and direction from 

3 the proposed EREF. 

4 

5 Typically, the wind speed threshold of sensors at monitoring stations not located at an airport is 

6 low (e.g., 0.134 meter per second [0.440 feet per second] for the MFC data), but the wind speed 

7 threshold for airport data is set at 1 meter per second (3.28 feet per second) by default in 

8 AERMET. Accordingly, AERMOD modeling results using non-airport data could be higher than 

9 using airport data. However, AERMOD tends to overpredict non-buoyant low-level releases in 

10 low-wind speed conditions (Paine and Connors, 2009), resulting in a conservative estimation of 

11 impact. An additional AERMOD run was made assuming the sensor threshold of 1 meter per 

12 second (3.28 feet per second) to determine the sensitivity of the modeling results to sensor 

13 threshold values. Tables C-2 and C-3 provide an indication of AERMOD’s sensitivity to wind 

14 speed thresholds. 

15 

16 Figure C-1 presents a wind rose at the 10-meter (33-foot) level of the MFC station for the 

17 20042008 period. The area experiences the predominant southwest–northeast wind flows at 

18 the proposed EREF site. The mountains bordering the ESRP would act to channel the 

19 prevailing west winds into a southwesterly flow due to the northeast–southwest orientation of 

20 the ESRP between the bordering mountain ranges. The prevailing wind directions are from the 

21 southwest (about 16 percent of the time) and secondarily from the south-southwest 

22 (13.3 percent). Winds from northeast and north-northeast combined occur more than 

23 18 percent of the time. In January, winds blow equally from south-southwest, north-northeast, 

24 and northeast; in February, north-northeast winds prevail. From March through December, 

25 

Table C-1 Meteorological Data Information 

Station 

Name Station ID Location 

(lat/long)a

Elevation

(m) 

File 

Format 

Anemometer 

Height (m) 

Distance & 

Direction from 

Proposed 

EREFa

Notes 

Surface 

Idaho 

Falls 

Fanning 

Field 

KIDA 

USAF: 725785 

WBAN: 24145 

43.517N 

112.067W 

1445 ISHD 

(TD-3505) 

7.9 19 mi eastsoutheast 

NAb

Upper Air 

Boise BOI 

WBAN: 24131 

WMO: 72681 

43.57N 

116.22W 

871 FSL NA 190 mi west NA 

Onsite 

Materials 

and Fuels 

Complex 

(MFC) 

NA 43.594N 

112.652W 

1568 NA 10 and 76 11 mi west Sensor 

threshold = 

0.134 m/s 

a

 Proposed EREF: latitude=43.585N; longitude=112.425W; elevation=1583 m. 

b

 NA = not applicable. 

Source: Hukari, 2009; NCDC, 2009c; NOAA, 2009. 26 
 C-7 

Table C-2 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

Construction Activities of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho 

(Sensor Threshold = 0.134 meter per second [0.440 feet per second]) 

 Concentration (μg/m3, except ppm for CO)b Percent of 

NAAQS/SAAQSc

Pollutanta Averaging 

Time 

Maximum 

Incrementd Backgrounde Total NAAQS/ SAAQS Increment Total 

CO 1 hour 0.8 4.3 5.1 35 2.4 14.6 

 8 hours 0.1 2.1 2.2 9 1.5 24.9 

NO2 Annual 1.0 11.3 12.3 100 1.0 12.3 

SO2 3 hours 11.3 159.7 171.0 1300 0.9 13.2 

 24 hours 1.8 62.8 64.6 365 0.5 17.7 

 Annual 0.1 15.7 15.8 80 0.1 19.7 

PM10 24 hours 355.2 52.0 407.2 150 236.8 271.5 

 Annual 15.9 22.0 37.9 50 31.8 75.8 

PM2.5 24 hours 15.9 21.0 36.9 35 45.3 105.3 

 Annual 1.6 6.4 8.0 15 10.5 53.2 

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = particulate 

matter ≤10m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. b To convert μg/m3

 to ppm for gaseous pollutants, such as SO2 and NO2, divide values in μg/m3 by the product of 

40.82 and the molecular weight. 

c

 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; SAAQS = State Ambient Air Quality Standards. d For short-term (≤24 hours) averages, the highest of the second-highest modeled concentrations over five years 

is presented, except for PM10 and PM2.5. For 24-hour PM10, high-6th-high over five years (2004–2008) is 

presented. For PM2.5, the highest of the five-year average of the 8th-highest concentration at each receptor is 

presented. For long-term (annual) average, the highest of the annual averages over five years is presented for 

NO2 and SO2. The highest of multi-year averaged annual means across the receptors are presented for PM10

and PM2.5. e Source: Table 4-4. 

1 

2 winds blow predominantly from southwest or south-southwest. Average annual wind speed is 

3 about 4.1 meters per second (9.2 miles per hour), and relatively low calm winds are recorded 

4 about 0.17 percent of the time due to low sensor threshold. Wind speeds of 4.6 meters per 

5 second (10.4 miles per hour) are the highest in spring, reducing in summer and fall, and 

6 become the lowest at 3.4 meters per second (7.7 miles per hour) in winter.

7 

8 C.4 Terrain Data Processing 

9 

10 The AERMAP terrain data preprocessor was used to account for the effects of terrain features. 

11 The terrain elevations for source and receptor locations were estimated based on the Digital 

12 Elevation Model (DEM) elevation data in the USGS DEM format (USGS, 2008). For the 

13 AERMOD modeling, 12 vertices for the construction site of about 75 hectares (185 acres) were 

14 identified, and sixty-two receptors were placed along the property line of the proposed EREF 

15 site, the overall size of which is about 208 hectares (515 acres). No offsite receptors were 
 C-8 

Table C-3 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

Construction Activities of the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho 

(Sensor Threshold = 1 meter per second [3.28 feet per second]) 

 Concentration (μg/m3, except ppm for CO)b Percent of 

NAAQS/SAAQSc

Pollutanta Averaging 

Time 

Maximum 

Incrementd Backgrounde

 Total NAAQS/ 

SAAQS Increment Total 

CO 1 hour 0.3 4.3 4.6 35 0.9 13.2 

 8 hours 0.1 2.1 2.2 9 0.8 24.1 

NO2 Annual 0.8 11.3 12.1 100 0.8 12.1 

SO2 3 hours 6.3 159.7 166.0 1300 0.5 12.8 

 24 hours 1.0 62.8 67.8 365 0.3 17.5 

 Annual 0.1 15.7 15.8 80 0.1 19.7 

PM10 24 hours 189.9 52.0 241.9 150 126.6 161.3 

 Annual 13.1 22.0 35.1 50 26.2 70.2 

PM2.5 24 hours 12.0 21.0 33.0 35 34.1 94.1 

 Annual 1.3 6.4 7.7 15 8.6 51.3 

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = particulate 

matter ≤10 m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. b To convert μg/m3

 to ppm for gaseous pollutants, such as SO2 and NO2, divide values in μg/m3 by the product of 

40.82 and the molecular weight. 

c

 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; SAAQS = State Ambient Air Quality Standards. d For short-term (≤24 hours) averages, the highest of the second-highest modeled concentrations over five years is 

presented except PM10 and PM2.5. For 24-hour PM10, high-6th-high over five years (2004–2008) is presented. For 

PM2.5, the highest of the five-year average of the 8th-highest concentration at each receptor is presented. For longterm (annual) average, the highest of the annual averages over five years is presented for NO2 and SO2. The 

highest of multi-year averaged annual means across the receptors are presented for PM10 and PM2.5. e Source: Table 4-6. 

1 

2 established because most emission sources at the construction site would be either area 

3 sources or point/mobile sources with low stack height, resulting in most emissions being 

4 released at ground or near-ground level. Thus, maximum concentrations would occur in the 

5 immediate vicinity of the source and would be adequately reflected in property boundary 

6 receptors. The AREAPOLY source option was used to specify an area source as an irregularly 

7 shaped polygon of a construction site, and one elevation representative of the construction site 

8 was needed for input to the AERMOD. For receptors, AERMAP determines the elevations of 

9 receptors along with hill height scale, which is the elevation of the terrain feature that dominates 

10 the flow at a receptor of interest. The area surrounding the proposed EREF has no significant 

11 terrain features nearby, so hill height scales for all receptors were equal to their elevations. 

12 

13 
 C-9 

1 

2 Figure C-1 Wind Rose at 10-meter (33-foot) Level at the Meteorological Station near 

3 the Materials and Fuels Complex within the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho, 

4 2004–2008 (data from Hukari, 2009) 

5 
 C-10 

1 C.5 Modeling Assumptions 

2 

3 The following assumptions were established for air quality modeling and modeling result 

4 interpretations: 

5 

6 • Construction activities would occur 5 days/week (or 260 days per year) and 10 hours per 

7 day work schedule (7 am to 5 pm). In AERMOD, modeling was conducted for all 365 days 

8 in a year, and maximum 24-hour concentration and annual average concentrations were 

9 selected. Annual average concentrations were adjusted by multiplying the ratio of annual 

10 working days to the possible number of days in a year (260/365). 

11 

12 • Dry and wet deposition mechanisms are uncertain and are not recommended by EPA to be 

13 included in regulatory compliance decisions (EPA, 2005, 2009), and thus are not 

14 recommended for inclusion for typical applications unless special cases or objectives exist 

15 (e.g., deposition impacts on vegetation). Accordingly, no dry and wet depositions for 

16 construction-related PM modeling were assumed, i.e., conservatively, all PMs were 

17 presumed to be airborne. 

18 

19 • For the purpose of modeling demonstrations of compliance with the National Ambient Air 

20 Quality Standards (NAAQS), the following modeled concentrations were used for 

21 comparison with the NAAQS as recommended by EPA (EPA, 2005): highest of the second22 highest modeled concentrations over five years were presented for 1-hour and 8-hour CO 

23 and 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 and the highest of the annual averages over five years were 

24 presented for annual averages for SO2 and NO2. For PM10, high-6th-high over five years 

25 (2004–2008) was presented. For PM2.5, the highest of the five-year average of the high26 8th-high concentration at each receptor was presented. Highest of five-year average annual 

27 means across the receptors for PM10 and PM2.5 were presented. 

28 

29 • It was assumed that about 75 hectares (185 acres) would be disturbed in any year 

30 somewhere in the 208-hectare (515-acre) proposed EREF construction site. Accordingly, 

31 emissions corresponding to disturbance of 75 hectares (185 acres) were uniformly 

32 distributed over the 208-hectare (515-acre) proposed EREF construction site. Note that 

33 modeled concentration increments are expected to be higher than values predicted here 

34 when construction activities would occur near the construction site boundary. 

35 

36 C.6 Modeling Results 

37 

38 Air quality modeling estimates concentration increments over the background. To obtain total 

39 concentrations for comparison with applicable air quality standards, these modeled 

40 concentration increments were added to measured background concentrations at ambient air 

41 quality monitoring sites operated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

42 (see Table 4-4) that are representative of the proposed EREF site. 

43 

44 To quantify the anticipated bias introduced by the AERMOD model in estimating dispersion 

45 concentrations in low wind speed conditions, the model was run at two low wind speed default 

46 values, 0.134 meters per second (0.440 feet per second) and the higher 1 meter per second 

47 (3.28 feet per second), with the results displayed in Tables C-2 and C-3, respectively. At either 

48 low wind speed default value, the model predicted exceedance of only the particulate standards. 
 C-11 

1 However, allowing the model to use the higher low wind speed default value resulted in 

2 significant reductions in the extent to which the PM10 standard was exceeded, 271.5 percent to 

3 161.3 percent, and reduced the anticipated dispersed concentrations of PM2.5 from 

4 105.3 percent of the standard to 94.1 percent of the standard. 

5 

6 During the construction phase, estimated maximum concentration increments and total 

7 concentrations are shown in Tables C-2 and C-3 for a given sensor threshold of 0.134 meter per 

8 second (0.440 feet per second) and a default AERMET sensor threshold of 1 meter per second 

9 (3.28 feet per second), respectively. 

10 

11 C.7 References 

12 

13 (EPA, 2005) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “40 CFR Part 51 Revision to the Guideline 

14 on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 

15 Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule.” Federal Register, Volume 70, No. 216, 

16 pages 68218–68261. November 9. <http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/ 

17 appw_05.pdf> (Accessed June 10, 2010). 

18 

19 (EPA, 2009) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Preferred/Recommended Models – 

20 AERMOD Modeling System.” <http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm> 

21 (Accessed July 23, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101810212. 

22 

23 (Hukari, 2009) Hukari, N. Personal communication from N. Hukari (NOAA/ARLFRD, Idaho 

24 Falls, Idaho) to R. Kolpa (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.) dated July 15, 2009. 

25 

26 (NCDC, 2009a) National Climatic Data Center. “1999 Local Climatological Data Annual 

27 Summary with Comparative Data, Pocatello, Idaho (KPIH).” <http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/ 

28 lcd/lcd.html> (Accessed July 31, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101810215. 

29 

30 (NCDC, 2009b) National Climatic Data Center. “2008 Local Climatological Data Annual 

31 Summary with Comparative Data, Pocatello, Idaho (KPIH).” <http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/ 

32 lcd/lcd.html> (Accessed July 31, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101810229. 

33 

34 (NCDC, 2009c) National Climatic Data Center. “Integrated Surface Database.” 

35 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/isd/index.php/> (Accessed August 1, 2009). ADAMS 

36 Accession No. ML101810230. 

37 

38 (NOAA, 2009) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde 

39 Database Access.” <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/> (Accessed August 1, 2009). ADAMS 

40 Accession No. ML101810257. 

41 

42 (Paine and Connors, 2009) Paine, R.J., and J.A. Connors. “Progress Report: Low Wind Speed 

43 Evaluation Study.” Paper 2009-A-406-AWMA. Presented at the Air & Waste Management 

44 Association’s 102nd Annual Conference & Exhibition, Detroit, Michigan. June 1619. 

45 

46 (USGS, 2008) United States Geological Survey. “Digital Elevation Model (DEM).” Data 

47 obtained from WEBGIS. <http://www.webgis.com/terr_pages/terr_dem75_id.html> 

48 (Accessed August 8, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101810261. 

 D-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX D 

15 TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND IMPACTS 

 D-3 

1 APPENDIX D 

2 TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND IMPACTS 

3 

4 D.1 Introduction 

5 

6 This appendix presents the detailed methodology, input parameters and assumptions, and 

7 results for the transportation impact assessment performed in this Environmental Impact 

8 Statement (EIS) for the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). The analysis 

9 evaluates the transportation of: 

10 

11 • natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (i.e., not enriched) feed to the proposed EREF 

12 

13 • enriched UF6 product to fuel fabrication facilities and international ports 

14 

15 • depleted UF6 to a conversion facility 

16 

17 • empty feed, product, and tails cylinders containing residual contamination 

18 

19 • low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) for disposal 

20 

21 Because rail access is not convenient to the proposed EREF site, AREVA Enrichment Services, 

22 LLC (AES) has proposed to use only heavy-haul tractor-trailer combination trucks for the 

23 transport of radioactive shipments. 

24 

25 The impact assessment determines the origin and destination of each type of shipment, the 

26 amount of radioactive material in each shipment and the associated packaging, and impacts to 

27 the environment from these shipments. The WebTRAGIS and RADTRAN 5 computer codes 

28 (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2003; Weiner et al., 2008) were used extensively in this analysis 

29 and are discussed in more detail later. The appendix is organized into separate sections that 

30 describe the radioactive materials, the shipping routes, the dose assessments, and the results. 

31 

32 D.2 Methodology 

33 

34 The transportation impact assessment considers human health risks from routine transport 

35 (normal, incident-free conditions) of radioactive materials and from potential accidents. In both 

36 cases, risks associated with the nature of the cargo itself, or “cargo-related” impacts, and those 

37 related to the vehicle (regardless of type of cargo), or “vehicle-related” impacts, are considered. 

38 

39 The RADTRAN 5 computer code (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2003; Weiner et al., 2008) was used 

40 in the assessment of routine (incident-free) and accident cargo-related risk to estimate the 

41 radiological impacts on collective populations. RADTRAN was originally developed by Sandia 

42 National Laboratories in the late 1970s to facilitate calculations presented in Final 

43 Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other 

44 Modes, Volumes I and II (NUREG-0170) (NRC, 1977) and is the nationally accepted standard 

45 program for calculating the risks of transporting radioactive materials. The code has been 

46 updated several times to remain abreast of improvements in computer technology and has been 

47 used extensively to calculate population risks associated with the transportation of radioactive 

48 materials by truck, rail, air, ship, or barge. 

49 
 D-4 

1 D.2.1 Routine Transportation Risk Methodology 

2 

3 The radiological risk associated with routine (incident-free) transportation is cargo-related and 

4 results from the potential exposure to low levels of external radiation near a loaded shipment. It 

5 is assumed that there are no cargo-related risks posed by incident-free transport of hazardous 

6 chemicals. No direct chemical exposure to radioactive material will occur during routine 

7 transport because, as discussed in Section D.2.2.2, the packaging is designed and maintained 

8 to ensure containment and shielding of contents during normal transport. Any leakage or 

9 unintended release of radiological or chemical material is considered under accident risks. 

10 

11 Vehicle-related risks during routine transportation are caused by potential exposure to increased 

12 vehicular emissions. These emissions include diesel exhaust, tire and brake particulate 

13 emissions, and fugitive dust suspended from the roadbed by passing vehicles. 

14 

15 D.2.1.1 Collective Population Risk 

16 

17 The radiological risk associated with routine (incident-free) transportation results from the 

18 potential exposure to low-level external radiation in the vicinity of loaded shipments. Even 

19 under routine transportation conditions, some radiological exposure would occur. Because 

20 radiological consequences (dose) would occur as a direct result of normal operations, the 

21 probability of exposure is assumed to be 1 in RADTRAN 5. Because risk is typically defined as 

22 the product of probability and consequence/magnitude, the risk is then equivalent to the 

23 estimated dose. This risk is directly comparable to the accident risk discussed in Section D.2.2. 

24 

25 For routine transportation, RADTRAN 5 considers major groups of potentially exposed persons 

26 and calculates exposure risks from routine highway transportation for the following population 

27 groups: 

28 

29 • Persons along the Route (Off-Link). Collective doses were calculated for all persons living 

30 or working within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of each side of a transportation route. The total 

31 number of persons within the 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) corridor was calculated separately for 

32 each route considered in the assessment. 

33 

34 • Persons Sharing the Route (On-Link). Collective doses were calculated for persons in all 

35 vehicles sharing the transportation route. This group includes persons traveling in the same 

36 or opposite directions as the shipment, as well as persons in vehicles passing the shipment. 

37 

38 • Persons at Stops. Collective doses were calculated for persons who might be exposed 

39 while a shipment is stopped en route. For truck transportation, these stops include those for 

40 refueling, food, and rest. 

41 

42 • Crew Members. Collective doses were calculated for truck transportation crew members 

43 involved in the actual shipment of material. Workers involved in loading or unloading were 

44 not considered. 

45 

46 The doses calculated for the first three population groups were summed to yield the collective 

47 dose to the public; the dose calculated for the fourth group represents the collective dose to 

48 occupationally exposed workers. 

49 
 D-5 

1 The RADTRAN 5 calculations for routine dose generically compute the dose rate as a function 

2 of distance from a point source (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2003). Associated with the calculation 

3 of routine doses for each exposed population group are parameters such as the radiation field 

4 strength, the source–receptor distance, the duration of exposure, vehicular speed, stopping 

5 time, traffic density, and route characteristics (such as population density). The RADTRAN 

6 manual contains derivations of the equations used and descriptions of these parameters 

7 (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2003; Weiner et al., 2008). 

8 

9 D.2.1.2 Maximally Exposed Individual Risk 

10 

11 In addition to the assessment of the routine (incident-free) collective population risk, the risk to a 

12 maximally exposed individual (MEI) was estimated. In RADTRAN 5, the MEI is assumed to be 

13 located 30 meters (100 feet) from the transport route as the radioactive shipment passes at a 

14 speed of 24 kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour). 

15 

16 D.2.1.3 Vehicle-Related Risk 

17 

18 Vehicle-related health risks resulting from routine (incident-free) transportation are associated 

19 with the generation of air pollutants during shipment and are independent of cargo. The health 

20 endpoint assessed under routine transportation conditions was the excess latent mortality from 

21 inhalation of vehicular emissions. These emissions consist of particulate matter in the form of 

22 diesel engine exhaust, tire and brake particulates, and fugitive dust suspended from the 

23 roadway by transport vehicles. Vehicle-related risks from routine transportation were calculated 

24 for each shipment by multiplying the total distance traveled by the appropriate risk factor 

25 (i.e., for the specific type of vehicle) for pollutant inhalation, as discussed in Section D.3.6. 

26 

27 D.2.2 Accident Transportation Risk Methodology 

28 

29 The cargo-related radiological risk from transportation accidents is attributable to the potential 

30 release and dispersal of radioactive material into the environment during an accident and the 

31 subsequent exposure of the nearby population through multiple exposure pathways 

32 (i.e., inhalation, exposure to contaminated soil, or ingestion of contaminated food). Cargo33 related hazardous chemical impacts on human health during transportation accidents arise from 

34 container failure and the inhalation of chemicals released during an accident. 

35 

36 The risk analysis for potential accidents differs fundamentally from that of routine (incident-free) 

37 transportation because occurrences of accidents are statistical in nature and the accident risk 

38 assessment is treated probabilistically. Accident risk is defined as the product of the accident 

39 consequence (dose or exposure) and the probability of the accident occurring. In this respect, 

40 the analysis estimates the collective accident risk to populations by considering a spectrum of 

41 transportation-related accidents. The spectrum of accidents was designed to encompass a 

42 range of possible accidents, including low-probability accidents that have high consequences 

43 and high-probability accidents that have low consequences (such as “fender-benders”). For 

44 radiological risk, the results for collective accident risk can be directly compared to the results 

45 for routine collective risk because the latter results implicitly incorporate a probability of 

46 occurrence of 1 if the shipment takes place. 

47 

48 
 D-6 

1 Vehicle-related accident risks refer to the potential for transportation-related accidents and 

2 resulting fatalities caused by physical trauma, both of which are independent of cargo. 

3 

4 D.2.2.1 Radiological Accident Risk Assessment 

5 

6 The RADTRAN 5 calculation of collective accident risk uses models that quantify the range of 

7 potential accident severities and the responses of transported packages to accidents. The 

8 spectrum of accident severity is divided into several categories, each of which is assigned a 

9 conditional probability of occurrence – that is, the probability that if an accident occurs, it will be 

10 of a particular severity. Release fractions, defined as the fraction of the contents in a package 

11 that could be released in an accident, are assigned to each accident severity category on the 

12 basis of the physical and chemical form of the contents. The model takes into account the 

13 mode of transportation and the type of packaging through selection of the appropriate accident 

14 probabilities and release fractions, respectively. The accident rates, the definition of accident 

15 severity categories, and the release fractions used in this analysis are discussed further in 

16 Sections D.3.1.3, D.3.4.1, and D.3.4.2. 

17 

18 For accidents involving the release of radioactive material, RADTRAN 5 assumes that the 

19 material is dispersed in the environment according to standard Gaussian diffusion models. 

20 For this risk assessment, default data for atmospheric dispersion were used, representing an 

21 instantaneous ground-level release and a small-diameter source cloud (Neuhauser and 

22 Kanipe, 2003). The calculation of the collective population dose following the release and 

23 dispersal of radioactive material includes the following exposure pathways: 

24 

25 • external exposure to the passing radioactive cloud 

26 

27 • external exposure to contaminated ground 

28 

29 • internal exposure from inhalation of airborne contaminants 

30 

31 • internal exposure from the ingestion of contaminated food 

32 

33 For the ingestion pathway, the fraction of farmland in each State traversed was used as input to 

34 the RADTRAN code. Farmland fraction is used by RADTRAN to consider the amount of 

35 farmland that could be contaminated as a result of an accident, and subsequently lead to the 

36 ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. The majority of each shipping route is considered rural; 

37 urban and suburban segments are generally minimized when routing radiological materials. 

38 Doses of radiation from external exposure and the ingestion or inhalation of radionuclides were 

39 calculated by applying standard dose conversion factors (Eckerman and Ryman, 1993; 

40 ICRP, 1996). 

41 

42 D.2.2.2 Chemical Accident Risk Assessment 

43 

44 The risks from exposure to hazardous chemicals during transportation-related accidents, can be 

45 either acute (resulting in immediate injury or fatality) or latent (resulting in cancer that would 

46 present itself after a period of several years). However, none of the chemicals that might be 

47 encountered in any of the transportation accidents involving UF6 (i.e., HF and uranium 
 D-7 

1 compounds) is carcinogenic. As a result, no excess chemically induced latent cancers would be 

2 expected from accidental chemical releases. 

3 

4 The acute effects from uranium or HF intake considered were assumed to exhibit a threshold 

5 nonlinear relationship with exposure (i.e., some low level of exposure can be tolerated without 

6 inducing a health effect). To estimate risks, chemical-specific concentrations were developed 

7 for potential irreversible adverse effects (DOE, 1999a). All individuals exposed at these levels 

8 or higher following an accident were included in the transportation risk estimates. 

9 

10 The primary exposure route of concern with respect to accidental release of hazardous 

11 chemicals would be inhalation. Although direct exposure to hazardous chemicals via other 

12 pathways such as ingestion or absorption through the skin (dermal absorption) would also be 

13 possible, these routes would be expected to result in much lower exposure than the inhalation 

14 pathway doses for hydrogen fluoride (HF) or uranium compounds. The likelihood of acute 

15 effects would be much lower for the ingestion and dermal pathways than for inhalation. 

16 

17 The acute health effects end point – potential irreversible adverse effects – was considered for 

18 the assessment of cargo-related population impacts from transportation accidents involving 

19 hazardous chemicals. Past analyses of depleted UF6 shipments have shown that the estimates 

20 of irreversible adverse effects to be approximately 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than the 

21 estimates of public latent cancer fatalities from radiological accident exposure (DOE, 2004a,b; 

22 NRC, 2005a). In addition, only one percent or fewer of persons experiencing irreversible 

23 adverse effects from exposure to HF or uranium compounds actually results in fatality 

24 (Policastro et al., 1997). Because radiological accident impacts would be SMALL and the 

25 relative chemical hazards would be even smaller, no further analysis of chemical hazards posed 

26 by transport was conducted for this EIS. 

27 

28 D.2.2.3 Vehicle-Related Accident Risk Assessment 

29 

30 Vehicle-related accident risk refers to the potential for transportation accidents that could 

31 directly result in fatalities not related to the nature of the cargo. This risk represents fatalities 

32 from physical trauma, and State-average rates for transportation fatalities are used in the 

33 assessment. Vehicle-related accident risks are calculated by multiplying the total distance 

34 traveled by the State-specific rates for transportation fatalities. In all cases, the vehicle-related 

35 accident risks are calculated on the basis of distances for round-trip shipment, since the 

36 presence or absence of cargo is not a factor in accident frequency. 

37 

38 D.3 Input Parameters and Assumptions 

39 

40 The principal input parameters and assumptions used in the transportation risk assessment are 

41 discussed in this section. Transportation of hazardous chemical and radioactive materials is 

42 governed by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and U.S. Department of 

43 Transportation (DOT), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and U.S. Environmental 

44 Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. These regulations may be found in the U.S. Code of 

45 Federal Regulations (CFR) at 49 CFR Parts 171178 and 383397, 10 CFR Part 71, and 

46 40 CFR Parts 262 and 265, respectively. State organizations are also involved in regulating 

47 such transport within their borders. All transportation-related activities must be conducted in 

48 accordance with applicable regulations of these agencies. However, the DOT and NRC have 
 D-8 

1 primary regulatory responsibility for shipment of radioactive materials. The regulations most 

2 pertinent to this risk assessment can be found in 49 CFR Part 173, 49 CFR Part 397, and 

3 10 CFR Part 71. 

4 

5 D.3.1 Route Characteristics 

6 

7 The transportation route selected for a shipment determines the potentially exposed population 

8 and the expected frequency of transportation-related accidents. For truck transportation, the 

9 route characteristics most important to the risk assessment include the total shipping distance 

10 between each origin and destination and the population density along the route. 

11 

12 D.3.1.1 Route Selection 

13 

14 The DOT regulations concerning the routing of radioactive material shipments on public 

15 highways are prescribed in 49 CFR 397.101. The objectives of these regulations are to reduce 

16 the impacts of transporting radioactive materials, to establish consistent and uniform 

17 requirements for route selection, and to identify the role of State and local governments in 

18 routing radioactive materials. The regulations attempt to reduce potential hazards by 

19 prescribing that populous areas be avoided and that travel times be minimized. In addition, the 

20 regulations require that the carrier of radioactive materials ensures that the vehicle is operated 

21 on routes that minimize radiological risks, and that accident rates, transit times, population 

22 density and activity, time of day, and day of week are considered in determining risk. However, 

23 the final determination of the route is left to the discretion of the carrier. 

24 

25 For this analysis, all domestic shipments to and from the proposed EREF are anticipated to 

26 occur via heavy haul tractor-trailer combination trucks. There is no rail infrastructure at the 

27 proposed site, and the closest rail access is at least 20 miles away (see Section 3.10). 

28 Representative shipping routes were identified using the WebTRAGIS (Version 4.6.2) routing 

29 model (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2003) for all truck shipments. WebTRAGIS is a Web-based 

30 version of TRAGIS (Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System) and is 

31 used to calculate highway, rail, or waterway routes within the United States. The routes were 

32 selected to be reasonable and consistent with routing regulations and general practice, but they 

33 are considered only representative because the actual routes used would be chosen in the 

34 future and are often determined by the shipper. At the time of shipment, route selection would 

35 reflect current road conditions, including road repairs and traffic congestion. 

36 

37 The HIGHWAY data network in WebTRAGIS is a computerized road atlas that includes a 

38 complete description of the interstate highway system and of all U.S. highways. In addition, 

39 most principal State highways and many local and community highways are identified. The 

40 code is periodically updated to reflect current road conditions and has been compared with 

41 reported mileages and observations of commercial trucking firms (Johnson and 

42 Michelhaugh, 2003). 

43 

44 Routes are calculated within the model by minimizing the total impedance between origin and 

45 destination. The impedance is a function of distance and driving time along a particular 

46 segment of highway. Table D-1 presents a matrix of the shipping origins and destinations for 

47 the various radioactive materials. 

48 
 D-9 

Table D-1 Shipping Origins and Destinationsa

Site/Facility Feed Product Depleted 

UF6

LLRW Empty 

Feed 

Empty 

Product 

Empty 

Tails 

Port Hope, ON In Out 

Metropolis, IL In Out 

Portsmouth, VA In Out Out In 

Baltimore, MD In Out Out In 

Columbia, SC Out In 

Richland, WA Out In 

Wilmington, NC Out In 

Clive, UT Out 

Hanford, WA Out 

Oak Ridge, TN Out 

Paducah, KY Out In 

Portsmouth, OH Out In 

a

 In = incoming shipments to proposed EREF from origin; Out = outgoing shipments from proposed EREF 

to destination. 

Source: AES, 2010.

1 

2 Even though transportation regulations do not require restricted routing for trucking shipment of 

3 natural uranium, low-enriched uranium, or depleted uranium, routing restrictions were applied as 

4 follows: 

5 

6 • two drivers 

7 

8 • prohibit use of links prohibiting truck use 

9 

10 • prohibit use of ferry crossing; prohibit use of roads with hazardous materials prohibition 

11 

12 • Highway Route Controlled Quantity (HRCQ) preferred route 

13 

14 • prohibit use of roads with radioactive materials prohibition (HRCQ only) 

15 

16 Table D-2 presents the output from WebTRAGIS that was used in this transportation 

17 assessment. For Port Hope, Ontario, an additional 241 kilometers (150 miles) of route distance 

18 and one inspection stop were added to the WebTRAGIS output to account for the portion of the 

19 route located in Canada. 

20 

21 D.3.1.2 Population Density 

22 

23 Three population density zones – rural, suburban, and urban – were used for the population risk 

24 assessment. The fractions of travel and average population density in each zone were 
 D-10 

Table D-2 Distance, Density, and Stop Information Generated by WebTRAGIS for 

Truck Route 

Facility Stops Link Type Distance per Trip Population Density 

Inspect Rest (km) (mi) (No./km2) (No./mi2) 

Feed Conversion, 

Port Hope, ONa

9 8 Rural 2834.7 1761.7 11.9 30.8 

Suburban 803.8 499.5 305.5 791.3 

Urban 85.0 52.9 2311.0 5985.4 

Feed Conversion, 

Metropolis, IL 

6 6 Rural 2306.0 1432.9 9.4 24.3 

Suburban 470.1 292.1 325.3 842.6 

Urban 56.1 34.8 2199.6 5697.0 

International Port, 

Portsmouth, VA 

9 8 Rural 3091.4 1921.0 12.7 32.8 

Suburban 898.2 558.1 306.4 793.7 

Urban 71.0 44.1 2216.1 5739.8 

International Port, 

Baltimore, MD 

10 9 Rural 2839.4 1764.3 12.4 32.2 

Suburban 860.4 534.6 307.9 797.5 

Urban 91.8 57.0 2291.1 5934.0 

Fuel Fabrication, 

Columbia, SC 

10 9 Rural 2867.9 1782.1 11.2 29.0 

Suburban 850.7 528.6 314.4 814.2 

Urban 77.1 47.9 2184.6 5658.1 

Fuel Fabrication, 

Richland, WAb

2 3 Rural 822.7 511.2 9.8 25.4 

Suburban 149.8 93.1 305.9 792.2 

Urban 17.2 10.7 2185.7 5661.0 

Fuel Fabrication, 

Wilmington, NC 

8 10 Rural 3027.5 1881.2 11.7 30.3 

Suburban 1021.5 634.8 328.6 851.0 

Urban 87.6 54.4 2158.9 5591.5 

Waste Disposal, 

Clive, UTb

1 1 Rural 378.9 235.4 10.5 27.2 

Suburban 105.0 65.3 352.7 913.5 

Urban 21.4 13.3 2360.3 6113.3 

Waste Disposal, 

Hanford, WAb

2 3 Rural 856.6 532.3 9.5 24.5 

Suburban 149.2 92.7 306.4 793.6 

Urban 16.9 10.5 2174.4 5631.6 

Waste Disposal, 

Oak Ridge, TN 

7 8 Rural 2639.9 1640.4 10.7 27.7 

Suburban 642.5 399.2 310.5 804.1 

Urban 65.6 40.7 2218.1 5744.8 
 D-11 

Table D-2 Distance, Density, and Stop Information Generated by WebTRAGIS for 

Truck Routes (Cont.) 

Facility Stops Link Type Distance per Trip Population Density 

Inspect Rest (km) (mi) (No./km2) (No./mi2) 

Depleted UF6

Conversion, 

Paducah, KY 

7 6 Rural 2328.7 1447.0 9.5 24.6 

Suburban 478.2 297.1 324.9 841.4 

Urban 56.1 34.8 2199.6 5697.0 

Depleted UF6

Conversion, 

Portsmouth, OH 

8 8 Rural 2684.5 1668.1 12.1 31.2 

Suburban 645.4 401.0 295.9 766.5 

Urban 51.2 31.8 2266.0 5869.0 a

 Includes an additional 241-kilometer (150-mile) segment and one inspection stop to account for the portion of 

the route located in Canada. Division of the additional segment by link type is consistent with the remainder of 

the route (rural 76.1 percent, suburban 21.6 percent, and urban 2.3 percent). b

 Nodes to the west of the proposed EREF were blocked to route all shipping traffic through Idaho Falls, as 

proposed by AES (AES, 2010).

1 

2 determined using the WebTRAGIS routing model. Rural, suburban, and urban areas are 

3 characterized according to the following breakdown: rural population densities range from 0 to 

4 54 persons per square kilometer (0 to 139 persons per square mile); suburban densities range 

5 from 55 to 1284 persons per square kilometer (140 to 3326 persons per square mile); and urban 

6 covers all population densities greater than 1284 persons per square kilometer (3326 persons 

7 per square mile). Use of these population density zones is based on an aggregation of the 

8 11 population density zones provided in the WebTRAGIS model output (DOE, 2002). For 

9 calculation purposes, information about population density was generated at the State level and 

10 used as RADTRAN input for all routes. The population densities along a route are derived from 

11 2000 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Route-average population densities and other 

12 route characteristics are provided in Table D-2. 

13 

14 D.3.1.3 Accident and Fatality Rates 

15 

16 For calculating accident risks, vehicle accident involvement and fatality rates are taken from 

17 data provided in Saricks and Tompkins (1999). For each transport mode, accident rates are 

18 generically defined as the number of accident involvements (or fatalities) in a given year per unit 

19 distance of travel by that mode in the same year. Accident rates are derived from multiple-year 

20 averages that automatically account for such factors as heavy traffic and adverse weather 

21 conditions. For assessment purposes, the total number of expected accidents or fatalities is 

22 calculated by multiplying the total shipping distance by the appropriate accident or fatality rate. 

23 

24 For truck transportation, the rates presented by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are specifically for 

25 heavy combination trucks involved in interstate commerce. Heavy combination trucks are rigs 

26 composed of a separable tractor unit containing the engine and one to three freight trailers 

27 connected to each other and the tractor. Heavy combination trucks are typically used for 

28 shipping radiological materials that would be transported to and from the proposed EREF. 

29 Truck accident rates are computed for each State on the basis of statistics compiled by the DOT 
 D-12 

1 Office of Motor Carriers for 1994 to 1996. Saricks and Tompkins (1999) present accident 

2 involvement and fatality counts, estimated kilometers of travel by State, and the corresponding 

3 average accident involvement and fatality rates for the three years investigated. Fatalities 

4 (including of crew members) are deaths that are attributable to the accident and that occurred 

5 within 30 days of the accident. 

6 

7 The truck accident assessment presented in this EIS uses accident (fatality) rates for travel on 

8 interstate highways. The total accident risk for a route depends on the total distance traveled in 

9 each State along the route and does not rely on national average accident statistics. However, 

10 for comparative purposes, the national average truck accident rate on interstate highways 

presented in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) is 3.15  10-7 11 accident per truck-kilometer 

(5.07  10-7 12 accident per mile). Note that the accident rates used in this assessment were 

13 computed using all interstate highway shipments (regardless of the cargo), as 10 CFR Part 71 

14 requires that HRCQ shipments be made over the interstate highway system. 

15 

16 D.3.2 Packaging 

17 

18 As noted in Section D.3, radioactive materials transported to and from the proposed EREF 

19 would be subject to both DOT and NRC shipping regulations. All shipments of UF6 can be 

20 transported in Type A shipping containers having thermal protection (e.g., overpack or other 

21 protective assembly) that meets DOT (49 CFR Part 173) and NRC (10 CFR Part 71) 

22 requirements. Shipments of the product material are required to have fissile controls in addition 

23 to the thermal protection. However, in this assessment of the radiological impacts, any 

24 reduction in exposures due to the presence of a thermal and/or fissile overpack is ignored. 

25 Packaging for radioactive materials must be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure 

26 that it will contain and shield the contents during normal transportation. For more highly 

27 radioactive material, the packaging must also contain and shield the contents in severe 

28 accidents. The type of packaging used is determined by the radioactive hazard associated with 

29 the packaged material. Table D-3 summarizes the shipment packaging for the shipments 

30 considered. 

31 

32 The uranium feed, depleted tails, and LLRW shipments would use Type A packaging. This type 

33 of packaging must withstand the conditions of normal transportation without loss or dispersal of 

34 the radioactive contents. “Normal” transportation refers to all transportation conditions except 

35 those resulting from accidents or sabotage. Approval of Type A packaging is obtained by 

36 demonstrating that the packaging can withstand specified testing conditions intended to 

37 simulate normal transportation. Type A packaging usually does not require special handling, 

38 packaging, or transportation equipment. The UF6 feed and tails would be shipped in 

39 Type 48Y cylinders (USEC, 1999), and LLRW would be shipped in 55-gallon drums. The 

40 specifications for a Type 48Y cylinder are shown in Figure D-1 and Table D-4. 

41 

42 The enriched product would be shipped in Type 30B cylinders (USEC, 1999) within Type B 

43 overpacks. Figure D-2 and Table D-5 show the specifications of a 30B cylinder. In addition to 

44 meeting all Type A standards, Type B packaging must also provide a high degree of assurance 

45 that the package integrity will be maintained even during severe accidents, with essentially no 

46 loss of the radioactive contents or serious impairment of the shielding capability. Type B 

47 packaging must satisfy stringent testing criteria (as specified in 10 CFR 71.73) that were 

48 developed to simulate conditions of severe hypothetical accidents, including impact, puncture, 
 D-13 

Table D-3 Annual Number of Containers and Trucks Required 

for Transport 

Material Type of Container Number per Year 

Containers Trucks 

Natural UF6 48Y 1424 1424 

Enriched UF6 30B 1032 516 

Depleted UF6 48Y 1222 1222 

LLRW 55-gallon drum 954 16 

Empty feed cylinders 48Y 1424 712 

Empty product cylinders 30B 1032 516 

Empty depleted UF6

cylinders 

48Y 1222 611 

Source: AES, 2010.

1 

2 

3 Figure D-1 Schematic of a Type 48Y Cylinder (USEC, 1995) 

4 
 D-14 

Table D-4 Type 48Y Cylinder Specifications 

Parameter Value 

Nominal diameter 122 centimeters (48 inches) 

Nominal length 380 centimeters (150 inches) 

Wall thickness 1.6 centimeters (0.625 inches) 

Nominal tare weight 2359 kilograms (5200 pounds) 

Maximum net weight 12,500 kilograms (27,560 pounds) 

Nominal gross weight 14,860 kilograms (32,760 pounds) 

Minimum volume 4.04 cubic meters (142.7 cubic feet) 

Basic material of construction Steel: ASTM A-516 

Service pressure 1380 kilopascals gage (200 pounds per square inch gage) 

Hydrostatic test pressure 2760 kilopascals gage (400 pounds per square inch gage) 

Isotopic content limit 4.5 percent 235U (maximum with moderation control) 

Valve used 2.54-centimeter valve (1-inch valve) 

Source: USEC, 1995.

1 

2 

3 Figure D-2 Schematic of a Type 30B Cylinder (USEC, 1995) 

4 
 D-15 

Table D-5 Type 30B Cylinder Specifications 

Parameter Value 

Nominal diameter 76 centimeters (30 inches) 

Nominal length 206 centimeters (81 inches) 

Wall thickness 1.27 centimeters (0.5 inches) 

Nominal tare weight 635 kilograms (1400 pounds) 

Maximum net weight 2300 kilograms (5000 pounds) 

Nominal gross weight 2900 kilograms (6400 pounds) 

Minimum volume 736 liters (26 cubic feet) 

Basic material of construction Steel: ASTM A-516 

Service pressure 1380 kilopascals gage (200 pounds per square inch gage) 

Hydrostatic test pressure 2760 kilopascals gage (400 pounds per square inch gage) 

Isotopic content limit 5.0 percent 235U (maximum with moderation control) 

Valve used 2.54-centimeter valve (1-inch valve) 

Source: USEC, 1995.

1 

2 fire, and immersion in water. For shipping Type 30B cylinders, a UX-30 overpack would be 

3 used (to provide protection and convenience in handling through consolidation). The UX-30 has 

4 a diameter of 1.10 meters (43.5 inches) and is 2.44 meters (96 inches) in length (NRC, 2009). 

5 

6 D.3.3 Shipment Configurations and Number of Shipments 

7 

8 Several different types of radioactive materials are proposed for shipment to and from the 

9 proposed EREF. Table D-6 presents the activity (amount) of each radionuclide that would be 

10 present in containers of feed, product, depleted uranium, and LLRW. Previous EISs have 

11 incorporated one year of decay to account for delay in shipping between the generation of 

12 depleted UF6 and any radioactive shipments. Due to the anticipated time frame of startup for 

13 the proposed EREF and the impending availability of DOE conversion services, there is no 

14 assurance that such decay would occur prior to shipment. Therefore, it was not considered in 

15 this analysis. 

16 

17 The radionuclide inventories for the radioactive material shipments presented in Table D-6 

18 include a number of short-lived radionuclides that are not included in the RADTRAN 5 default 

19 library of radionuclides. Due to their short half-lives and relatively low activity, these 

20 radionuclides do not significantly contribute to the population dose in an accident scenario 

21 (incident-free doses are based on exterior dose rates and are not directly dependent on 

22 radionuclide inventory). These short-lived radionuclides are assumed to be in equilibrium with 

23 their parent radionuclides, so their internal dose contributions are included in the internal dose 

24 conversion factors of the parent radionuclides. Furthermore, this simplifying assumption is 

25 counterbalanced by the conservative assumption that there would be no decay period between 

26 generation and shipment. Therefore, use of the RADTRAN 5 default library of radionuclides in 

27 this analysis was considered adequate. 
 D-16 

Table D-6 Curie Inventory in Selected Shipping Containers for Truck Transportation 

Radionuclide 

Feed 

(natural 

UF6) 

Product 

(enriched 

UF6) 

Depleted 

Uranium 

(tails/ 

depleted UF6) 

Depleted 

UF6

Residue 

(heels) 

Empty 

Product LLRW 

Thallium-207 3.84  10-8 4.92  10-8 1.94  10-8 6.96  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Thallium-208 1.77  10-15 2.26  10-15 8.94  10-16 3.20  10-18 1.13  10-17 4.63  10-19

Lead-210 3.76  10-11 5.68  10-11 1.80  10-11 6.83  10-14 2.83  10-13 9.87  10-15

Lead-211 3.85  10-8 4.93  10-8 1.95  10-8 6.98  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Lead-212 4.92  10-15 6.30  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.92  10-18 3.14  10-17 1.29  10-18

Lead-214 3.74  10-9 5.64  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Bismuth-210 3.76  10-11 5.68  10-11 1.80  10-11 6.83  10-14 2.83  10-13 9.87  10-15

Bismuth-211 3.85  10-8 4.93  10-8 1.95  10-8 6.98  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Bismuth-212 4.92  10-15 6.30  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.92  10-18 3.14  10-17 1.29  10-18

Bismuth-214 3.74  10-9 5.64  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Polonium-210 1.21  10-11 1.82  10-11 5.78  10-12 2.19  10-14 9.08  10-14 3.17  10-15

Polonium-211 1.08  10-10 1.38  10-10 5.46  10-11 1.96  10-13 6.87  10-13 2.83  10-14

Polonium-212 3.15  10-15 4.03  10-15 1.60  10-15 5.71  10-18 2.01  10-17 8.26  10-19

Polonium-214 3.74  10-9 5.64  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Polonium-215 3.85  10-8 4.93  10-8 1.95  10-8 6.98  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Polonium-216 4.92  10-15 6.30  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.92  10-18 3.14  10-17 1.29  10-18

Polonium-218 3.74  10-9 5.65  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Radon-219 3.85  10-8 4.93  10-8 1.95  10-8 6.98  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Radon-220 4.92  10-15 6.30  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.92  10-18 3.14  10-17 1.29  10-18

Radon-222 3.74  10-9 5.65  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Francium-223 6.13  10-10 7.85  10-10 3.10  10-10 1.11  10-12 3.91  10-12 1.61  10-13

Radium-223 3.85  10-8 4.93  10-8 1.95  10-8 6.98  10-11 2.45  10-10 1.01  10-11

Radium-224 4.92  10-15 6.30  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.92  10-18 3.14  10-17 1.29  10-18

Radium-226 3.74  10-9 5.65  10-9 1.79  10-9 6.79  10-12 2.81  10-11 9.82  10-13

Radium-228 4.41  10-14 5.65  10-14 2.23  10-14 8.01  10-17 2.81  10-16 1.16  10-17

Actinium-227 4.44  10-8 5.69  10-8 2.25  10-8 8.06  10-11 2.83  10-10 1.17  10-11

Actinium-228 4.41  10-14 5.65  10-14 2.23  10-14 8.01  10-17 2.82  10-16 1.16  10-17

Thorium-227 3.79  10-8 4.85  10-8 1.92  10-8 6.87  10-11 2.41  10-10 9.94  10-12

Thorium-228 4.91  10-15 6.29  10-15 2.49  10-15 8.91  10-18 3.13  10-17 1.29  10-18

Thorium-230 1.73  10-5 2.61  10-5 8.27  10-6 3.13  10-8 1.30  10-7 4.53  10-9
 D-17 

Table D-6 Curie Inventory in Selected Shipping Containers for Truck Transportation 

(Cont.) 

Radionuclide 

Feed 

(natural 

UF6) 

Product 

(enriched 

UF6) 

Depleted 

Uranium 

(tails/ 

depleted UF6) 

Depleted 

UF6

Residue 

(heels) 

Empty 

Product LLRW 

Thorium-231 1.30  10-1 1.67  10-1 6.58  10-2 2.36  10-4 8.29  10-4 3.41  10-5

Thorium-232 8.83  10-13 1.13  10-12 4.47  10-13 1.60  10-15 5.63  10-15 2.32  10-16

Thorium-234 2.82  100 4.92  10-1 2.83  100 5.12  10-3 2.45  10-3 7.41  10-4

Protactinium231 2.80  10-6 3.58  10-6 1.42  10-6 5.07  10-9 1.78  10-8 7.34  10-10

Protactinium234m 2.82  100 4.92  10-1 2.83  100 5.12  10-3 2.45  10-3 7.41  10-4

Protactinium234 3.67  10-3 6.39  10-4 3.68  10-3 6.66  10-6 3.18  10-6 9.63  10-7

Uranium-234 1.92  100 2.90  100 9.18  10-1 0 0 5.04  10-4

Uranium-235 1.30  10-1 1.67  10-1 6.58  10-2 0 0 3.41  10-5

Uranium-236 1.79  10-2 2.29  10-2 9.06  10-3 0 0 4.69  10-6

Uranium-238 2.82  100 4.92  10-1 2.83  100 0 0 7.41  10-4

Source: AES, 2010.

1 

2 Table D-3 presents the number of packages and number of shipments that would be required 

3 for transport to and from the proposed EREF. Uranium feed and depleted tails shipments would 

4 consist of one Type 48Y cylinder per truck, and each cylinder would contain about 12.4 metric 

5 tons (13.7 tons) of natural or depleted UF6. Enriched UF6 product would be shipped in 

6 Type 30B cylinders in UX-30 overpacks, two cylinders per truck (although up to five cylinders 

7 could be shipped per truck). Each 30B cylinder would contain approximately 2.3 metric tons 

8 (2.5 tons) of product. Low-level radioactive waste would be shipped in 55-gallon waste drums, 

9 60 drums per truck. The types and amounts of LLRW that would be shipped are discussed in 

10 Section 4.2.9.2. 

11 

12 D.3.4 Accident Characteristics 

13 

14 Assessment of transportation accident risk takes into account the potential severity of 

15 transportation-related accidents and the fraction of package contents that would be released to 

16 the environment during an accident (commonly referred to as the release fraction). The method 

17 used to characterize accident severities and the corresponding release fractions for estimating 

18 both radioactive and chemical risks are described below. 

19 

20 D.3.4.1 Accident Severity Categories 

21 

22 A method to characterize the potential severity of transportation-related accidents is described 

23 in NUREG-0170, Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material 
 D-18 

1 by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977), and presented in A Resource Handbook on DOE 

2 Transportation Risk Assessment (DOE, 2002). The NRC method divides the spectrum of 

3 accident severities into eight categories, which are further subdivided into population zones 

4 (rural, suburban, and urban) containing the fraction of occurrence within each zone. Other 

5 studies have divided the same accident spectrum into six categories (Wilmot, 1981), 

6 20 categories (Fischer et al., 1987), or more (Sprung et al., 2000). However, these latter 

7 studies focused primarily on accidents involving shipments of spent nuclear fuel. In this 

8 analysis, the NUREG-0170 scheme was used for all shipments. 

9 

10 The NUREG-0170 scheme for truck transportation accident classification is shown in 

11 Figure D-3. Severity is described as a function of the magnitudes of the mechanical forces 

12 (impact) and thermal forces (fire) to which a package may be subjected during an accident. 

13 Because all accidents can be described in these terms, severity is independent of the specific 

14 accident sequence. In other words, any sequence of events that results in an accident in which 

15 a package is subjected to forces within a certain range of values is assigned to the accident 

16 severity category associated with that range. The scheme for accident severity is designed to 

17 take into account all credible transportation-related accidents, including those accidents with low 

18 probability but high consequences and those with high probability but low consequences. 

19 

20 Each severity category represents a set of accident scenarios defined by a combination of 

21 mechanical and thermal forces. A conditional probability of occurrence (i.e., the probability that 

22 if an accident occurs, it is of a particular severity) is assigned to each category. These fractional 

23 occurrences (conditional probabilities) for accidents by accident severity category and 

24 population density zone are shown in Table D-7 and are used for estimating the radiological 

25 transportation risks. 

26 

27 Category I accidents are the least severe but the most frequent; Category VIII accidents are 

28 very severe but very infrequent. To determine the expected frequency of an accident of a given 

29 severity, the conditional probability in the category is multiplied by the accident rate 

30 (see Section D.3.1.3). Each population density zone has a distinct distribution of accident 

31 severities related to differences in average vehicular velocity, traffic density, location (rural, 

32 suburban, or urban), and other factors. 

33 

34 D.3.4.2 Package Release Fractions 

35 

36 In NUREG-0170, radiological and chemical consequences are calculated by assigning package 

37 release fractions to each accident severity category. The release fraction is defined as the 

38 fraction of package contents that could be released from the package as the result of an 

39 accident of a given severity. Release fractions take into account all mechanisms necessary to 

40 create release of material from a damaged package to the environment. The release fraction is 

41 a function of the severity of the accident, the packaging, and the physical form of the material. 

42 For instance, a low-impact accident, such as a “fender-bender,” would not be expected to cause 

43 any release of material. Conversely, a severe accident would be expected to release nearly all 

44 of the material in a shipment into the environment. 

45 

46 Representative release fractions for accidents involving all shipments were taken from 

47 NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977), for both Type A and Type B packages. The recommendations in 

48 NUREG-0170 were based on best engineering judgments and have been shown to provide 
 D-19 

VII

VI VII

VIII

V VI VII

IV V VI VII

III IV V VI VII

II III IV

I III IV

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

6.7

22

89

220

440

1330

2220

1300 Kelvin Fire Duration (hours) 1 

2 Figure D-3 Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident 

3 Severity Category for Truck Accidents (NRC, 1977) 

4 

Table D-7 Fractional Occurrences for Accidents by Severity Category 

and Population Density Zone 

Severity 

Category 

Fractional 

Occurrence 

Fractional Occurrence by Population Zone 

Low (Rural) Medium (Suburban) High (Urban) 

I 0.55 0.1 0.1 0.8 

II 0.36 0.1 0.1 0.8 

III 0.07 0.3 0.4 0.3 

IV 0.016 0.3 0.4 0.3 

V 0.0028 0.5 0.3 0.2 

VI 0.0011 0.7 0.2 0.1 

VII 8.50  10-5 0.8 0.1 0.1 

VIII 1.50  10-5 0.9 0.05 0.05 

Source: NRC, 1977; DOE, 2002.

5 
 D-20 

1 conservative estimates of material releases following accidents (Sprung et al., 2000). Release 

2 fractions for accidents of each severity category are provided in Table D-8. As indicated in the 

3 table, the amount of material released from a package ranges from zero for minor accidents to 

4 100 percent for the most severe accidents. 

5 

6 Also important for the purposes of risk assessment are the fraction of the released material that 

7 can be entrained in an aerosol (part of an airborne contaminant plume) and the fraction of the 

8 aerosolized material that is respirable (of a size that can be inhaled into the lungs). These 

9 fractions depend on the physical form of the material. Most solid materials are difficult to 

10 release in particulate form and are, therefore, relatively nondispersible. Conversely, liquid or 

11 gaseous materials are relatively easy to release if the container is breached in an accident. The 

12 aerosolized fraction and respirable fraction for all radiological shipments were conservatively 

13 assumed to be 1 for all accidents involving Type A packages (Table D-8). These values are 

14 conservative due to the lack of data on package failure under severe conditions (DOE, 2002). 

15 

16 D.3.4.3 Atmospheric Conditions during Accidents 

17 

18 Hazardous material released to the atmosphere is transported by wind. The amount of 

19 dispersion, or dilution, of the contaminant depends on the meteorologic conditions at the time of 

20 the accident. Because predicting the specific location of a transportation-related accident and 

21 the exact meteorologic conditions at the time of the accident is impossible, generic atmospheric 

22 conditions were selected for the accident risk assessment. Neutral weather conditions were 

23 assumed, represented by Pasquill atmospheric stability Class D with a wind speed of 4 meters 

24 per second (9 miles per hour). Because neutral meteorological conditions are the most 

25 frequently occurring atmospheric stability condition in the United States, these conditions are 

26 most likely to be present in the event of an accident involving a hazardous material shipment. 

27 Observations at National Weather Service meteorological stations at more than 300 U.S. 

28 locations indicate that on a yearly average, neutral conditions (represented by Pasquill 

29 Classes C and D) occur about half (50 percent) the time; stable conditions (Pasquill Classes E 

30 and F) occur about one-third (33 percent) of the time; and unstable conditions (Pasquill 

31 Classes A and B) occur about one-sixth (17 percent) of the time (Doty et al., 1976). The neutral 

32 

Table D-8 Fraction of Package Released, Aerosolized, 

and Respirable 

Accident Severity Release Respirable Aerosolized 

I 0 1 1 

II 0.01 1 1 

III 0.1 1 1 

IV 1 1 1 

V 1 1 1 

VI 1 1 1 

VII 1 1 1 

VIII 1 1 1 

Source: DOE, 2002.
 D-21 

1 category predominates in all seasons, but it is most prevalent (nearly 60 percent of the 

2 observations) during winter. 

3 

4 D.3.5 Radiological Risk Assessment Input Parameters and Assumptions 

5 

6 The dose (and the corresponding risk) to populations during routine (incident-free) 

7 transportation of radioactive materials is directly proportional to the assumed external dose rate 

8 from the shipment. The actual dose rate from the shipment is a complex function of the 

9 composition and configuration of shielding and containment materials used in the packaging, 

10 the geometry of the loaded shipment, and the characteristics of the contents. 

11 

12 Table D-9 provides a summary of information from various sources regarding estimates of the 

13 external radiation near each type of shipping container. For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC 

14 staff has assumed the most conservative dose rate for each type of container. Dose rates are 

15 presented in terms of the transport index (TI), which is the dose rate at 1 meter (3 feet) from the 

16 surface of a package. The regulatory limit established in 49 CFR 173.441 and 10 CFR 71.47 to 

17 protect the public is 0.1 millisievert per hour (10 millirem per hour) at 2 meters (6 feet) from the 

18 outer lateral sides of the transport vehicle. 

19 

20 Note that in Table D-9 the external radiation levels for an empty cylinder (Type 48Y or 30B) are 

21 higher than those for a full cylinder. This occurs for two reasons. First, after UF6 (feed, product, 

22 or depleted tail) is removed from a cylinder, the radioactive uranium daughter products that build 

23 up due to the radioactive decay of uranium collect at the bottom and form what is known as a 

24 “heel.” The nature of the radiation emitted from the uranium daughter products results in a 

25 greater release of gamma radiation than occurs from just uranium. Second, uranium is very 

26 dense and an effective shield material for gamma radiation. When a cylinder is full of UF6, the 

27 uranium daughters are distributed throughout the cylinder and emitted radiation must pass 

28 through a significant thickness of uranium (and thus can be stopped or absorbed by the 

29 uranium). Only gamma emissions from uranium daughters near the inner surface of the 

30 cylinder can penetrate the cylinder and contribute to a nearby person’s radiation exposure. 

31 Because an empty cylinder contains largely vapor and no longer has the high shielding 

32 capability of solid UF6, and because the heel concentrates the more highly radioactive uranium 

33 daughters next to the inner surface of the cylinder, the radiation levels near an empty cylinder 

34 are higher than those for a full UF6 cylinder. 

35 

36 In addition to the specific parameters discussed previously, values for a number of general 

37 parameters must be specified within RADTRAN to calculate radiological risks. These general 

38 parameters define basic characteristics of the shipment and traffic and are specific to the mode 

39 of transportation; they include the speed of the vehicle, size of the crew, amount of time the 

40 shipment is stopped for rest or inspection, and density of the population sharing the shipping 

41 route. The RADTRAN user manual (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2003; Weiner et al., 2008) 

42 contains derivations and descriptions of these parameters. The general RADTRAN input 

43 parameters used in the radiological transportation risk assessment are summarized in 

44 Table D-10; default RADTRAN values were used for input parameters not described in this 

45 appendix. 

46 
 D-22 

Table D-9 Direct Radiation Surrounding Shipping Containersa

Container Assumed Dose 

Rate (mrem/hr) 

Measured/Estimated 

Dose Rate (mrem/hr) Source 

Feed (48Y) 1.0 0.7 NRC, 2006; Table D-7 

0.2 NRC, 2005b; Table 4.12, C-8 

0.29 NRC, 2005b; Table D-7 

Product (30B) 1.0 0.4 NRC, 2006; Table D-7 

0.19 NRC, 2005b; Table D-7 

Depleted UF6 1.0 1.0 DOE, 1999a; Sec. J.3.2.1.1 

0.28 NRC, 2005b; Table D-7 

0.23 (min) Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

0.46 (max) Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

LLRW 1.0 1.0 NRC, 2006; Table D-7 

1.0 DOE, 2002; Table 4.2 

0.0042 NRC, 2005b; Table D-7 

0.5 (min) Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

1.0 (max) Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

Empty feed 3.0 1.0 NRC, 2005b; Table C-8, D-7 

1.0 NRC, 2006; Table D-7 

3.0 AES, 2010 

Empty product 5.0 1.0 Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

5.0 AES, 2010 

Empty 

depleted UF6

3.0 1.0 Biwer et al., 2001; Table 5.4 

3.0 AES, 2010 a

 At one meter. 

To convert from millirem to millisievert, multiply by 1  10-2.

1 

2 D.3.6 Routine Nonradiological Vehicle Emission Risks 

3 

4 Vehicle-related risks during incident-free transportation include incremental risks caused by 

5 potential exposure to airborne particulate matter from fugitive dust (resuspended particulates 

6 from the roadway) and diesel exhaust emissions. The health end point assessed under routine 

7 (incident-free) transport conditions is the excess (additional) latent mortality caused by 

8 inhalation of vehicular emissions. Strong epidemiological evidence suggests that increases in 

9 ambient air concentrations of PM10 (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter less 

10 than or equal to 10 microns) lead to increases in mortality (EPA, 1996a,b). Currently, it is 

11 assumed that no threshold exists and that the dose–response functions for most health effects 

12 associated with PM10 exposure, including premature mortality, are linear over the concentration 
 D-23 

Table D-10 RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters 

Parameter Link Type Value 

Traffic volume (vehicles/hour)a

Rural 1155 

Suburban 2414 

Urban 5490 

Vehicle speed (kph [mph]) 

Rural 88 (55) 

Suburban 40 (25) 

Urban 24 (15) 

Number of people in adjacent vehicle 2 

Crew size 2 

Distance from source to crew (m) 5 

Stop time (h/km)b 0.0014 

Population density at stopsb 1 to 10 meters 30,000 

10 to 800 meters 340 

Latest cancer risk (fatal cancer per person-rem)c 6.0  10-4

Vehicle emission rate (fatalities/km per 1 person/km2) 8.36  10-10

Vehicle accident (fatalities/km)d 1.42  10-8

a

 Previous EISs (and previous versions of RADTRAN) used values of 530, 760, and 

2400. However, these values may underestimate current average traffic density on 

interstate highways (Weiner et al., 2008), which accounts for most of the mileage on 

routes used in this analysis. 

b

 Hostick et al., 1992. 

c

 EPA, 1999; ISCORS, 2002. 

d

 In lieu of a national average vehicle accident rate, state-specific rates were used 

(Saricks and Tompkins, 1999).

1 

2 ranges investigated (EPA, 1996a). Over short and long terms, fatalities (mortality) may result 

3 from life-shortening respiratory or cardiovascular diseases (EPA, 1996a; Ostro and 

4 Chestnut, 1998). The long-term fatalities are also assumed to include those from cancer. 

5 

6 The increased ambient air particulate concentrations caused by the transport vehicle have been 

7 related to premature latent fatalities in the form of risk factors for transportation risk 

8 assessments (Biwer and Butler, 1999). A conservative vehicle emission risk factor of 

8.36  10-10 9 latent fatalities per kilometer for truck transport (Biwer and Butler, 1999) was used in 

10 this assessment. This value is for heavy combination trucks (Class VIIIB) and for areas with 

11 unit population density of one person per square kilometer (2.6 persons per square mile). One12 way shipment risks are obtained by multiplying the vehicle emission risk factor by the average 

13 population density along the route and the route distance. The routine vehicle risks reported in 

14 this analysis are for round-trip travel of the transport vehicle. 

15 
 D-24 

1 The vehicle risks reported here are estimates based on the best available data. However, as is 

2 true for radiological risks, there is a large and not readily quantifiable degree of uncertainty in 

3 the vehicle emission risk factors. For example, large uncertainties exist as to the extent of 

4 increased mortality with an incremental rise in particulate air concentrations and as to whether 

5 there are threshold air concentrations that are applicable. Also, estimates of the particulate air 

6 concentrations caused by transport vehicles are dependent on location, road conditions, vehicle 

7 conditions, and weather. 

8 

9 As discussed by Biwer and Butler (1999), there are also large uncertainties in the human health 

10 risk factors used to develop the emission risks. In addition, due to the conservatism in the 

11 assumptions made by Biwer and Butler to reconcile results with those presented by EPA 

12 (EPA, 1993), latent fatality risks estimated with the above risk factor may be considered to be 

13 near an upper bound (Biwer and Butler, 1999). Use of this risk factor for Class VIIIB trucks will 

14 give estimated fatalities comparable to those from accident fatalities in some cases. In addition, 

15 what exactly constitutes a fatality as a direct consequence of increased PM10 levels from vehicle 

16 emissions is an open question, but long-term fatalities have been associated with increased 

17 levels of PM10 (Biwer and Butler, 1999). 

18 

19 D.4 Summary of Transportation Impacts 

20 

21 Table D-11 presents the estimated annual radiological and nonradiological impacts from truck 

22 shipment of radioactive material, including collective population risk from incident-free transport, 

23 latent cancer fatalities from the vehicle emissions, and fatalities from traffic accidents. 

24 Table D-12 presents the estimated radiological impacts from potential accidents during these 

25 shipments, including the contributions of each exposure pathway to the collective population 

26 dose. The accident results are presented in terms of risk, which involves weighting the impact 

27 of the various accident scenarios by the frequency that the accident scenario occurs. 

28 

29 The impact results in Table D-11 include a range of values for each type of shipment. This 

30 range represents the lowest to highest impact for the various proposed shipping routes. For 

31 example, for the feed materials, the values represent one year of shipments from any of the four 

32 feed supply locations to the proposed EREF. If some feed materials were provided from one 

33 location and the remaining amounts from another, the estimated impacts would fall somewhere 

34 between the low and high values (impacts could be evaluated by multiplying the fraction of 

35 material from a given location by the impacts from that location plus the fraction of material from 

36 a second location multiplied by the impacts from the second location). 

37 

38 To evaluate the total impacts from the transportation of radioactive materials, a scenario must 

39 be defined and the impacts from the various materials/routes can be summed. For example, 

40 the proposed EREF would receive feed material from Metropolis, Illinois, the product material 

41 would be shipped to Wilmington, North Carolina, LLRW would be shipped to Clive, Utah, and 

42 depleted UF6 would be shipped to Paducah, Kentucky. The impacts from these materials/routes 

43 would then be summed to determine the total impacts for this scenario. Table 4-11 of this EIS 

44 summarizes the potential transportation impacts, presented as a range of collective risk for each 

45 type of shipment and the range of impacts summed over all shipping scenarios. 

46 
 D-25 Table D-11 Annual Collective Population Risks from Truck Transportation Cargo-Related Radiological Impacts Vehicle-Related Impacts Dose Risk (person-rem) Latent Cancer Fatalities Material Total Mileage (km) Routine Crew Public Off-Link Public On- Link Public Stop Total Public Maximum Individual Accident Latent Emission Fatalities Physical Accident Fatalities Crew Public Feed, Port Hope, ON 5,302,406 1.6  101 5.7  100 1.8  102 1.2  102 3.1  102 1.9  10-4 1.1  101 9.6  10-3 1.9  10-1 5.7  10-1 7.5  10-2 Feed, Metropolis, IL 4,033,480 1.2  101 3.8  100 6.4  101 9.4  101 1.6  102 1.9  10-4 1.1  101 7.2  10-3 9.6  10-2 3.5  10-1 5.7  10-2 Feed, Baltimore, MD 5,399,096 1.7  101 6.6  100 1.3  102 1.3  102 2.7  102 1.9  10-4 8.0  100 1.0  10-2 1.6  10-1 6.1  10-1 7.7  10-2 Feed, Portsmouth, VA 5,782,010 1.8  101 6.8  100 1.3  102 1.4  102 2.8  102 1.9  10-4 1.1  101 1.1  10-2 1.7  10-1 5.6  10-1 8.2  10-2 Product, Columbia, SC 1,958,736 4.6  100 2.4  100 4.5  101 4.6  101 5.2  101 6.9  10-5 8.5  100 2.8  10-3 3.1  10-2 2.0  10-1 2.8  10-2 Product, 

Richland, WA 

510,634 1.1  100 4.2  10-1 9.4  100 1.2  101 2.2  101 6.9  10-5 1.4  100 6.6  10-4 1.3  10-2 3.9  10-2 7.3  10-3

Product, Wilmington, NC 

2,134,589 5.1  100 3.0  100 5.2  101 5.0  101 1.1  102 6.9  10-5 9.6  100 3.1  10-3 6.6  10-2 2.4  10-1 3.0  10-2

Product, Baltimore, MD 

1,956,414 4.6  100 2.4  100 4.8  101 4.5  101 9.5  101 6.9  10-5 9.8  100 2.8  10-3 5.7  10-2 2.2  10-1 2.8  10-2

Product, Portsmouth, VA 

2,095,166 4.8  100 2.5  100 8.9  101 4.9  101 1.4  102 6.9  10-5 6.5  100 2.9  10-3 8.4  10-2 2.0  10-1 3.0  10-2

Depleted UF6/tails, 

Paducah, KY 

3,498,830 1.0  101 3.3  100 7.0  101 8.2  101 1.6  102 1.6  10-4 7.4  100 6.0  10-3 9.6  10-2 3.1  10-1 5.0  10-2

Empty feed, Port Hope, ON 

2,651,203 2.3  101 8.6  100 2.7  102 1.7  102 4.5  102 2.9  10-4 2.7  10-5 1.4  10-2 2.7  10-1 2.8  10-1 3.8  10-2

Depleted UF6/tails, 

Portsmouth, OH 

4,131,704 1.3  101 4.1  100 8.1  101 9.6  101 1.8  102 1.6  10-4 5.3  100 7.8  10-3 1.1  10-1 3.5  10-1 5.9  10-2

1 
 D-26 Table D-11 Annual Collective Population Risks from Truck Transportation (Cont.) Cargo-Related Radiological Impacts Vehicle-Related Impacts Dose Risk (person-rem) Latent Cancer Fatalities Material Total Mileage (km) Routine Crew Public Off-Link Public On- Link Public Stop Total Public Maximum Individual Accident Latent Emission Fatalities Physical Accident Fatalities Crew Public Empty feed, Metropolis, IL 2,016,740 1.8  101 5.7  100 1.2  102 1.4  102 2.7  102 2.9  10-4 2.8  10-5 1.1  10-2 1.6  10-1 1.8  10-1 2.9  10-2 Empty feed, Baltimore, MD 2,699,548 2.6  101 9.8  100 2.0  102 1.9  102 4.0  102 2.9  10-4 4.1  10-5 1.6  10-2 2.4  10-1 3.0  10-1 3.8  10-2 Empty feed, Portsmouth, VA 2,891,005 2.7  101 1.0  101 1.9  102 2.0  102 4.0  102 2.9  10-4 2.8  10-5 1.6  10-2 2.4  10-1 2.8  10-1 4.1  10-2 Empty product, Columbia, SC 1,958,736 2.3  101 1.2  101 2.3  102 2.3  102 4.7  102 3.5  10-4 1.7  10-5 1.4  10-2 2.8  10-1 2.0  10-1 2.8  10-2 Empty product, Richland, WA 510,634 5.5  100 2.1  100 4.7  101 5.9  101 1.1  102 3.5  10-4 2.8  10-6 3.3  10-3 6.6  10-2 3.9  10-2 7.3  10-3 Empty product, 

Wilmington, NC 

2,134,589 2.5  101 1.5  101 2.6  102 2.5  102 5.3  102 3.5  10-4 2.0  10-5 1.5  10-2 3.2  10-1 2.4  10-1 3.0  10-2

Empty depleted UF6/tails, 

Port Hope, ON 

2,275,120 2.0  101 7.3  100 2.3  102 1.5  102 3.9  102 2.5  10-4 2.3  10-5 1.2  10-2 2.3  10-1 2.4  10-1 3.2  10-2

Empty depleted UF6/tails, 

Metropolis, IL 

1,730,658 1.5  101 4.9  100 1.0  102 1.2  102 2.2  102 2.5  10-4 2.3  10-5 9.0  10-3 1.3  10-1 1.5  10-1 2.5  10-2

Empty depleted UF6/tails, 

Baltimore, MD 

2,316,607 2.2  101 8.5  100 1.7  102 1.6  102 3.4  102 2.5  10-4 4.2  10-5 1.3  10-2 2.0  10-1 2.6  10-1 3.3  10-2

Empty depleted UF6/tails, 

Portsmouth, VA 

2,480,904 2.3  101 8.8  100 1.6  102 1.7  102 3.4  102 2.5  10-4 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-2 2.0  10-1 2.4  10-1 3.5  10-2

Empty depleted UF6/tails, 

Paducah, KY 

1,749,415 1.6  101 5.0  100 8.4  101 1.2  102 2.1  102 2.5  10-4 2.3  10-5 9.6  10-3 1.3  10-1 1.5  10-1 2.5  10-2
 D-27 Table D-11 Annual Collective Population Risks from Truck Transportation (Cont.) Cargo-Related Radiological Impacts Vehicle-Related Impacts Dose Risk (person-rem) Latent Cancer Fatalities Material Total Mileage (km) Routine Crew Public Off-Link Public On- Link Public Stop Total Public Maximum Individual Accident Latent Emission Fatalities Physical Accident Fatalities Crew Public Empty depleted UF6/tails, Portsmouth, OH 2,065,852 1.9  101 6.2  100 1.2  102 1.4  102 2.7  102 2.5  10-4 1.7  10-5 1.1  10-2 1.6  10-1 1.7  10-1 2.9  10-2 Solid waste, Clive, UT 8086 5.0  10-

2

1.0  10-2 2.4  10-1 1.9  10-1 4.4  10-1 2.1  10-6 5.2  10-4 3.0  10-5 2.6  10-4 1.2  10-3 1.1  10-4

Solid waste, Hanford, WA 

16,362 9.0  10-

2

1.3  10-2 2.9  10-1 3.8  10-1 6.8  10-1 2.1  10-6 4.2  10-4 5.4  10-5 4.1  10-4 1.2  10-3 2.3  10-4

Solid waste, Oak Ridge, TN 

53,573 3.1  10-1 5.6  10-2 9.5  10-1 1.3  100 2.3  100 2.1  10-6 2.2  10-3 1.9  10-4 1.4  10-3 5.0  10-3 7.6  10-4

1 2 
 D-28 1 Table D-12 Doses and Total Risk of Latent Cancer Fatalities from Accidents during Truck Transportation of Radioactive Materials Population Dose (person-rem) Total Population Risk of LCF Material Route Ground Inhaled Resuspended Soil Cloud Shine Total Dose Feed Port Hope, ON 1.2  10-1 1.1  101 1.8  10-2 4.1  10-6 1.1  101 6.6  10-3 Feed Metropolis, IL 1.2  10-1 1.1  101 1.8  10-2 4.2  10-6 1.1  101 6.6  10-3 Feed Baltimore, MD 1.7  10-1 7.8  100 1.4  10-2 6.2  10-6 8.0  100 4.8  10-3 Feed Portsmouth, VA 1.2  10-1 1.1  101 1.8  10-2 4.2  10-6 1.1  101 6.6  10-3 Product Columbia, SC 1.4  10-1 8.3  100 1.3  10-2 2.9  10-6 8.5  100 5.1  10-3 Product Richland, WA 2.2  10-1 1.4  100 2.2  10-3 4.7  10-7 1.4  100 8.4  10-4 Product Wilmington, NC 1.6  10-1 9.5  100 1.5  10-2 3.3  10-6 9.6  100 5.8  10-3 Product Baltimore, MD 1.6  10-1 9.6  100 1.5  10-2 3.3  10-6 9.8  100 5.8  10-3 Product Portsmouth, VA 1.1  10-1 6.4  100 1.0  10-2 2.2  10-6 6.5  100 3.9  10-3

Depleted UF6/tails Paducah, KY 5.7  10-2 7.3  100 1.2  10-2 2.8  10-6 7.4  100 4.4  10-3Depleted UF6/tails Portsmouth, OH 4.1  10-2 5.3  100 8.5  10-3 2.0  10-6 5.3  100 3.2  10-3Empty feed Port Hope, ON 1.4  10-6 2.5  10-5 2.1  10-7 3.7  10-9 2.7  10-5 1.6  10-8Empty feed Metropolis, IL 1.4  10-6 2.6  10-5 2.6  10-7 3.8  10-9 2.8  10-5 1.7  10-8Empty feed Baltimore, MD 2.1  10-6 3.9  10-5 3.2  10-7 5.7  10-9 4.1  10-5 2.5  10-8Empty feed Portsmouth, VA 1.4  10-6 2.6  10-5 2.6  10-7 3.8  10-9 2.8  10-5 1.7  10-8Empty product Columbia, SC 6.5  10-7 1.7  10−5 1.4  10-7 1.7  10-9 1.7  10-5 1.0  10-8Empty product Richland, WA 1.1  10-7 2.7  10-6 2.3  10-8 2.8  10-10 2.8  10-6 1.7  10-9Empty product Wilmington, NC 7.4  10-7 1.9  10-5 1.6  10-7 1.9  10-9 2.0  10-5 1.2  10-8Empty DUF6/tails Port Hope, ON 1.2  10-6 2.1  10-5 1.8  10-7 3.2  10-9 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-8Empty DUF6/tails Metropolis, IL 1.2  10-6 2.2  10-5 1.8  10-7 3.3  10-9 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-8Empty DUF6/tails Baltimore, MD 2.2  10-6 3.9  10-5 3.3  10-7 5.9  10-9 4.2  10-5 2.5  10-8
 D-29 Table D-12 Doses and Total Risk of Latent Cancer Fatalities from Accidents during Truck Transportation of Radioactive Materials (Cont.) Population Dose (person-rem) Total Population Risk of LCF Material Route Ground Inhaled Resuspended Soil Cloud Shine Total Dose Empty depleted UF6/tails Portsmouth, VA 1.2  10-6 2.2  10-5 1.8  10-7 3.3  10-9 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-8 Empty depleted UF6/tails Paducah, KY 1.2  10-6 2.2  10-5 1.8  10-7 3.3  10-9 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-8 Empty depleted UF6/tails Portsmouth, OH 1.2  10-6 2.2  10-5 1.8  10-7 3.3  10-9 2.3  10-5 1.4  10-8 Solid waste Clive, UT 7.3  10-6 5.1  10-4 4.2  10-6 1.9  10-10 5.2  10-4 3.1  10-7 Solid waste Hanford, WA 5.9  10-6 4.1  10-4 3.5  10-6 1.6  10-10 4.2  10-4 2.5  10-7 Solid waste Oak Ridge, TN 3.1  10-5 2.1  10-3 1.8  10-5 8.1  10-10 2.2  10-3 1.3  10-6 1 2 
 D-30 

1 D.5 Uncertainty in Transportation Risk Assessment 

2 

3 There are many sources of uncertainty in assessing the risks of transporting radioactive 

4 materials to and from the proposed EREF. Factors that can be quantified include the routing of 

5 the material, shipping container characteristics, mode of transport, and source or destination of 

6 the material. Each of these sources of uncertainty is discussed below. 

7 

8 D.5.1 Routing of Radioactive Material 

9 

10 There are many varying routes for the shipments of the radioactive materials to and from the 

11 proposed EREF. WebTRAGIS simplifies the routing choices by allowing the analyst to select 

12 various routing restrictions. These can range from no restrictions to HRCQ restrictions. 

13 Choices include the shortest route, fastest route, and prohibit various routes. Based on the 

14 NRC’s previous analysis of different routing options (NRC, 2005b), the NRC staff used HRCQ 

15 routing for the transportation impact assessment this EIS. 

16 

17 D.5.2 Shipping Container Characteristics 

18 

19 The characteristics of the shipping container are important in the assessment of both incident20 free and accident impacts. The routine (incident-free) impact is determined by the direct 

21 radiation along the side of the shipping container and the length of the container. The accident 

22 impacts are determined by the release fraction for each accident severity class. Historically, 

23 NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977) was developed to provide background material for a review by the 

24 NRC of regulations dealing with the transportation of radioactive materials. In 2002, DOE 

25 presented a review of the historical assessments, transportation models, and a compilation of 

26 supporting data parameters, including release fractions, and generally accepted assumptions 

27 (DOE, 2002). DOE also evaluated shipments of depleted UF6 in Type 48Y containers 

28 (DOE, 1999b); however, the release fractions were about one quarter of the DOE (2002) values. 

29 For this assessment, the NRC staff chose to use the more conservative release fractions for 

30 Type A containers (DOE, 2002). 

31 

32 D.5.3 Source or Destination of Radioactive Material 

33 

34 The source or destination of the radioactive material can also affect the transportation impact 

35 analysis. For example, as discussed in Section D.4, it is not expected that all of the feed 

36 material would be received exclusively from Port Hope, Ontario, Canada, or from Metropolis, 

37 Illinois. It is a reasonable assumption that feed could come from multiple sources. Therefore, 

38 the impact from transportation of feed material would range between the impacts evaluated for 

39 Port Hope and Metropolis. The same rationale applies to other types of shipments. 

40 

41 D.6 References 

42 

43 (AES, 2010) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

44 Environmental Report, Rev. 2.” April. 

45 

46 (Biwer and Butler, 1999) Biwer, B.M., and J.P. Butler. “Vehicle Emission Unit Risk Factors for 

47 Transportation Risk Assessments.” Risk Analysis 19:1157–1171. 

48 
 D-31 

1 (Biwer et al., 2001) Biwer, B.M., F.A. Monette, L.A. Nieves, and N.L. Ranek. “Transportation 

2 Impact Assessment for Shipment of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) Cylinders from the East 

3 Tennessee Technology Park to the Portsmouth and Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plants.” 

4 ANL/EAD/TM-112. October. <http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/ANL-EAD-TM-112.pdf> 

5 (Accessed March 15, 2010). 

6 

7 (DOE, 1999a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

8 Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted 

9 Uranium Hexafluoride.” DOE/EIS-0269. Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, 

10 Washington, D.C. April. 

11 

12 (DOE, 1999b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Environmental Assessment, Disposition of Russian 

13 Federation Titled Natural Uranium.” DOE/EA-1290. Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and 

14 Technology, Washington, D.C. June. 

15 

16 (DOE, 2002) U.S. Department of Energy. “A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk 

17 Assessment.” DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01. July. <http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/DOEDocuments/ 

18 089%20transrisk_handbook.pdf> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

19 

20 (DOE, 2004a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

21 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

22 Paducah, Kentucky, Site.” DOE/EIS-0359. June. <http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/finalEIS23 0359.htm> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

24 

25 (DOE, 2004b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

26 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

27 Portsmouth, Ohio, Site.” DOE/EIS-0360. June. <http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/finalEIS28 0360.htm> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

29 

30 (Doty et al., 1976) Doty, S.R., et al. “A Climatological Analysis of Pasquill Stability Categories 

31 Based on STAR Summaries.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

32 Climatic Center. April. 

33 

34 (Eckerman and Ryman, 1993) Eckerman, K.F., and J.C. Ryman. “External Exposure to 

35 Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil: Federal Guidance Report No. 12.” EPA 402-R-93-081. 

36 Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

37 Radiation and Indoor Air. September. <http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/federal/402-r-93-

38 081.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

39 

40 (EPA, 1993) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study.” 

41 EPA 420-R-93-005. Office of Mobile Sources. April. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/ 

42 tox_archive.htm#2> (Accessed March 3, 2010). 

43 

44 (EPA, 1996a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Review of the National Ambient Air 

45 Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

46 Information.” EPA-452/R-96-013. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July. 

47 
 D-32 

1 (EPA, 1996b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Air Quality Criteria for Particulate 

2 Matter.” EPA-600/P-95-001aF, Vols. 1–3. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April. 

3 

4 (EPA, 1999) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Cancer Risk Coefficients for 

5 Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Federal Guidance Report No. 13.” EPA 402-R-99-

6 001. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

7 Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. September. http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/federal/402-

8 r-99-001.pdf> (Accessed March 1, 2010). 

9 

10 (Fischer et al., 1987) Fischer, L.E., C.K. Chou, M.A. Gehard, C.Y. Kimura, R.W. Martin, 

11 R.W. Mensing, M.E. Mount, and M.C. Witte. “Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway 

12 and Railway Accident Conditions.” NUREG/CR-4829, UCID-20733. Prepared by Lawrence 

13 Livermore National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor 

14 System Safety, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc15 collections/nuregs/contract/cr4829> (Accessed March 3, 2010). 

16 

17 (Hostick et al., 1992) Hostick, C.J., J.C. Lavender, and B.H. Wakeman. Time/Motion 

18 “Observations and Dose Analysis of Reactor Loading, Transportation, and Dry Unloading of an 

19 Overweight Truck Spent Fuel Shipment.” PNL-7206. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 

20 <http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5466629-Bjor2U/5466629.pdf> (Accessed 

21 November 11, 2009). 

22 

23 (ICRP, 1996) International Commission on Radiological Protection. “Age-Dependent Doses to 

24 the Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides Part 5, Compilation of Ingestion and 

25 Inhalation Coefficients.” ICRP Publication 72. September. 

26 

27 (ISCORS, 2002) Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. “Final Report: A 

28 Method for Estimating Radiation Risk from Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE).” ISCORS 

29 Technical Report 2002-02. <http://www.iscors.org/doc/RiskTEDE.pdf> (Accessed 

30 November 9, 2009). 

31 

32 (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2003) Johnson, P.E., and R.D. Michelhaugh. “Transportation 

33 Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) User’s Manual.” ORNL/NTRC-006, 

34 Rev. 0. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Transportation Research Center, 

35 for U.S. Department of Energy. June. <https://tragis.ornl.gov/TRAGISmanual.pdf> (Accessed 

36 March 1, 2010). 

37 

38 (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2003) Neuhauser, K.S., and F.L. Kanipe. “RADTRAN 5 User Guide.” 

39 SAND2003-2354. Sandia National Laboratories. July. <http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/ 

40 OtherDocuments/392%20RADTRAN-2003.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

41 

42 (NRC, 1977) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Final Environmental Statement on the 

43 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, Volumes I and II.” 

44 NUREG-0170. December. 

45 

46 
 D-33 

1 (NRC, 2005a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement on the 

2 Construction and Operation of a Proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the 

3 Savannah River Site, South Carolina.” Final Report. NUREG-1767, Vol. 1. January. 

4 <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1767> (Accessed March 3, 2010). 

5 

6 (NRC, 2005b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

7 Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico.” Final Report. 

8 NUREG-1790, Vol. 1. June. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/ 

9 sr1790/> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

10 

11 (NRC, 2006) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

12 Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.” NUREG-1834. April. 

13 <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1834/> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

14 

15 (NRC, 2009) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Directory of Certificates of Compliance for 

16 Radioactive Materials Packages.” NUREG-0383, Rev. 27, Vol. 2. ADAMS Accession 

17 No. ML090410560. 

18 

19 (Ostro and Chestnut, 1998) Ostro, B., and L. Chestnut. “Assessing the Health Benefits of 

20 Reducing Particulate Matter Air Pollution in the United States.” Environmental Research A

21 76:94–106. 

22 

23 (Policastro et al., 1997) Policastro, A.J., et al. “Facility Accident Impact Analyses in Support of 

24 the Depleted UF6 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.” Environmental Assessment 

25 Division, Argonne National Laboratory. June. 

26 

27 (Saricks and Tompkins, 1999) Saricks, C., and M. Tompkins. “State-Level Accident Rates of 

28 Surface Freight Transportation: A Re-Examination.” ANL/ESD/TM-150. Argonne National 

29 Laboratory. <http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/OtherDocuments/442%20ANL%20ESD%20TM30 150%20state%20lvl%20accdnt%20rat.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

31 

32 (Sprung et al., 2000) Sprung, J.L., et al. “Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk 

33 Estimates.” NUREG/CR-6672, SAND2000-0234. Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for 

34 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

35 ADAMS Accession No. ML003698324. 

36 

37 (USEC, 1995) United States Enrichment Corporation. “Uranium Hexafluoride: A Manual of 

38 Good Handling Practices.” USEC-651, Rev. 7. January. <http://www.osti.gov/bridge/ 

39 servlets/purl/205924-LzIkaU/webviewable/205924.pdf> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

40 

41 (USEC, 1999) United States Enrichment Corporation. “The UF6 Manual: Good Handling 

42 Practices for Uranium Hexafluoride.” USEC-651, Rev. 8. January. 

43 

44 (Weiner et al., 2008) Weiner, R.L., D.M. Osborn, D. Hinojosa, T.J. Heames, J. Penisten, and D. 

45 Orcutt. “RADCAT 2.3 User Guide.” SAND2006-6315. April. <https://radtran.sandia.gov/docs/ 

46 RadCat2_3UserGuide_Rev1.pdf> (Accessed July 21, 2009). 

47 
 D-34 

1 (Wilmot, 1981) Wilmot, E.L. “Transportation Accident Scenarios for Commercial Spent Fuel.” 

2 SAND80-2124. Sandia National Laboratories. 
 E-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX E 

15 DOSE METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS 

 E-3 

1 APPENDIX E 

2 DOSE METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS 

3 

4 E.1 Introduction 

5 

6 This appendix discusses the methodology, data, and results for the analysis of the impacts on 

7 workers (construction workers, nonradiological workers, and radiation workers) and members of 

8 the general public that could result from routine operations at the AREVA Enrichment Services, 

9 LLC (AES) proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). 

10 

11 The consideration of radiation impacts on EREF construction workers covers the period of time 

12 when the proposed EREF is operational but not yet at full capacity. These workers would be 

13 present and could possibly be exposed to radiation during normal operations at the proposed 

14 facility. They may be exposed to external gamma radiation from stored depleted uranium 

15 cylinders, low-enriched uranium (LEU) product cylinders, natural feed cylinders, and empty 

16 cylinders. In addition, these workers would be exposed to radiation associated with the 

17 atmospheric release of uranium during normal operations. 

18 

19 The consideration of radiation impacts on EREF radiation workers covers internal exposures 

20 that may be associated with uranium enrichment operations, external exposures to depleted 

21 uranium and LEU product cylinders, and external exposures associated with process 

22 operations. Radiation dosimetry results associated with similar operational facilities will be used 

23 to assess worker doses at the proposed EREF. 

24 

25 Radiation impacts on members of the general public may result from the atmospheric release of 

26 uranium from normal operations as well as gamma radiation associated with stored depleted 

27 uranium cylinders. 

28 

29 E.2 Pathway Assessment Methodology 

30 

31 The CAP88-PC Version 3.0 computer code was used to assess the impacts on nonradiological 

32 workers and members of the general public from the atmospheric release of uranium 

33 compounds associated with normal operations (Rosnick, 2007). The CAP88-PC code 

34 estimates the total effective dose, which is the 50-year committed effective dose from internal 

35 emitters plus the effective dose from external exposure. 

36 

37 E.2.1 Members of the General Public 

38 

39 Radiological impacts on members of the general public were estimated for the following: 

40 

41 • collective population living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed EREF 

42 

43 • nearest resident 

44 

45 • persons located outside the fenced boundary of the proposed EREF 

46 

47 
 E-4 

1 The consideration of radiological impacts on the collective population and nearest resident 

2 covers the following pathways: 

3 

4 • external gamma radiation due to plume submersion 

5 

6 • external gamma radiation due to deposition 

7 

8 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to plume passage 

9 

10 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to resuspension 

11 

12 • ingestion of plant foods grown within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed EREF 

13 

14 • ingestion of meat products raised within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed EREF 

15 

16 • ingestion of milk produced within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed EREF 

17 

18 Since the area including and surrounding the proposed EREF is zoned for commercial use, for 

19 assessment purposes, the receptors were modeled as nonradiological workers that spend 

20 2000 hours per year next to the outer boundary of the proposed EREF. The consideration of 

21 radiological impacts on persons working next to the outer fence line of the proposed EREF 

22 covers the following pathways: 

23 

24 • external radiation due to stored depleted uranium tail, LEU product, natural feed, and empty 

25 cylinders 

26 

27 • external gamma radiation due to plume submersion 

28 

29 • external gamma radiation due to deposition 

30 

31 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to plume passage 

32 

33 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to resuspension 

34 

35 E.2.2 Construction Workers 

36 

37 The consideration of radiological impacts on construction workers associated with continued 

38 construction operations while the proposed EREF is operational covers the following pathways: 

39 

40 • external radiation due to stored depleted uranium tail, LEU product, natural feed, and empty 

41 cylinders 

42 

43 • external gamma radiation due to plume submersion 

44 

45 • external gamma radiation due to deposition 

46 

47 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to plume passage 

48 
 E-5 

1 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to resuspension 

2 

3 These receptors were evaluated separately from persons working near the outer boundary 

4 because of their proximity to radiation sources such as the LEU, product, depleted uranium tail, 

5 natural feed, and empty cylinders. 

6 

7 E.2.3 Nonradiological Workers 

8 

9 The consideration of radiological impacts on nonradiological workers (i.e., general office staff) is 

10 also considered. These workers are not actively working in the uranium processing areas but 

11 rather are general office staff (administrative/secretarial support, etc.). The potential pathways 

12 would include: 

13 

14 • external radiation due to stored depleted uranium tail, LEU product, natural feed, and empty 

15 cylinders 

16 

17 • external gamma radiation due to plume submersion 

18 

19 • external gamma radiation due to deposition 

20 

21 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to plume passage 

22 

23 • inhalation of uranium compounds due to resuspension 

24 

25 The impacts associated with these workers are assessed using dosimetry records from similar 

26 operating enrichment facilities (AES, 2010). 

27 

28 E.2.4 EREF Radiation Workers 

29 

30 Radiological impacts on the EREF radiation workers were estimated on the basis of dosimetry 

31 records of historical operations at similar facilities. The EREF radiation workers would be under 

32 a radiation dosimetry program that measures both external and internal radiation doses. 

33 

34 E.2.5 Environmental Transport Methodology 

35 

36 The CAP88-PC Version 3 computer code was used to estimate the radiological impacts 

37 associated with the atmospheric transport of uranium compounds during normal operations 

38 (Rosnick, 2007). CAP88-PC estimates the total effective dose associated with the external 

39 inhalation and ingestion pathways. Version 3 of the computer code has incorporated dose 

40 conversion and risk factors from Federal Guidance Report Number 13 (FGR 13) (EPA, 1999), 

41 which used dose conversion factors from the International Commission on Radiological 

42 Protection Publication 72 (ICRP 72) (ICRP, 1996). 

43 

44 The CAP88-PC computer code incorporates a modified version of the AIRDOS-EPA program to 

45 calculate the environmental transport of radionuclides. Relevant sections of the CAP88-PC 

46 Version 3 users guide are reproduced in this section as referenced. 

47 
 E-6 

1 At the center of the atmospheric transport model is the Gaussian plume model of Pasquill, as 

2 modified by Gifford: 

3 















































 

  





























   





























  

2 2 2

2

1

exp 2

1

exp 2

1

exp 2 y z y z z

Q y z H z H

     

4  , (1) 

5 

6 where 

7 

8 χ = concentration in air (chi) at x meters downwind, y meters crosswind, and 

z meters above ground (Ci/m3 9 ) 

10 Q = release rate from stack (Ci/s) 

11 μ = wind speed (m/s) 

 y 12 = horizontal dispersion coefficient (m) 

 z 13 = vertical dispersion coefficient (m) 

14 H = effective stack height (m) 

15 y = crosswind distance (m) 

16 z = vertical distance (m) 

17 

18 The effective release height used in equation 1 considers buoyant plume rise due to compounds 

19 being released above ambient temperatures. For the proposed EREF, any released uranium 

20 compounds would be at ambient temperatures; therefore, the effective stack height is simply the 

21 height of the release point. 

22 

23 Annual average meteorological data sets usually include frequencies for several wind-speed 

24 categories for each wind direction and the Pasquill atmospheric stability category. CAP88-PC 

25 uses reciprocal-averaged wind speeds in the atmospheric dispersion equations, which permit a 

26 single calculation for each wind speed category. Equation 1 is applied to ground-level 

27 concentrations in air at the plume centerline by setting y and z to zero, which results in 

28 































  

2

2

1

exp 2 y z z

Q H

   

29  . (2) 

30 

31 The average ground-level concentration in air over a sector of 22.5 degrees can be 

32 approximated by 

33 

































  







































2

0

2

2

2

1

exp tan(11.25 ) 2

0.5

exp

y z z

o

y

avg

Q H

x

y dy

   



34  , (3) 

35 

36 which can be reduced further to 

37 
 E-7 































  

2

2

1

exp 0.15871 z z

avg

H

x

Q

   

1  . (4) 

2 

3 The CAP88-PC code considers both dry and wet deposition as well as radioactive decay. 

4 Plume depletion is accounted for by substituting a reduced release rate Q’ for the original 

5 release rate for each downwind distance x (Slade, 1968). The ratio of the reduced release rate 

6 to the original is the depletion fraction. The overall depletion fraction used in CAP88-PC is the 

7 product of the depletion fractions for precipitation, dry deposition, and radioactive decay. 

8 

9 Ground surface soil concentrations are calculated on an annual basis. Ingrowth and decay of 

10 progeny radionuclides are calculated by using Bateman’s equations for the entire decay chain. 

11 Radionuclide concentrations in meat, milk, and vegetables are calculated by using elemental 

12 transfer factors from Report 123 of the National Council on Radiation Protection and 

13 Measurements (NCRP, 1996). The concentration in soil for each isotope is multiplied by the 

14 appropriate elemental transfer factor to generate a concentration in each ingestion pathway 

15 medium for that isotope in that sector. 

16 

17 E.3 Radiological Impact Assessment Input 

18 

19 The data and results of the radiological impacts are provided below for the following groups: 

20 

21 • collective population 

22 

23 • nearest resident 

24 

25 • member of the public adjacent to the outer boundary of the proposed EREF 

26 

27 • construction workers associated with the continued construction operations while the 

28 proposed EREF is operational 

29 

30 • construction worker at uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinder pad 

31 

32 • EREF workers 

33 

34 E.3.1 Radionuclide Releases 

35 

36 The release of uranium compounds during normal operations was modeled by using the activity 

37 data provided in Table E-1. The radiological impacts were modeled by using releases from a 

38 1.5-million-separative work unit (SWU) plant described in NUREG-1484 (NRC, 1994) linearly 

39 scaled up to a 6.6-million-SWU facility. For the 6.6-million-SWU facility, it was assumed that 

40 19.5 megabecquerels (530 microcuries) of uranium was released. For conservatism, this same 

41 quantity of uranium was assumed to be released during the combined construction and 

42 operational phase in order to estimate the maximum potential dose that construction workers 

43 could incur. 

44 

45 Release points for airborne emissions were assumed to take place at an elevation of 40 m 

46 (132 ft). However, the CAP88-PC computer code does not account for building wake effects. 
 E-8 

Table E-1 Source Term Used for the 

Radiological Impact Assessment for 

Normal Operationsa

Radionuclide Wt% Activity 

MBq (μCi) 

Uranium-234 5.5  10-3 9.5 (260) 

Uranium-235 0.71 0.5 (10) 

Uranium-238 99.3 9.5 (260) 

Total 19.5 (530) 

a

 Members of the general public, 6.6-millionSWU facility. Annual uranium released: 

760 grams, 19.5 MBq (530 μCi).

Source: Derived from AES, 2010.

1 

2 Therefore, doses were assessed based on a combination of ground-level releases and 40-m 

3 stack releases. For conservatism, the maximum dose calculated for the same individuals or 

4 collective population from either a 40-m release or a ground-level release was used for the dose 

5 assessment. 

6 

7 E.3.2 Population Distributions 

8 

9 The general population distribution for the radiological impact assessment was made by 

10 projecting the population of the 12 counties in Idaho (Bannock, Bingham, Blaine, Bonneville, 

11 Butte, Caribou, Clark, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, and Power) that fall within the 

12 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the proposed EREF. Population estimates were made by using 

13 the SECPOP 2000 computer code to year 2050 (NRC, 2003). A total of 267,256 persons was 

14 considered for estimating the collective population dose. Table E-2 provides the population 

15 distribution data used for the assessment. 

16 

17 The worker population distributions were derived on the basis of those workers who are 

18 involved in the continued build-out of the adjoining Separation Building Modules (SBMs), the 

19 UF6 handling areas, and the storage areas for the full tails, full feed, and empty cylinders. In 

20 total, approximately 400 construction-related persons were evaluated for the radiological dose 

21 assessment. Table E-3 provides a breakdown of the individuals by labor craft and location. 

22 

23 E.3.3 Exposure Time Fractions and Receptor Locations 

24 

25 The CAP88-PC computer code assumes that an individual spends an entire year at the 

26 locations provided. This assumption is overly conservative with regard to evaluating either the 

27 construction worker collective population dose or the dose received by a hypothetical worker at 

28 the site boundary because, on average, a worker is assumed to spend 2000 hours per year at a 

29 job site. In order to account for this limitation, the collective construction worker doses and the 

30 doses received by a hypothetical worker at the site boundary were scaled down by a factor of 

31 4.38 (24 multiplied by 365.25/2000). 

32 

33 
 E-9 Table E-2 Extrapolated Data on Population within 80-kilometer (50-mile) Radius of Proposed EREF in 2050 (distance from proposed EREF in kilometers [top line] and miles [bottom line]) Direction 0–1.6 (0–1) 1.6–3.2 (1–2) 3.2–4.8 (2–3) 4.8–6.4 (3–4) 6.4–8.0 (4–5) 8.0–16 (5–10) 16–32 (10–20) 32–48 (20–30) 48–64 (30–40) 64–80 (40–50) S 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 20,589 3835 61,264 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 757 1172 3477 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 55 5 38 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 9 6 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2142 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 220 562 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 299 58 18 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 921 223 146 70

NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 559 157 831NE 0 0 0 0 0 3 193 8 1365 4882ENE 0 0 0 0 0 3 1561 9655 29,946 4229E 0 0 0 0 0 17 1004 13,654 3436 37ESE 0 0 0 0 0 14 12,744 68,188 421 0SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 741 10,303 21 2SSE 0 0 0 0 0 75 142 6214 78 114

1 
 E-10 

Table E-3 Worker Population Distribution during 

Build-Out/Operational Phase 

Labor Craft Plant Area Craft Hours per Year Persons 

Civil/structural UF6 Handling 109,174 54 

 SBM 269,296 134 

 Cylinder Pad 24,729 12 

Mechanical UF6 Handling 65,504 32 

 SBM 161,577 80 

 Cylinder Pad 14,837 7 

Electrical UF6 Handling 43,669 22 

 SBM 107,718 53 

 Cylinder Pad 9891 5 

Totals UF6 Handling 218,348 108 

 SBM 538,592 267 

 Cylinder Pad 49,459 24.5 

Source: AES, 2009. 

1 

2 The hypothetical site boundary receptor was chosen so that a person would receive the dose; 

3 therefore, this individual can be considered a maximally exposed individual. Since Bonneville 

4 County zoning laws prohibit the land area adjacent to the proposed EREF to be zoned other 

5 than for industrial use, the receptor was modeled as a worker that spends 2000 hours per year 

6 at the proposed site boundary. On the basis of the release point and meteorological conditions 

7 present at the proposed site, the receptor was assumed to be located 1.1 kilometers (0.7 mile) 

8 north of the proposed site. 

9 

10 Table E-4 provides a listing of the receptor locations and the time fractions used to estimate the 

11 radiological impacts on the nearest resident and the hypothetical worker at the proposed site 

12 boundary. 

13 

14 E.3.4 Agricultural Productivity 

15 

16 The ingestion of vegetables, meat, and milk was considered in the radiological impact 

17 assessment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rural food source scenario 

18 option within CAP88-PC was selected for the assessment. On the basis of regional food 

19 production, estimates were derived for the beef cattle density, milk cattle density, and land 

20 fraction cultivated by vegetables. Table E-5 provides a list of the agricultural parameters used 

21 in CAP88-PC for the radiological impact assessment. 

22 

23 E.3.5 Radionuclide-Specific Input 

24 

25 The radiological impacts were estimated by using the CAP88-PC Version 3.0 computer code. 

26 This computer code uses the newer FGR-13/ICRP-72-based dose conversion factors. Uranium 
 E-11 

Table E-4 Receptor Locations for Radiological Impact Assessment 

Receptor 

Direction from 

Source to 

Proposed Site 

Boundary 

Distance from 

Source to 

Proposed Site 

Boundary in 

km (mi) 

Time Spent at 

Location (h) 

Nearest resident North 8.0 (5.0) 8761 

Member of the public at proposed site 

boundary: 

 Cylinder pad 

 Atmospheric release 

North 

North 

0.76 (0.47) 

1.1 (0.7) 

2000 

NAa

a

 NA = Not applicable.

1 

Table E-5 Agricultural Input Parameters Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment 

 Vegetable Meat Milk Scenario 

Fraction from assessed area 0.7 0.4 0.442 Collective population dose 

Fraction home produced 0.3 0.6 0.558 Nearest resident 

Cattle density (no./km2) 11 1.78 Collective population/nearest resident 

Cultivated land fraction 0.036 Collective population/nearest resident 

Source: Derived from AES, 2010. 

2 

3 compounds released from the proposed EREF were assumed to be in the form of uranyl 

4 fluoride (UO2F2), which would be more soluble than other forms of uranium, such as uranium 

5 oxide. To properly capture this chemical phenomenon, “medium” lung clearance classes were 

6 assigned to each uranium isotope. 

7 

8 Radionuclide transfer factors are used to model the uptake of radionuclides by plants and 

9 animals. The transfer factors are element-dependent rather than radionuclide-dependent. The 

10 default values for uranium found in the CAP88-PC Version 3.0 computer code were used for the 

11 radiological impact assessment. A list of the element- and radionuclide-specific factors used for 

12 all radiological impact modeling is provided in Table E-6. 

13 

14 E.4 Results of the Radiological Impact Analyses 

15 

16 This section provides the results of the radiological impact analyses. Radiological impacts were 

17 estimated for the following: 

18 

19 • collective population 

20 

21 • nearest resident 

22 

23 • member of the public adjacent to the outer boundary of the proposed EREF 

24 
 E-12 

Table E-6 Radionuclide-Specific Input Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment 

 Radionuclide Element 

Parameter Name Uranium-234 Uranium-235 Uranium-238 Uranium 

Lung clearance class M M M 

Inhalation dose conversion factor 

(mrem/pCi) 

1.29  10-2 1.14  10-2 1.06  10-2

Ingestion dose conversion factor 

(mrem/pCi) 

1.83  10-4 1.73  10-4 1.65  10-4

Immersion dose conversion factor 

(mrem m3

/μCi-yr) 

7.14  105 7.55  108 2.92  105 

Ground surface dose conversion 

factor (mrem m2

/μCi-yr) 

6.82  102 1.63  105 4.94  102

Deposition velocity (m/s) 1.8  10-3 1.8  10-3 1.8  10-3 

Particle size (μm) 1 1 1 

Milk transfer factor 4  10-4

Meat transfer factor 8  10-4

Forage uptake factor 

(pCi/kg of dry forage/dry soil) 

 0.1 

Edible update factor 

(pCi/kg of wet soil/dry soil) 

 0.02 

Source: Rosnick, 2007; EPA, 1999.

1 

2 • construction workers associated with the continued construction operations while the 

3 proposed EREF is operational 

4 

5 • construction worker at uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinder pad 

6 

7 • EREF workers 

8 

9 E.4.1 Collective Population 

10 

11 Radiological impacts on members of the general population were estimated to be 

1.74  10-3 person-rem/yr (1.74  10-5 12 person-Sv/yr). The breakdown by radionuclide follows 

13 below: 

14 

• 9.3  10-4 15 person-rem/yr (54 percent) uranium-234 

16 

• 3.8  10-5 17 person-rem/yr (2 percent) uranium-235 

18 

• 7.7  10-4 19 person-rem/yr (44 percent) uranium-238 

20 
 E-13 

1 The inhalation pathway was the most dominant, accounting for approximately 88 percent of the 

2 total dose. The ingestion pathway contributed to approximately 11 percent of the total dose. 

3 

4 E.4.2 Individual Public Doses 

5 

6 Radiological impacts were evaluated for the nearest resident and a member of the public next to 

7 the proposed EREF site boundary. As shown in Table E-4, the nearest resident is located 

8 8 kilometers (5 miles) to the north of the proposed EREF and is assumed to spend the entire 

year at that one location. The dose to this individual was estimated to be 2.12  10-4 9 millirem 

10 per year. The dominant pathway for this dose is inhalation, which makes up almost 94 percent 

11 of the total dose. 

12 

13 Radiological impacts on the hypothetical member of the public next to the proposed site 

14 boundary would be composed of both an external dose due to the stored UF6 cylinders and an 

15 inhalation dose due to the release of uranium under normal operations. The total annual dose 

16 to this individual was estimated at 1.4 millirem per year; the external dose associated with the 

17 stored cylinders would account for more than 99.86 percent of the total. Since the vast majority 

18 of the dose is from external radiation associated with the UF6 cylinders, it is more appropriate to 

19 compare this dose to the dose associated with the regulations found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code 

20 of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20.1301). In comparison, this dose to the member of the public 

21 at the site boundary is more than 70 times lower than the 100-mrem/yr dose limit for members 

22 of the public as codified in 10 CFR 20.1301. 

23 

24 E.4.3 Worker Doses 

25 

26 Radiological impacts on construction workers were evaluated for the period when the proposed 

27 EREF would be operational but construction would continue on the SBM and the Cylinder 

28 Storage Pad. For this assessment, it was assumed that the cylinder pad would be constructed 

29 in 20-percent increments. For conservatism, radiological impacts were evaluated for the time 

30 when the last of the segments would be constructed. This scenario would yield the largest 

31 external dose to the workers because of the quantity of cylinders on the pad. The impacts 

32 would be dominated by the external dose associated with stored UF6 cylinders on the pad. The 

33 MCNP Version 5 computer code was used to estimate doses when the last 20 percent of the 

34 pad would be under construction (X5 Monte Carlo Team, 2003). 

35 

36 The total annual collective worker dose to construction workers associated with continued 

37 construction of the remainder of the proposed EREF while a portion of the proposed facility is 

38 under construction was estimated to be 37.6 person-rem. More than 99 percent of the total 

39 dose is associated with external exposures from the depleted uranium, LEU product, natural 

40 feed, and empty cylinders. Likewise, approximately 64 percent of the collective worker dose is 

41 associated with the workers constructing the storage pad. Table E-7 provides the collective 

42 doses for both members of the general public living within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the 

43 proposed EREF and the construction workers associated with the build-out of the existing 

44 facility. 

45 

46 The radiological impact on a construction worker completing the last section of the UF6 storage 

47 pad was estimated at 196 millirem per year, with essentially the entire dose attributable to the 

48 depleted uranium, LEU product, natural feed, and empty cylinders on the storage pad. This 
 E-14 

Table E-7 Collective Doses for Members of the General 

Public and Construction Workers during Proposed EREF 

Build-Out 

Receptor Collective Dose 

(person-rem/yr) 

% Attributable to 

Cylinders on Pad 

General public 1.74  10-3 ~0 

Construction workers: 

 SBM and UF6 handling area 13.6 99.99 

 Storage pad 24.0 99.99 

Total 37.6 99.99 

1 

Table E-8 Summary of Individual Doses for Workers and 

Members of the Public 

Receptor Dose 

(mrem/yr) Major Pathway 

Nearest receptor 2.12  10-4 Inhalation 

Hypothetical member of the public at the proposed site 

boundary 

1.4 External 

Construction pad worker 196a External a

 This dose exceeds the dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301 by a factor of 1.96. The construction pad 

workers should therefore be part of a radiation dosimetry program and reclassified as radiation 

workers.

2 

3 dose is almost two times the annual dose limit to members of the general public; therefore, 

4 these workers should be part of a radiation dosimetry program and classified as radiation 

5 workers. Table E-8 provides a summary of the individual doses evaluated in the radiological 

6 impact assessment. 

7 

8 Annual whole-body dose equivalents accrued by workers at an operating uranium enrichment 

9 plant are typically low; they ranged from 0.22 to 0.44 millisievert in URENCO (2003, 2004, 2005, 

10 2006, 2007). In general, annual doses to workers are expected to range from 0.50 millisievert 

11 per year (5 millirem per year) for general office staff to 3 millisieverts per year (300 millirem per 

12 year) for cylinder handlers. The proposed EREF has proposed an administrative limit of 

13 0.01 sievert per year (1 rem per year) to any radiation worker. This limit is 20 percent of the 

14 regulatory limit provided in 10 CFR 20.1201. Table E-9 provides estimates of annual doses to 

15 representative workers within the proposed EREF. Table E-10 provides estimated dose rates at 

16 several areas at the proposed EREF. 

17 
 E-15 

Table E-9 Estimated Annual Exposures for Various Occupations 

at the Proposed EREF 

Position Annual Dose Equivalent 

(mrem) 

General office staff (nonradiological workers) <5.0 

Typical operations and maintenance technician 100 

Typical cylinder handler 300 

Source: AES, 2010.

1 

Table E-10 Estimated Dose Rates at Various 

Locations within the Proposed EREF 

Position Dose Rate 

(mrem/h) 

Plant general area 0.01 

Separation building – Cascade Halls 0.05 

Separation building 0.1 

Empty used UF6 shipping cylinder 

 On contact 

 At 1 meter (3.3 feet) 

10 

1 

Full UF6 shipping cylinder 

 On contact 

 At 1 meter (3.3 feet) 

5 

0.2 

Source: AES, 2010. 

2 

3 E.5 References 

4 

5 (AES, 2009) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. Letter from Jim Kay (Licensing Manager, AES) 

6 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 9, 2009. “Subject: Response to 

7 Requests for Additional Information – AREVA Enrichment Services LLC Environmental Report 

8 for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility.” ADAMS Accession No. ML092530636. 

9 

10 (AES, 2010) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

11 Environmental Report, Rev. 2.” Bethesda, Maryland. April. 

12 

13 (EPA, 1999) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Cancer Risk Coefficients for 

14 Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides.” Federal Guidance Report 13. 402-R-99-001. 

15 Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

16 Radiation and Indoor Air. September. <http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/federal/402-r-99-

17 001.pdf> (Accessed March 1, 2010). 

18 

19 
 E-16 

1 (ICRP, 1996) International Commission on Radiological Protection. “Age Dependent Doses to 

2 Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides, Part 5: Compilation of Ingestion and 

3 Inhalation Dose Coefficients.” ICRP Publication 72. Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K. 

4 September. 

5 

6 (NCRP, 1996) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. “Screening Models 

7 for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water, and Ground.” NCRP Report 123, 

8 Volume 1. Bethesda, Maryland. 

9 

10 (NRC, 1994) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

11 the Construction and Operation of the Claiborne Enrichment Center, Homer Louisiana.” 

12 NUREG-1484, Vol. 1. August. 

13 

14 (NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Sector Population, Land Fraction, and 

15 Economic Estimation Program.” NUREG/CR-6525, Rev. 1. Division of Risk Analysis and 

16 Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 

17 

18 (Rosnick, 2007) Rosnick, R. “CAP88-PC Version 3.0 Users Guide.” December 9. 

19 

20 (Slade, 1968) Slade, D.H. (ed.). “Meteorology and Atomic Energy–1968.” USAED TID-24190. 

21 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information. 

22 

23 (URENCO, 2003) URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. “Health, Safety and Environmental Report.” 

24 

25 (URENCO, 2004) URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. “Health, Safety and Environmental Report.” 

26 

27 (URENCO, 2005) URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. “Health, Safety and Environmental Report.” 

28 

29 (URENCO, 2006) URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. “Health, Safety and Environmental Report.” 

30 

31 (URENCO, 2007) URENCO (Capenhurst) Ltd. “Health, Safety and Environmental Report.” 

32 

33 (X5 Monte Carlo Team, 2003) X5 Monte Carlo Team. “MCNP–A General Monte Carlo 

34 N-Particle Transport Code, Version 5.” LA-UR-0301987. April 24. 
 F-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX F 

15 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODS 

 F-3 

1 APPENDIX F 

2 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODS 

3 

4 This appendix describes the methods used to estimate the socioeconomic impacts of 

5 preconstruction and construction activities and facility operations of the proposed Eagle Rock 

6 Enrichment Facility (EREF). Impacts are evaluated for a two-county region of influence (ROI) 

7 consisting of Bingham and Bonneville Counties, Idaho. The ROI is the area in which the 

8 majority of the proposed EREF permanent employees would live and spend their wages and 

9 which is expected to be the primary source of labor for each phase of the proposed EREF 

10 (AES, 2010). 

11 

12 The socioeconomic analysis was divided into four main steps: (1) expenditure and employment 

13 data during construction and operations were used to estimate direct and indirect economic 

14 impacts; (2) the impact on direct State and local tax revenues were estimated; (3) the number of 

15 in-migrating workers required to fill onsite job positions during each project phase, and 

16 associated family members, was estimated based on information gathered from local economic 

17 development agencies; and (4) the resulting housing and local community service employment 

18 impacts were estimated. 

19 

20 F.1 Employment, Income, and Tax Impacts 

21 

22 Employment and income impacts include both direct and indirect employment and income 

23 associated with the various phases of the proposed EREF development. Direct employment 

24 and income are created by onsite activities at the facility itself, while indirect employment and 

25 income are created in the ROI as workers directly employed by the proposed EREF spend their 

26 salaries and as jobs are created with the purchase of materials, equipment, services, and other 

27 non-payroll expenditures. Direct employment and income created during each stage of the 

28 proposed project were estimated on the basis of anticipated labor inputs and salaries for the 

29 various engineering and construction activities associated with each phase of the proposed 

30 project. The indirect impacts of the proposed EREF on regional employment and income were 

31 estimated using regional economic multipliers. Multipliers capture the indirect (offsite) effects of 

32 onsite activities associated with construction and operation. 

33 

34 The multipliers used in this analysis were taken from the RIMS-II Input-Output Model developed 

35 by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA, 2010). The 

36 multipliers take into account the flow of commodities to industries from producers and 

37 institutional consumers in the various sectors of the economy of the ROI. Input–output accounts 

38 also show consumption activities by workers, owners of capital, and imports from outside the 

39 region. The RIMS II model contains 528 sectors representing the industries of agriculture, 

40 mining, construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, utilities, finance, insurance and 

41 real estate, and consumer and business services. For each sector, the model also includes 

42 information on employee compensation; proprietary and property income; personal consumption 

43 expenditures; Federal, State, and local expenditures; inventory and capital formation; and 

44 imports and exports. 

45 

46 The RIMS-II multipliers measure the total (direct plus indirect) impact of direct facility 

47 employment on ROI output, income, and employment. Multipliers associated with each major 

48 expenditure category (for example, separator equipment, process building and offices, utilities, 
 F-4 

1 spare parts, and construction payroll) taken from the RIMS-II model are multiplied by the 

2 relevant direct employment number, with the resulting total impacts in each category 

3 aggregated to produce the overall impact of each phase of the proposed facility. 

4 

5 State income tax revenue impacts were estimated by applying State income tax rates to 

6 projected EREF project-related construction and operations earnings. State and local sales tax 

7 revenues were estimated by applying appropriate State and local sales tax rates (see 

8 Section 3.12.4) to after-tax income generated by construction and operations employees that 

9 was spent within the ROI. 

10 

11 F.2 Impacts on Population 

12 

13 A number of workers, families, and children would migrate into the ROI, either temporarily or 

14 permanently, with construction and operation of the proposed EREF. The capacity of regional 

15 labor markets to provide sufficient numbers of workers in the appropriate occupations required 

16 for facility construction and operation is closely related to the occupational profile of the ROI and 

17 its occupational unemployment rates. Although Bingham and Bonneville Counties are expected 

18 to be the primary sources of labor for the proposed EREF, some in-migration of workers, 

19 families, and children into the ROI, either temporarily or permanently, is expected during each 

20 phase of the proposed EREF. The capacity of regional labor markets to produce sufficient 

21 numbers of workers in the appropriate occupations required for facility construction and 

22 operation is closely related to the occupational profile of the ROI and occupational 

23 unemployment rates. The number of in-migrating workers used in the analysis was assumed to 

24 be small, with the majority of craft skills being available in the ROI. Sixty-five percent of 

25 in-migrating workers were assumed to be accompanied by their families, which would consist of 

26 an additional adult and one school-age child (AES, 2010), based on the national average 

27 household size (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

28 

29 F.3 Impacts on Local Housing Markets 

30 

31 The in-migration of workers during preconstruction, construction, and operation would have the 

32 potential to substantially affect the housing market in the ROI. The analysis evaluated the 

33 potential impacts resulting from the in-migration of both direct and indirect workers into the ROI 

34 by estimating the increase in demand for rental housing, the type of housing most likely to be 

35 occupied by construction workers, in the peak year of construction, and the increase in demand 

36 for owner-occupied housing, the housing type most likely to be chosen by operations workers, in 

37 the first year of operation. The relative impact on existing housing in the ROI was estimated by 

38 calculating the impact of the proposed EREF-related housing demand on the forecasted number 

39 of vacant rental housing units in the peak year of construction and the number of vacant owner40 occupied units in the first year of operations using data from the U.S. Census Bureau 

41 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

42 

43 F.4 Impacts on Community Services 

44 

45 Impacts of proposed EREF in-migration on community service employment were estimated for 

46 the two ROI counties in which most of the new workers would reside. The projected numbers of 

47 in-migrating workers and families were used to calculate the numbers of new sworn police 

48 officers, firefighters, and general government employees required to maintain the existing levels 
 F-5 

1 of service for each community service. Calculations were based on the existing number of 

2 employees per 1000 population for each community service. The analysis of the impacts on 

3 educational employment estimated the number of teachers required for each school district to 

4 maintain existing teacher–student ratios across all student age groups. Information on existing 

5 employment and levels of service was collected from the individual jurisdictions providing each 

6 service. 

7 

8 F.5 References 

9 

10 (AES, 2010) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

11 Environmental Report, Rev. 2.” Bethesda, Maryland. April. 

12 

13 (BEA, 2010) Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts: RIMS II Multipliers.” 

14 <https://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/rimsii/> (Accessed April 19, 2010). 

15 

16 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009) U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder.” 

17 <http://factfinder.census.gov/> (Accessed October 4, 2009). 

 G-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX G 

15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS DATA 

 G-3 

1 APPENDIX G 

2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS DATA 

3 

4 This appendix provides the data used in the assessment of the potential for disproportionately 

5 high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low-income 

6 populations resulting from the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

7 the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). 

8 

9 Tables G-1 through G-4 present detailed Census data for the environmental justice analysis at 

10 the State, county, and Census block group levels for 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

11 Minority and low-income populations are defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 of this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ArcView® 12 geographic information system software was 

13 used to determine minority and low-income characteristics by block group. Minority and low14 income data are shown for all block groups that lay partially or completely within the area 

15 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) from the proposed EREF. 

16 

Table G-1 State and County Minority 

Population Totals, 2000 

Location Total 

Population 

Minority 

Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Idaho 1,293,953 116,649 9.0 

Bingham County 41,735 7332 17.6 

Bonneville County 82,522 5948 7.2 

Jefferson County 19,155 1749 9.1 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 

17 

Table G-2 Census Block Group Minority Population Totals, 2000 

Location County Total 

Population 

Minority 

Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Census Tract 9503, Census Block Group 1 Bingham 1438 234 16.3 

Census Tract 9715, Census Block Group 1 Bonneville 790 170 21.5 

Census Tract 9715, Census Block Group 2 Bonneville 987 74 7.5 

Census Tract 9601, Census Block Group 1 Jefferson 957 202 21.1 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 

18 
 G-4 

Table G-3 State and County Low-Income 

Population Totals, 1999 

Location Total 

Populationa

Low-Income 

Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Idaho 1,263,205 148,732 11.8 

Bingham County 41,342 5137 12.4 

Bonneville County 81,532 8260 10.1 

Jefferson County 19,155 1984 10.4 

a

 Total population for which poverty status has been determined. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 

1 

Table G-4 Census Block Group Low-Income Population Totals, 1999 

Location County Total 

Populationa

LowIncome 

Population 

Percent 

LowIncome 

Census Tract 9503, Census Block Group 1 Bingham 1384 162 11.7 

Census Tract 9715, Census Block Group 1 Bonneville 692 109 15.8 

Census Tract 9715, Census Block Group 2 Bonneville 1053 69 6.6 

Census Tract 9601, Census Block Group 1 Jefferson 957 223 23.3 

a

 Total population for which poverty status has been determined. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 

2 

3 G.1 References 

4 

5 (CEQ, 1997) Council on Environmental Quality. “Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

6 National Environmental Policy Act.” December 10. 

7 

8 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder.” 

9 <http://factfinder.census.gov> (Accessed March 17, 2010). 
 H-1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 APPENDIX H 

15 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF PROPRIETARY DATA 

 H-3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 The text in this appendix is being withheld under 10 CFR 2.390. 

15 

I-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 APPENDIX I

15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND

16 NRC RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

17 ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

18

I-3

1 APPENDIX I

2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND

3 NRC RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

4 ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5

6 I.1 Introduction

7

8 This appendix summarizes the public participation process conducted by the U.S. Nuclear 

9 Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff for the environmental review and preparation of the 

10 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the NRC’s decision on issuing a license to 

11 AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) to construct, operate, and decommission a proposed 

12 uranium enrichment facility. This facility is the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) 

13 near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho. In particular, this appendix also presents all of the 

14 comments received by the NRC on the Draft EIS and the staff’s response to those comments. 

15 The NRC staff has considered and addressed the approximately 1150 individual comments that 

16 were received from approximately 220 government officials and agencies, nongovernmental 

17 organizations, and members of the general public.

18

19 I.2 Public Participation 

20

21 Public participation is an essential part of the environmental review process under the National 

22 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This section discusses the process for 

23 public participation during the NRC staff’s development of the EIS for the proposed EREF. As 

24 indicated in the discussions below, the NRC conducted an open, public EIS development 

25 process consistent with NEPA and the NRC’s regulations under Title 10 of the U.S. Code of 

26 Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51. 

27

28 I.2.1 Initial Notification and Notice of Formal Proceeding

29

30 Upon receipt of AES’s license application for the proposed EREF and completion of an initial 

31 acceptance review, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register on July 30, 2009 

32 (74 FR 38052) of receipt and availability of the application and notice of hearing. The NRC’s 

33 environmental review began following acceptance and docketing of the application, which 

34 included a Safety Analysis Report and an Environmental Report. The NRC conducted its 

35 reviews pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 70.65 and 10 CFR 51.60, respectively. 

36

37 I.2.2 Public Scoping

38

39 The NRC is required under 10 CFR 51.20(b)(10) to prepare an EIS, and under 10 CFR 51.26 to 

40 issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS and conduct a scoping process for the EIS. 

41 The NRC’s public scoping process for the EIS for the proposed EREF began on May 4, 2009, 

42 with the publication in the Federal Register of the NOI (74 FR 20508). This NOI established a 

43 45-day scoping period, ending on June 19, 2009, during which the public could submit written 

44 comments on the appropriate scope of issues to be considered in the EIS. The NOI also 

45 provided a brief description of the proposed EREF project and information on alternatives to be 

46 evaluated and environmental impact areas to be analyzed in the EIS; summarized the NEPA 

47 process for the proposed project; identified where information on the proposed project could be 

48 accessed; announced a public scoping meeting to be held in Idaho Falls, Idaho, during the 
I-4

1 scoping period, on June 4, 2009; and provided information on how to submit written comments 

2 to the NRC.

3

4 At the public scoping meeting, the NRC staff provided a description of the NRC’s role, 

5 responsibilities, and mission; gave a brief overview of its environmental and safety review 

6 processes; discussed how the public could effectively participate in the environmental review 

7 process; and solicited comments from the public on environmental issues and concerns related 

8 to the proposed project. Approximately 40 individuals provided oral comments at the meeting. 

9 In addition, seven individuals provided written comments via regular postal mail and another 

10 95 individuals provided comments via email during the scoping period. Scoping comments 

11 were provided by government officials and agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

12 general public. 

13

14 The oral and written scoping comments received by the NRC were summarized by the staff in 

15 the Scoping Summary Report, issued on September 11, 2009. This report, which is included in 

16 this EIS in Appendix A, also contains additional information on the scoping process and 

17 identifies the issues that would be addressed in the EIS based on the public scoping comments. 

18

19 I.2.3 Draft EIS Development and Availability for Public Comment

20

21 Once the NRC staff completed the scoping process, defined the proposed action and 

22 alternatives, and determined the scope of the EIS, the staff prepared the Draft EIS. During 

23 development of the Draft EIS, the NRC staff sought input from a number of sources, including 

24 Federal, State and local government agencies, Tribal governments, and individuals. 

25

26 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.74, on July 21, 2010, the NRC staff published a Notice of Availability

27 (NOA) for the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (75 FR 42466), announcing the issuance of the 

28 Draft EIS for public comment, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.73, 51.74, and 51.117. The NOA 

29 contained a summary of the contents and preliminary findings of the Draft EIS; the NRC staff’s

30 preliminary recommendation regarding issuance of the proposed license to AES; information on 

31 the public comment meeting to be held in Idaho Falls, Idaho; information on how to submit 

32 written comments at the public comment meeting, electronically, or by mail; and information on 

33 how to access the Draft EIS and other documents related to the proposed EREF project. 

34 Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.74, the NRC distributed the Draft EIS to approximately 

35 135 individuals including Federal, Tribal, State, and local government officials and other 

36 interested parties. Copies of the Draft EIS were also sent by the NRC staff to a public library in 

37 Idaho Falls, to maintain in an information repository on the environmental review for the 

38 proposed EREF project. 

39

40 Also in the July 21, 2010, Federal Register notice, the NRC staff established a 45-day public 

41 comment period on the Draft EIS, consistent with the cited NRC regulations. The official public 

42 comment period began with publication in the Federal Register on July 23, 2010, of the Notice 

43 of Availability of the Draft EIS (75 FR 43160). The public comment period ended on September 

44 13, 2010. 

45

46 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.74, the NRC distributed the Draft EIS to approximately 135 individuals,

47 including Federal, Tribal, State, and local government officials and other interested parties. 

48 Copies of the Draft EIS were also sent by the NRC staff to the Idaho Falls Public Library. The 

49 staff had sent other information on the project to this library over the course of Draft EIS 

50 development, including the AES Environmental Report and revisions (AES, 2010a). At the 
I-5

1 request of the NRC staff, the library maintains an information repository on the proposed EREF 

2 project. 

3

4 I.2.4 Draft EIS Public Comment Meetings

5

6 The NRC staff conducted public meetings to receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIS 

7 from members of the public. These meetings were held on August 9, 2010, in Boise, Idaho, and 

8 on August 12, 2010, in Idaho Falls, Idaho. At these meetings, the NRC staff provided a 

9 description of the NRC’s role, responsibilities, and mission; gave a brief overview of its licensing 

10 and environmental review processes; summarized the content and preliminary findings and 

11 recommendations of the Draft EIS; provided information on how the Draft EIS could be 

12 accessed or obtained and how to provide comments on the document; and solicited comments

13 from the public on the Draft EIS. Oral comments were provided by 50 individuals during the 

14 Boise meeting and by 46 individuals during the Idaho Falls meeting. In addition, written 

15 comments were provided to the NRC staff by12 individuals at the Boise meeting and by 

16 19 individuals at the Idaho Falls meeting. Court reporters recorded both meetings and prepared 

17 a written transcript for each. 

18

19 I.2.5 Additional Public Comments Received on the Draft EIS

20

21 In addition to the written comments submitted at the two public meetings, the NRC received 

22 7 letters, 43 postcards, and 81 emails containing comments on the Draft EIS during the Draft 

23 EIS public comment period. 

24

25 I.3 Draft EIS Public Comment Compilation, Identification, Organization, Review, and 

26 Response

27

28 I.3.1 Comment Compilation

29

30 The NRC staff made the public comment meeting transcripts part of the public record, contained 

31 in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The 

32 meeting transcripts are also available in the NRC’s public website for the proposed EREF 

33 project, at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/arevanc.html#3. Other comment 

34 documents were added to ADAMS as they were received by the NRC. 

35

36 Members of the public can access ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From 

37 this website, the transcripts and other comment documents can be accessed by entering their 

38 ADAMS Accession Numbers (or ML numbers). The ADAMS Accession Numbers for the

39 comment documents in which commenter’s comments appear are identified in Table I-1. 

40 See Section I.3.2 below for a complete description of the contents of Table I-1.

41

42 I.3.2 Commenter and Comment Identification

43

44 The NRC staff reviewed the public meeting transcripts, letters, postcards, and emails to identify 

45 and extract the individual comments on the Draft EIS from these documents. These comments 

46 are presented in Section I.5 of this appendix. 

47

48 The NRC staff identified commenters from the meeting transcripts and comments submitted in 

49 writing and assigned a unique identification number to each commenter, to aid the readers of 
I-6

1 this appendix in locating comments submitted by individual commenters and the NRC staff’s 

2 corresponding responses to those comments. Table I-1 below lists all of the commenters on the 

3 Draft EIS alphabetically by last name, their associated commenter number, the ADAMS 

4 Accession Number(s) of the comment document(s) in which each commenter’s comments 

5 appear, and the subsection(s) of Section I.5 that contain their comments and the NRC 

6 responses to those comments. 

7

8 The NRC staff also assigned a unique comment number to each individual comment. The 

9 public meeting transcripts contain multiple comments, and each written comment document 

10 received contains one or more comments. The comment identification numbers consist of two 

11 parts. The first part identifies the commenter (i.e., is the commenter identification number 

12 discussed above). The second part identifies the specific comment within one of the transcripts 

13 or submitted written comment documents, incrementing sequentially through each transcript 

14 and document. 

15

16 I.3.3 NRC Comment Organization, Review, and Response

17

18 From the meeting transcripts and other comment documents, the NRC staff has reviewed, 

19 considered, and addressed the approximately 1150 individual comments that were received. 

20 Comments relating to similar issues and topics have been grouped together, as permitted by 

21 NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.91. This grouping is also consistent with the Council on 

22 Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4(b). 

23

24 Section I.5 presents all of the comments received, including groups of similar comments, along 

25 with the NRC staff’s corresponding responses to these comments or groups of similar 

26 comments. The NRC staff has categorized comments in subsections of Section I.5 according to 

27 their relation to chapters and sections of this EIS and other issues. Section I.5 contains 

28 29 subsections, or topics, under which the public comments have been categorized. Within 

29 these subsections, the comments are further categorized, or grouped, by subtopics that the 

30 comments have in common, and there are one or more such groupings of comments within 

31 each Section I.5 subsection.

32

33 Each comment or group of similar comments in Section I.5 is introduced with a brief summary 

34 by the NRC staff of the subject of the comment or comments. The text of the comment(s) is 

35 then presented, preceded by the comment identification number(s) and commenter name(s).

36 This is then followed by the NRC response. For cases in which comments have resulted in a 

37 modification to the Draft EIS, those changes are noted in the staff’s response and are included 

38 in this Final EIS. In cases for which the comments do not call for a detailed response, the NRC 

39 staff explains why no further response is necessary. 

40

41 I.3.4 Major Comment Issues and Topics

42

43 The majority of the comments received specifically address the scope of the environmental 

44 review, analysis, and issues contained in the Draft EIS, including the NEPA process, purpose 

45 and need, alternatives to the proposed action, existing conditions, potential environmental 

46 impacts, proposed mitigation, environmental measurements and monitoring, and benefit-cost 

47 analysis. However, other comments address topics and issues that were not part of the NEPA 

48 review process for the proposed action. Those comments include questions about the NRC’s 

49 safety evaluation of the proposed EREF, security concerns, general statements of support of, or 
I-7

1 opposition to, the proposed EREF project, and observations regarding past AES activities

2 (e.g., environmental and safety practices, financial activities) outside the United States.

3

4 I.3.5 Comments on Out-of-Scope Issues and Topics

5

6 The scope of the EIS analysis is defined in 10 CFR 51.71(c), NUREG-1748, “Environmental 

7 Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs” (NRC, 2003), and the 

8 Scoping Summary Report in Appendix A of this EIS. Several commenters raised issues that are 

9 not related to – i.e., not within the scope of – the NRC staff’s environmental review of AES’s

10 application to construct, operate, and decommission the proposed EREF. These include the 

11 comments regarding general opposition to, and support for, the proposed project, without 

12 reference to EIS content, presented in Sections I.5.1 and I.5.2, respectively. Most of the other 

13 comments on out-of scope issues and topics are identified in Section I.5.5 (Scope of the 

14 Analysis). Because these comments do not directly relate to the content of the Draft EIS and 

15 are outside the scope of the NEPA review of the proposed EREF, the NRC staff did not prepare

16 detailed responses to these comments.

17

18 I.4 Mandatory Hearing

19

20 By law, a license to construct, operate, and decommission the proposed EREF cannot be 

21 issued until completion of a hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

22 (ASLBP). The ASLBP is an adjudicatory body independent from the NRC staff. Among its 

23 responsibilities, the ASLBP appoints judges to preside over NRC licensing cases in which a 

24 hearing request has been submitted, or where a hearing is required under the Atomic Energy 

25 Act of 1954 (AEA). Although the NRC did not receive any hearing request in connection with 

26 the EREF application, the AEA requires a hearing with regard to the licensing of the 

27 construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility such as the proposed EREF. On 

28 March 26, 2010, the Chief Judge of the ASLBP established a three-judge Board to preside over 

29 this mandatory hearing. The purpose of the mandatory hearing is twofold: the Board must 

30 determine whether the EREF application meets applicable safety requirements in NRC 

31 regulations, and it must also determine whether the requirements of NEPA and the NRC’s 

32 NEPA-implementing regulations have been satisfied.

33

34 On May 19, 2010, the ASLBP provided notice in the Federal Register of its adoption of a 

35 bifurcated schedule for the mandatory hearing, such that separate safety and environmental 

36 evidentiary hearings would be conducted. The safety hearing would be held first after issuance 

37 of the staff’s Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The environmental hearing would be held 

38 later, following issuance of the Final EIS. The SER, NUREG-1951 (NRC, 2010b), was issued in 

39 September 2010, and the safety hearing was held January 25, 2011. Following completion of 

40 the safety and environmental hearings, the ASLBP will issue written findings on whether the 

41 requested license should be issued to AES. The Board’s findings will be subject to review by 

42 the Commission. Evidence submitted during the hearings and January 25th only decisions of 

43 the ASLBP and Commission are made publically available, except to the extent that they 

44 contain proprietary or sensitive security information. This evidence, along with all adjudicatory 

45 issuances and submittals, may be viewed by accessing the Electronic Hearing Docket 

46 maintained by the NRC’s Office of the Secretary at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/.

47
I-8

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Aarti, Reham Member of the Public 001 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.4

Allgood, Lane Partnership for Science and 

Technology

002 ML102310563 I.5.3

Anderson, Philip A Idaho Academy of Science 003 ML102530073 I.5.2

Anonymous Member of the Public 004 ML102390243 I.5.21

Anonymous Member of the Public 005 ML102280389 I.5.2

Anonymous Member of the Public 006 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.18

Ayers, Arnold Member of the Public 007 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.13, 

Bachelder, Carol Member of the Public 008 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.1, I.5.5, I

I.5.22

Barclay, Steve Member of the Public 009 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.4

Barraclough, Jack Member of the Public 010 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.13

Baxter, Donald E Member of the Public 011 ML102390284 I.5.3

Berndt, Janice Member of the Public 012 ML102580064 I.5.18

Blackburn, Kit Member of the Public 013 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.8

Blair, William Member of the Public 014 ML102580071 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.18

Bond, Dina Member of the Public 199 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Brailsford, Beatrice Snake River Alliance 015 ML102320123

ML102580089

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.13, I.5.14

I.5.22, I.5.23

1
I-9

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Briggs, E. Manley Member of the Public 016 ML102310563

ML102280275

I.5.12, I.5.17

Briggs, Sally Member of the Public 017 ML102310563

ML102280511

I.5.1, I.5.13

Brown, Deb Member of the Public 018 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.5

Buehler, George Member of the Public 019 ML102580063 I.5.1, I.5.13, 

Busby, Tracey Member of the Public 020 ML102390250 I.5.13

Campbell, Sean Member of the Public 200 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Campos, Giovanna Member of the Public 201 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Cannarozzo, Linda Member of the Public 021 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.4

Carroll, Judy Member of the Public 022 ML102530077 I.5.1, I.5.18

Casper, Rebecca Member of the Public 023 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.13

Chalfant, Jana Idaho Economic Development 

Association 

024 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.3

Chew, Sue Idaho State Representative, Boise 

District 17

025 ML102310563

ML102580070

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.16, I.5.28

Chiles, Robb Greater Idaho Falls Chamber of 

Commerce

026 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.3, I.5.19

Cohn, Sara Idaho Conservation League 027 ML102310563

ML102530075

I.5.3, I.5.5, I

I.5.13, I.5.14

I.5.18, I.5.21

Coney, David Member of the Public 028 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.16
I-10

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Conner, Richard Member of the Public 029 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.6

Cooke, Kerry Member of the Public 030 ML102310563 

ML102280511

I.5.4, I.5.5, I

Cooper, James Member of the Public 031 ML102530074 I.5.1, I.5.4

Cottrell, Cindy Member of the Public 032 ML102370760 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.17, I.5.18

Crapo, Mike U.S. Senator – Idaho 033 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Crockett, Grega Partnership for Science and 

Technology

034 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Crowley, Stephen Member of the Public 035 ML102310563

ML102580072

I.5.1, I.5.5

Cutler, Christina The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 036 ML102580061 I.5.8, I.5.9, I

I.5.17, I.5.18

Daly, Kathy Member of the Public 037 ML102580056 I.5.1

Davidson, Brian Member of the Public 038 ML102390248 I.5.2, I.5.19

Davis, Kreg Electrical Wholesale Supply 039 ML102310563

ML103410527

ML103410530

I.5.2, I.5.19, 

Day, Collin Member of the Public 040 ML102310563 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

de Weerd, Tammy Mayor, City of Meridian, Idaho 041 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.19

Deal, John Hyperion Power 042 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.3

a The comment document provided and signed by Greg Crockett was also signed by an additional 114 individuals in 

statement in the document.
I-11

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Deschamps, Rocky Member of the Public 043 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.19

Donnelly, Dennis Member of the Public 044 ML102320123 I.5.5, I.5.6

Drake, Joan W. Member of the Public 045 ML102530072 I.5.18, I.5.25

Dudley, Mr. and 

Mrs. David

Members of the Public 046 ML102580057 I.5.1

Duffin, Alison Member of the Public 202 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Dugge, Danielle Member of the Public 203 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Dunham, Mark Idaho Associated General Contractors 047 ML102310563 I.5.19

Emerson, 

Genevieve

Member of the Public 048 ML102580081 I.5.1, I.5.5, I

I.5.21

Everett, Victoria Member of the Public 049 ML102310563 I.5.16, I.5.21

Fauci, Joanie Member of the Public 050 ML102430033 I.5.1, I.5.5, I

I.5.16, I.5.18

I.5.22

Filkins, Susan Member of the Public 204 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Flowers, Jackie Member of the Public 051 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Fuger, Rod Member of the Public 052 ML102600333 I.5.2

Fuhriman, Jared Mayor, City of Idaho Falls, Idaho 053 ML102310563

ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3

Fullmer, Paul Member of the Public 054 ML102280389 I.5.19

Galaviz, Claudia Member of the Public 055 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.5
I-12

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Galaviz, Mark Member of the Public 056 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.5

Garman, Steven P. Sun Valley Air, LLC 057 ML102530079 I.5.1

Gerber, Matt Member of the Public 058 ML102280389 I.5.2

Giles, Lance Member of the Public 059 ML102280511 I.5.2, I.5.3

Gianotto, Ericka Idaho Falls Mayor's Youth Advisory 

Council

060 ML102320123 I.5.3

Greco, Nancy Member of the Public 061 ML102580036 I.5.1, I.5.6, I

Grigg, Trevor Member of the Public 062 ML102310563 I.5.19

Guerri, Andrea Member of the Public 205 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Haga, Martha Member of the Public 063 ML102500566

ML102500567

I.5.1, I.5.5, I

Hally, Tom City Council Member, 

City of Idaho Falls 

064 ML102390267 I.5.2

Hanson, Pamela Member of the Public 206 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Hardcastle, Ida City Council Member, 

City of Idaho Falls 

065 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Hardesty, Toni Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality

066 ML102580073 I.5.5, I.5.11, 

I.5.17, I.5.18

I.5.27

Harris, Drew Member of the Public 207 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Hart, Mike Member of the Public 067 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

I.5.14, I.5.21
I-13

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Harvey, Emily Member of the Public 208 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Hausrath, Anne Member of the Public 068 ML102310563

ML102600323

I.5.1, I.5.3, I

I.5.16, I.5.28

Hawke, Scott Member of the Public 069 ML102390285 I.5.3

Hemingway, 

Virginia

Member of the Public 070 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.16, 

Hensel, David Member of the Public 071 ML102320123 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

Herring, J. Stephen Member of the Public 072 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.4

Hollar, Courtney Member of the Public 209 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Holzmer, Mark Member of the Public 073 ML102390271 I.5.3, I.5.19

Hoovis, Tyler Member of the Public 210 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Howard, Don Member of the Public 074 ML102310563 I.5.13, I.5.28

Huddleston, Leslie On behalf of U.S. Senator Mike Crapo 

of Idaho

075 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Huebner, Martin Member of the Public 076 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3

Hyatt, Larry Member of the Public 077 ML102310563

ML102320123

ML102580055

I.5.3, I.5.18, 

Jaquet, Wendy Idaho State Representative, District 25 078 ML102530080 I.5.1, I.5.5, I

I.5.18
I-14

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Jensen, Kristen Eastern Idaho Economic Development 

Partners

079 ML102280511

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3

Joelson, Olivia Member of the Public 211 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Johnson, Don Member of the Public 080 ML102320123 I.5.19

Johnson, Lea Member of the Public 081 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.4

Johnson, Naomi Member of the Public 212 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Johnston, Michael 

P.

Member of the Public 082 ML102390241 I.5.2

Jones, Darvel Member of the Public 213 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Jones, Diane Member of the Public 083 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.3, I

I.5.18, I.5.22

Jones, Michael R. Member of the Public 084 ML102580034 I.5.1

Jonkouski, David Member of the Public 085 ML102600323 I.5.1

Jull, Paula Member of the Public 086 ML102580049 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

I.5.25

Kasnicki, Dennis Member of the Public 087 ML102390270 I.5.5, I.5.13, 

I.5.27

Kay, Jim AREVA Enrichment Services LLC 228 ML103410510 I.5.3, I.5.29

Kidwell, Stan Member of the Public 088 ML102580060 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

I.5.18, I.5.21

Kiefer, Sharon W. Idaho Department of Fish and Game 089 ML102580074 I.5.8, I.5.14, 
I-15

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Kjellander, Paul On behalf of Idaho Governor 

Butch Otter

090 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.4, I

King, Jacob Member of the Public 214 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Kull, Arthur Kull Food Technologies LLC 091 ML102390247 I.5.5

Lagergren, Ginna 

and Ken

Members of the Public 092 ML102510649 I.5.13

Landry, Louis Member of the Public 093 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.8

Lange, Michael Member of the Public 094 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Larsen, Verlyn Member of the Public 215 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Lee, Beau Member of the Public 216 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Leeuwrik, Linda Member of the Public 095 ML102530078 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

I.5.18, I.5.25

Makhijani, Arjun Institute for Energy and Environmental 

Research

096 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.4, I.5.6, I

Martin, Bryan Member of the Public 097 ML102310563 I.5.25

Martin, Linda Grow Idaho Falls 098 ML102310563

ML102390240

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

I.5.16, I.5.19

Martin, Linda On behalf of the Eastern Idaho 

Economic Development Partners

194 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.2, I.5.3

Martin, Linda On behalf of the Eastern Idaho 

Economic Development Association

196 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3

Mathieu, Brent Member of the Public 099 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.6
I-16

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Matson, Wendy Member of the Public 100 ML102310563

ML102650572

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.13, I.5.18

May-Chang, Jody Member of the Public 101 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.5

Maynard, R.D. Member of the Public 102 ML102310563 I.5.3, I.5.11, 

McCall, Karen Member of the Public 103 ML102580087 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.17, I.5.18

McCollum, Carolyn Member of the Public 104 ML102460018 I.5.4, I.5.18

McConaughey, Eve Member of the Public 105 ML102260323 I.5.1, I.5.3, I

I.5.16, I.5.18

McConaughey, Ted Member of the Public 106 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.5, I

McKay, Jean Member of the Public 107 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.1

Mckelvey, Jodie Member of the Public 217 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

McMahon, John C. Member of the Public 108 ML102580051 I.5.6

McVey, Eugene Member of the Public 109 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.8

Medlin, John and 

Susan

Members of the Public 110 ML102390273 I.5.4, I.5.5, I

Meikle, Robert Member of the Public 111 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.18

Menlove, Mark Member of the Public 112 ML102580033 I.5.1, I.5.6

Miller, Ken Member of the Public 113 ML102320123

ML102580037

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.25
I-17

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Minick, David Member of the Public 218 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Mitchell, Anne Member of the Public 114 ML102600333 I.5.2

Miyaoka, Neil Member of the Public 219 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Molenaar, Nicholas Member of the Public 115 ML102280511 I.5.3, I.5.4

Mondy, Richard Member of the Public 116 ML102360687 I.5.2

Morgan, Richard Member of the Public 117 ML102650572 I.5.1, I.5.5

Morris, Caroline Member of the Public 118 ML102580069 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

Naftzger, Tim Member of the Public 220 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Neilson, Bob Member of the Public 119 ML102310563 I.5.2

Nicholson, Frank Member of the Public 120 ML102280511

ML102580048

I.5.1, I.5.3, I

Nordstrom, 

Jennifer

Member of the Public 121 ML102580039 I.5.1, I.5.8

O'Brien, Kathy Member of the Public 122 ML102580086 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.14, I.5.18

Otter, Butch Governor, State of Idaho 123 ML102310563

ML102320123

ML102600333

I.5.2, I.5.4, I

Packwood, Lane Idaho Department of Commerce 124 ML102310563 I.5.3, I.5.19, 

Paquette, Holly Member of the Public 125 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.18
I-18

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Pengilly, Susan Idaho State Historical Society, 

State Historic Preservation Office

126 ML102150425 I.5.9

Perrington, Mike Member of the Public 221 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Pierce, Vanessa Health Environment Alliance of Utah 

(HEAL Utah)

198 ML102600070 I.5.18

Plowman, Sheila Member of the Public 127 ML102580059 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

Poyser, Bob AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC 128 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.4, I

I.5.19, I.5.28

Preacher , Willie The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 129 ML102580061 I.5.9, I.5.16, 

Price, Park and 

Sharon

Members of the Public 130 ML102390269 I.5.3, I.5.4, I

Prisament, Morty Member of the Public 131 ML102580091 I.5.3, I.5.4, I

Proksa, Margo and 

Dennis

Members of the Public 132 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.5

Provencher, 

Richard B.

Member of the Public 133 ML102390264 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

I.5.16, I.5.17

Quapp, William Member of the Public 134 ML102320123 I.5.2

Radford, Dave Bonneville County Commissioner 135 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Raines, Hannah Member of the Public 222 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Rainey, Susan Member of the Public 136 ML102600323 I.5.16, I.5.18

Reeves, Ralph Member of the Public 137 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.19
I-19

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Reichgott, Christine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10

138 ML102580090 I.5.3, I.5.9, I

I.5.13, I.5.14

I.5.27

Revier, John On behalf of U.S. Congressman Mike 

Simpson of Idaho

139 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.4

Reynolds, Wendy U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Upper Snake 

Field Office

140 ML102390288 I.5.8, I.5.10, 

I.5.25

Richens, Mason Member of the Public 223 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Rickards, Peter Member of the Public 141 ML102580078 I.5.3, I.5.17, 

Rindlisbacher, 

Blake

Idaho Transportation Department 142 ML102580050 I.5.3, I.5.16

Risch, James U.S. Senator – Idaho 143 ML102320123

ML102600333

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Rodgers, Sara Member of the Public 144 ML102580085 I.5.1, I.5.5

Rolsen, A. Member of the Public 224 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Rydalch, Ann National Foundation for Women 

Legislators

145 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Sayer, Doug Premier Technology 146 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.19

Schueler, Joe Member of the Public 147 ML102310563

ML102280511

ML102390244

I.5.1, I.5.3, I

I.5.7, I.5.9, I

I.5.16, I.5.17

I.5.22, I.5.28
I-20

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Schuler, Eric Member of the Public 148 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.21

Secrist, Wendi Idaho Economic Development 

Association 

149 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.3

Seevers, Katie Member of the Public 150 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.18, I.5.19

Sellers, Beth Member of the Public 151 ML102280389 I.5.2, I.5.3

Serr, Steven Planning and Zoning Administrator, 

Bonneville County, Idaho

152 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

I.5.11, I.5.12

Shipley, Andrea Member of the Public 153 ML102580047 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.10, I.5.13

I.5.18, I.5.23

Shipley, Andrea On behalf of the Snake River Alliance 197 ML102320123 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.13, I.5.14

I.5.23, I.5.25

Shipley, Diana Member of the Public 154 ML102580077 I.5.1, I.5.19, 

Shivly, Jerry Member of the Public 155 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.19

Simison, Robert On behalf of Mayor Tammy de Weerd, 

City of Meridian, Idaho

156 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.19

Simpson, Erik Idaho State Representative, District 32 157 ML102310563

ML102320123

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

I.5.17, I.5.18

I.5.22

Simpson, Mike U.S. Congressman, Idaho 158 ML102310563 I.5.2, I.5.4
I-21

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Skinner, Robert Member of the Public 159 ML102320123 I.5.3

Smith, Jeff Local 449, IBEW 160 ML102320123 I.5.2

Smith, Marisa Member of the Public 161 ML102460017 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

Smith, Michael Member of the Public 162 ML102390261 I.5.2

Smith-Putnam, 

Cindy

Grow Idaho Falls 163 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Solomon, Timothy Regional Development Alliance 164 ML102310563 I.5.19

Staker, Lee Bonneville County Commissioner 165 ML102310563 I.5.19

Stears, Allen Member of the Public 166 ML102390245 I.5.2

Stevenson, Andrew Idaho Falls Mayor's Youth Advisory 

Council

167 ML102320123 I.5.2

Stewart, Lon Member of the Public 168 ML102580062 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.17, I.5.18

Stewart, Margaret Member of the Public 169 ML102320123 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.16, I.5.18

Stimpson, Lisa Member of the Public 225 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.4

Strobel, David Member of the Public 170 ML102390266 I.5.2

Tanner, John Member of the Public 171 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.4, I

I.5.18

Taylor, Amy On behalf of U.S. Senator Risch 

of Idaho

172 ML102320123 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Taylor, David Member of the Public 173 ML102390262 I.5.2, I.5.4
I-22

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Thomas, 

Christopher

Health Environment Alliance of Utah 

(HEAL Utah)

174 ML102600070 I.5.18

Thomas, Ellen Member of the Public 175 ML102580058 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.14, I.5.18

Thompson, Jeff Idaho House of Representatives 176 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Thompson, Jeff On behalf of Idaho Governor 

Butch Otter

195 ML102320123

ML102600333

I.5.2, I.5.4, I

Thomson, T.J. City Council Member, 

City of Boise, Idaho

177 ML102580170 I.5.3, I.5.28

Toinga, Jessica Member of the Public 226 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Trane, Randy Member of the Public 178 ML102390252 I.5.2, I.5.3, I

Turek, Jolie Eastern Idaho Economic Development 

Partners

179 ML102280511

ML102280389

I.5.2, I.5.3

Turner, Kaye Member of the Public 180 ML102580084 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.18, I.5.19

Turner, Roger Member of the Public 181 ML102320123

ML102580075

ML102580080

I.5.1, I.5.3, I

I.5.7, I.5.13, 

I.5.18, I.5.19

I.5.28

Ursenbach, 

Brianna

Member of the Public 182 ML102310563 I.5.4, I.5.19, 

Vincent, James D. Member of the Public 183 ML102320123

ML102280389

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.14, I.5.18
I-23

Table I-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations (Con

Commenter Name Affiliation Commenter 

Number

Comment 

Document(s) 

ADAMS Accession 

Number(s)

Subsection

Comments 

Vincent, Kitty Member of the Public 184 ML102390263

ML102390272

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.9, I.5.10, 

I.5.14, I.5.18

I.5.23, I.5.25

Virgin, Wade Idaho Department of Labor 185 ML102320123 I.5.19

Voss, Joseph Member of the Public 227 ML102630195 I.5.1, I.5.6

Walker, Lauren Walker Land and Cattle Company 186 ML102320123 I.5.2

Weber, John Member of the Public 187 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.22

Weber-Wells, Lana Member of the Public 188 ML102430049 I.5.1, I.5.5

Weil, Josh Member of the Public 189 ML102310563 I.5.19

Whaley, Dave Idaho State AFL-CIO 190 ML102440327 I.5.19

Woodruff, Liz Member of the Public 191 ML102320123

ML102580035

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.9, I.5.10, 

I.5.14, I.5.16

I.5.21, I.5.23

Woodruff, Liz On behalf of the Snake River Alliance 193 ML102310563

ML102310570

I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.9, I.5.10, 

I.5.18, I.5.21

Young, Lisa Member of the Public 192 ML102310563 I.5.1, I.5.4, I

I.5.14, I.5.16

I.5.21, I.5.25
I-24

1 I.5 Public Comments on the Draft EIS and NRC Responses

2

3 Following are all of the comments received by the NRC on the Draft EIS and the NRC staff’s 

4 responses to those comments. As discussed in Section I.3.3, the comments are arranged by 

5 topic in the 29 subsections below, and multiple comments that address a similar issue/topic 

6 have been grouped together for a common response. In cases where one or more commenters 

7 had identical comments, those comments are shown only once preceded by the commenter 

8 numbers and names of all the commenters who provided those identical comments. Also, 

9 please note that some comments contain more than one issue/topic as presented below 

10 because the comment text with respect to each issue cannot be readily separated from the 

11 other issues. Such comments are necessarily included under more than one topic so that all of 

12 the issues can be addressed in the NRC responses.

13

14 Note that comments taken from written comment documents (e.g., letters, emails) are 

15 reproduced below “as is”; i.e., those comments are reproduced exactly as they were provided, 

16 and the NRC staff has not attempted to correct spelling or grammatical errors in these 

17 comments. Also, due to possible transcription errors by the court reporters during the public 

18 comment meetings, the NRC regrets if the text of any oral comment does not exactly match 

19 what was said at a public meeting.

20

21

22 I.5.1 General Opposition to the Project

23

24 The comments addressed in this subsection are those that are limited to expressing opposition 

25 in some manner to the proposed EREF project. However, comments that contain general 

26 opposition statements and also include topics that are relevant to issues addressed within the 

27 scope of the EIS are not included in this subsection, but are instead included and addressed

28 elsewhere in Section I.5, in the subsections relevant to the specific topics discussed.

29

30 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that AES has already signed contracts to 

31 sell the product of the proposed EREF when the proposed plant does not yet have an NRC

32 license.

33

34 [015-04, Beatrice Brailsford] AREVA has said U.S. companies have already signed contracts 

35 for half its projected production. Those contracts raise another question, though. 

36

37 I know the NRC has already heard concerns that it has a bias towards licensing. What about 

38 selling the product of a plant that doesn’t even have a license yet? I’d say we’ve gone well 

39 beyond a learner’s permit here.

40

41 Response: AES has submitted a license application to the NRC for the construction, operation, 

42 and decommissioning of the proposed EREF, to produce enriched uranium for commercial 

43 nuclear reactors. As part of its business plan, AES may wish to ascertain that there is a 

44 consumer for its product. AES appears to have done so by contracting future services to be 

45 provided by the proposed EREF. These actions were taken by AES at the risk of not receiving 

46 a license from the NRC, and such risks are borne solely by AES. These actions have no 

47 bearing on the NRC’s decision to grant or deny AES’s license application.

48
I-25

1 Comment: The following comment expresses concern about what resources provided by Idaho 

2 taxpayers will be used for the proposed EREF project.

3

4 [105-03, Eve McConaughey] I am concerned about what resources e.g. 

5 land/water/energy/raw materials will be used (provided by Idaho taxpayers). 

6

7 Response: AES could contract with Idaho State or local government agencies, or apply for 

8 resources from those agencies, to the extent permitted under Idaho law.

9

10

11 Comment: The following comments deal with the current operating and construction trends for 

12 nuclear power plants in the U.S. and worldwide.

13

14 [015-02, Beatrice Brailsford] Eight years later, there are no more nuclear reactors operating in 

15 the world, but as of June, URENCO, a German company, is enriching uranium in New Mexico.

16

17 [015-12, Beatrice Brailsford] Furthermore, eight years after Mr. Magwood’s letter*, there are 

18 no more nuclear reactors operating in the US or in the world, but as of June, Urenco, a German 

19 company, is enriching uranium in New Mexico, which the draft NRC only sporadically 

20 acknowledges. 

21 * Note from NRC: This refers to a letter identified in comment 015-09 and archived in ADAMS under Accession 

22 Number ML022350130.

23

24 [180-09, Kay Turner] Is it true there are less reactors operating now than there were eight

25 years ago?

26

27 Response: Within the last 10 years, 32 new nuclear power plants have become operational in 

28 the world, 31 have shutdown, and construction began on 50 additional nuclear plants (IAEA, 

29 2010a, 2010b). One of the new plants under construction is in the United States. In addition, as 

30 of December 2010, the NRC is actively reviewing 12 applications for a total of 20 nuclear 

31 reactor units. The number of operating nuclear power plants in the world has risen from 416 in 

32 1990 to 435 in 2000 and 441 in 2010. The net electrical power generated by these facilities rose 

33 from 318,000 megawatts electric [MW(e)] in 1990 to 350,000 MW(e) in 2000 and 375,000 

34 MW(e) in 2010 (IAEA, 2010a, 2010b).

35

36 URENCO USA, the uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico (formerly known as the National 

37 Enrichment Facility [NEF]) that began initial operations in June 2010, is still under construction 

38 and will continue to increase production as its remaining cascade halls are completed. This 

39 facility is operated by Louisiana Energy Services LLC (LES), a U.S. Delaware limited liability 

40 company.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comments express general opposition to the proposed EREF project 

44 and request that the NRC deny the license application. 

45

46 [014-04, William Blair] I urge decision makers to disapprove this and any other radioactive 

47 processing.

48
I-26

1 [008-08, Carol Bachelder] I am in favor of the no action alternative.

2

3 [017-02, Sally Briggs] I am Sally Briggs, an air breathing, water and milk drinking native of 

4 Idaho...raised during a time when nuclear fallout drills consisted of sheltering under our desks 

5 at school. Sometime later, grown with my own children, I received a postcard addressed to 

6 “Dear neighbor” asking “Where were you between 1944 and 1972?” Informing me that I may 

7 have been exposed to radioactive material released into the air, water, and soil by the Hanford 

8 Nuclear Facility. Much later I learned in “secret” experiments. I have since become aware that in 

9 its 45 year history 1million curies of iodine 131 have been released! SUCH HUBRIS! Do we 

10 think the scientists employed by Areva are smarter or have a greater moral sense than those at 

11 Hanford? LESS HUBRIS? 

12

13 [019-03, George Buehler] I see this scheme as ill-considered, unnecessary, exploitive and 

14 wrong. I am categorically opposed to the Areva Uranium Enrichment Plant. 

15

16 [046-01, Mr. and Mrs. David Dudley] Just say NO to AREVA’S URANIUM FACTORY~ 

17 NUREG 1945!

18

19 [050-01, Joanie Fauci] I would like it to be known that I support the No Action Alternative and 

20 wish for the NRC to adopt that alternative.

21

22 [057-01, Steven Garman] We do not need, do not want or will not tolerate an enrichment 

23 facility in Idaho. Please reconsider.

24

25 [068-05, Anne Hausrath] We believe the proposed facility is a bad idea. It is not necessary to 

26 meet Idaho’s needs. It would pose a potential threat to the safety of our children, grandchildren, 

27 and future generations, and we strongly recommend you to adopt the “no action alternative.”

28

29 [084-01, Michael Jones] The environmental impacts of nuclear waste will be an unwanted 

30 legacy. If you think the national debt will take forever to payoff, then you have no 

31 comprehension of the servitude that nuclear waste will have on our country and future countless 

32 generation. The enrichment facility is unnecessary for national defense, current domestic use. 

33 Before you increase the waste load get a solution established that is sound and long term.

34

35 [085-01, David Jonkouski] The horrors of Ballistic Uranium is not ...[ILLEGIBLE TEXT]... to 

36 electric generation by the atom. It is not necessary. The inventor of alternating current Tesla 

37 said rightly “we are in a sea of energy.” Wars are caused by artificial scarcity. If an intelligent 

38 person who can do the math of electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Heaviside can see pos 

39 and neg vectors in quaternion calculus. This is FREE ...[ILLEGIBLE TEXT]...energy beyond 

40 the trinomial of current easy to engineer math of Einstein, who knew that the universe was 

41 curved, but in a quaternion (4 part) math it is easy to see small spaces are curved also. This is 

42 the obvious proof of ambient energy. Free Science!

43

44 [103-01, Karen McCall] I am writing to express my opposition to Areva’s gas centrifuge 

45 uranium enrichment plant proposed to be built in Eastern Idaho. There are many reasons why 

46 this plant is unnecessary:.. I am strongly opposed to Areva’s proposal and want my comments 

47 to go on record.

48

49 [120-06, Frank Nicholson] This enrichment factory: ...should not be licensed.

50
I-27

1 [127-03, Sheila Plowman] I oppose the building of the uranium enrichment plant.... Please Do 

2 Not approve the building of this dangerous plant.

3

4 [168-01, Lon Steward] Areva should not be allowed to build a uranium enrichment plant in 

5 Eastern Idaho.... From a business perspective, a financial perspective, world peace, energy 

6 independence, environmental, global warming, and common sense perspectives, the Areva 

7 enrichment plant in Eastern Idaho does not make sense and therefore the Nuclear Regulatory 

8 Commission should not license the plant.

9

10 [175-01, Ellen Thomas] I oppose the proposed new Areva uranium factory in Idaho, or 

11 anywhere else.

12

13 [181-09, Roger Turner] The State of Idaho should say no to this project and the NRC should 

14 revise the final EIS to a no action alternative.

15

16 [184-03, Kitty Vincent] Human Folly: While we spend billions of dollars searching for water in 

17 outer space on various planets, we are hard at work on Earth poisoning our own water supplies, 

18 not to mention the air as well. Not only does this enrichment plant appear to unnecessary, it 

19 seems to represent human folly at its best.

20

21 [193-01, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And it’s the proposition of the 

22 Snake River Alliance that the NRC should not license the AREVA facility. First, uranium 

23 enrichment should not occur in Idaho for use in power reactors, and secondly, the draft EIS is 

24 inadequate. 

25

26 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

27 participation. However, these comments are outside the scope of the EIS analysis because 

28 they do not directly relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

29

30

31 Comment: The following comments note that there is no need to rush through the process of 

32 licensing the proposed EREF and to make sure that all risks have been addressed. Some of 

33 these comments also express opposition to the proposed EREF project.

34

35 [008-05, Carol Bachelder] I appreciate the fact that AREVA put in an application in 2008, and 

36 that was two years ago, and the Environmental Impact Statement was released two weeks ago, 

37 and here we’re having a hearing on it. It does seem like it’s on the fast track, and we’d like to put 

38 it on the slow track. I would like to derail it completely. 

39

40 [017-01, Sally Briggs] I urge you, as regulators, to apply a healthy dose of skepticism to these 

41 plans. Do we really need domestic production? Have all the risks been addressed? Please 

42 demonstrate courage in protecting our children, grandchildren, and all those who follow.

43

44 [025-01, Hon. Sue Chew] So, you know, I’m looking at the issues that we’re looking at in terms 

45 of your EIS, and I do want to make sure that we aren’t fast-tracking anything, that there aren’t 

46 any corners being cut, and that things aren’t moving along too fast, because, really, just like in 

47 the practice of medicine, when you make a mistake like this, you can’t undo it. This is about life. 

48
I-28

1 [070-05, Virginia Hemingway] For these, and many other reasons, I adamantly am opposed 

2 to this plant being built and to the Idaho taxpayers’ money paying for an off-ramp to nowhere, 

3 except sagebrush. These few facts prove that once again, Idaho’s leaders, and the NRC, have 

4 shown they do not consider the long-term consequences of decisions made in haste, without 

5 appropriate research. As a fourth generation Idahoan, I do not need, nor do I want, this kind of 

6 danger in my state.

7

8 [148-01, Eric Schuler] Taken as a whole, the EIS suggests that this facility will have a 

9 relatively low impact on the environment. Of course several aspects of this, of the—have been 

10 overlooked in making this conclusion. For instance, as others have already noted, it does not 

11 consider the impact of the exempted preconstruction activities, the high risk of wildfires in the 

12 area, or the lack of an appropriate disposal pathway for depleted uranium. Accordingly, the true 

13 impact of this facility is certainly larger than the DEIS suggests.

14

15 [147-14, Joey Schueler] 10. Why is this plant being pushed through so quickly? The EIS is still 

16 in the assessment phase, yet many steps have already been taken that affect Idaho’s budget. If 

17 this decision so critical, it should be carefully considered and brought to the Idaho public before 

18 money is expended on its behalf.

19

20 [191-03, Liz Woodruff] I don’t think there’s any reason to expedite any aspect of this process. 

21

22 Response: Consistent with the requirements of NEPA and the NRC’s NEPA implementing 

23 regulations under 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff evaluated and compared the environmental 

24 impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives. The Draft EIS described the proposed 

25 action (Chapters 1 and 2), the purpose and need for the proposed action (Chapter 1), 

26 alternatives to the proposed action (Chapter 2), the potentially affected environment 

27 (Chapter 3), the environmental impacts of the proposed action and proposed mitigation 

28 (Chapters 4 and 5), the cumulative impacts of the proposed action (Chapter 4), and the benefits 

29 and costs of the proposed action (Chapter 7). The analysis contained in the Draft EIS fully 

30 considered the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. The NRC will 

31 not make a final decision on whether to grant a license for the proposed EREF until after the 

32 NRC’s ASLBP conducts public hearings on the safety and environmental reviews. (The hearing 

33 process is discussed in Section I.4 of this appendix).

34

35

36 Comment: The following comments request that the NRC take AREVA’s reputation, foreign 

37 ownership, past and present business practices, and past and anticipated environmental and 

38 safety record into account when considering whether to license the proposed EREF. Some of 

39 these comments also express general opposition to the proposed EREF project.

40

41 [031-01, James Cooper] I am OPPOSED to the Areva project. As an Idaho taxpayer and voter 

42 I feel this state does NOT NEED a foreign company to build any facility on our soil - much less 

43 one which is subject to accidents and one whose profits go to another country.

44

45 [032-04, Cindy Cottrell] I’m against a foreign country making the profit from this plant and 

46 leaving the contamination in our Country. Not just the by-product of waste will we have to store, 

47 but Areva has a history of contamination in their own Country’s waterways.

48
I-29

1 [037-01, Katherine Daly] The Areva uranium enrichment proposal is very disturbing to both of 

2 us. Please don’t sell us down the road. Areva does not meet with the approval of many

3 Idahoans who would like to preserve the natural integrity of our incredible state. PLEASE...just 

4 say no to Areva.

5

6 [048-03, Genevieve Emerson] I am concerned that Areva has no true vested interest in the 

7 overall health and well being of the land or the people of Idaho, other than economic gain, and 

8 this poses a direct threat to present and future generations of all life in this area.

9

10 [061-03, Nancy Greco] It amazes me that, in a state which argues against federal involvement 

11 in state affairs, even when that involvement benefits Idaho citizens, the same state would 

12 welcome and encourage a harmful company which is almost entirely funded by the French 

13 government. Please be very cautious in giving Areva the necessary pathway to this destructive 

14 plant. 

15

16 [107-01, Jean McKay] But I ask you, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to include in your 

17 study of the potential environmental impacts the record of AREVA in France, and elsewhere. 

18 And to delay any exemption or approval until after such a study has been completed and 

19 revealed to the public. 

20

21 You've already heard about situations that have occurred in France. The Nuclear Safety 

22 Authority of France, the ASN, cited a series of frauds and human negligence fraud, and ordered 

23 the closure of an AREVA subsidiary. Possible legal action was also being considered because 

24 of repeated leaks during 2007, 2008 in the site's waste water evacuation system. 

25

26 In California, or in South Carolina, sorry, a mixed oxide fuel assembly was removed from the 

27 plant of Duke Energy/AREVA at Catawba facility because of potentially hazardous physical 

28 changes. In addition, AREVA's plans in the United States to build an evolutionary power 

29 reactor, an EPR, at various sites, including Idaho, have created controversy. In France, as of 

30 August 2008, the construction of an evolutionary power reactor by AREVA has been delayed 

31 because of technical and quality control problems. So, I urge you, the NRC, to include, to 

32 broaden your study, evaluate these reported problems.

33

34 [107-02, Jean McKay] I ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in the report of 

35 potential environmental impacts the record of Areva in France and elsewhere, and to delay any 

36 exemption or approval until after such a study has been completed and revealed to the public.

37

38 #1 In July 18, 2008, a Paris newspaper revealed: The Ecology Minister of France announced a 

39 2nd leak in a subsidiary of Areva due to a broken pipe. The 1st leak occurred on July 7, 2008, 

40 and residents of the area were told not to drink the water, or to swim in, to irrigate crops with the 

41 waters of nearby rivers.

42

43 The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) of France cited a series of “frauds and human negligence”

44 and ordered the closure of the Areva subsidiary. Possible legal action was being considered 

45 because of “repeated leaks” during 2007 in the site’s waste water evacuation system.

46

47 #2 In South Carolina, reported August 2008, an experimental mixed-oxide fuel assembly was

48 removed from the plant of Duke Energy/Areva Catawaba facility because of “potentially 

49 hazardous physical changes.”

50
I-30

1 In addition, Areva’s plans in the U.S. to build EPR (Evolutionary Power Reactors) at various 

2 sites including Idaho - have created controversy. In France, as of August 2008, the construction 

3 of these Evolutionary Power Reactors by Areva have been delayed by technical and quality4 control problems.

5

6 Again, I urge the NRC to include a study and evaluation of these reported problems in its EIS, 

7 and to report them to the public before any exemption or approval is considered. 

8

9 [118-05, Caroline Morris] Additionally, Areva’s palm-greasing tactics to persuade officials to 

10 welcome the EREF, as the Mayor of Idaho City testified at the August Boise hearing, are pure 

11 bribery. Likely many other Idaho officials and citizens received other valuable favors from Areva, 

12 not publicly announced. Please refer to my letter to the editor published in the Idaho Stateman. 

13 (I am traveling and cannot access its late August or early September printing date.)

14

15 [120-04, Frank Nicholson] This enrichment factory:...

16

17 • Poses a risk to Idaho’s natural resources and people. If something were to happen and when 

18 the plant is shutdown a foreign company does NOT have the incentive to do what is right. They 

19 can leave and we have no recourse. BP is a great example. Also, importing and exporting the 

20 nuclear fuel will not only put ourselves at risk but many others along the path. 

21

22 [122-02, Kathy O’Brien] Areva also has a bad track record in France.

23

24 [147-09, Joey Schueler] 5. Areva’s financial stability and history of ethics is unclear. Varied 

25 opinions range from sound to on the verge of bankrupt and no clear agreements have been 

26 made ensuring that they will do right by Idaho if this project fails (reference the BP oil spill for a 

27 comparative potential scenario).

28

29 [154-01, Diana Shipley] Before backing a project such as AREVA proposes we need to 

30 consider more than the jobs it would create. Before backing a project such as AREVA proposes 

31 we need to consider more that the wining and dining that is taking place. In this tough economy 

32 it would be easy to welcome AREVA when they are being so generous with catered trips and 

33 lots of flourish. 

34

35 The truth of the matter is this: 

36

37 AREVA dumps at least one million gallons of radioactive waste into the English Channel a year, 

38 contaminating water all the way up to the Arctic Circle. How are their environmental policies 

39 going to take shape in Idaho? Will they be thoughtful that they are located near the aquifer 

40 which provides drinking water to many Idahoans? I can’t imagine they will give it a second 

41 thought. 

42

43 They have contaminated towns all around an open pit mine in Niger. Are they worried about the 

44 people of those towns? How are they helping to recover the area back to an environmentally 

45 safe one? 

46

47 Their track record seems to be less than stellar when it comes to environmental issues. They 

48 withheld information from the regulatory commission in France to secure a loan in their own 

49 backyard. 

50
I-31

1 [169-01, Margaret Stewart] And aside from AREVA’s greed, grim, and very, very devastating 

2 global environmental and human rights record around the world, particularly in Africa, I 

3 vehemently oppose the NRC licensing of this facility on grounds that the facility has not been 

4 proven necessary, a huge amount of dangerous radioactive waste that would be created has no 

5 disposal place, the nuclear reactors that the EIS says will need AREVA’s product more than 

6 likely will never be built. 

7

8 [168-04, Lon Stewart] Areva is processing and handling some of the most dangerous material 

9 on earth. Unfortunately they do not have an exemplary environmental or safety record that 

10 would be expected of a company handling such types of materials. Areva dumps radioactive 

11 waste into the English Channel and there have been a couple of accidents at their plants in the 

12 last few years while they were touting to be a safe company. Accidents will happen. Even if you 

13 think you have enough redundancy built into the system, mechanical things will fail and people 

14 will do stupid things no matter how much training and experience they have. The BP Gulf oil 

15 spill is a case in point. This does not sound good to me.

16

17 [181-07, Roger Turner] It would be opposed because the AREVA company has a poor 

18 environmental record, especially with respect to the radioactive waste handling. It would be 

19 opposed by Idahoans because the AREVA company is in poor financial shape, a condition that 

20 often results in shortcuts in worker safety, worker benefits, and environmental protection.... It 

21 would be opposed because the company is dependent on taxpayers for front-end costs, 

22 because of its own poor financial status.

23

24 [180-04, Kaye Turner] Is it true Areva pumps one million gallons of nuclear waste into the 

25 English Channel every year? Is it true Areva pumps ANY nuclear waste into the English 

26 Channel? 

27

28 [184-02, Kitty Vincent] What matters is Areva’s history of leaks and pollution overseas as well 

29 as the fact that this plant would sit atop this magnificent aquifer.

30

31 [183-03, James Vincent] I live downwind and downstream of the proposed AREVA plant, and I 

32 have concerns about my safety. As a reference, in July 2008, AREVA had two accidents in 

33 France. One was a burst pipe at a plant at the Romans-sur-Isere, southeastern France, an 

34 AREVA subsidiary. The pipe had been broken for several years. Jean-Pierre Gros of AREVA’s 

35 Head of Combustion said between 120 and 750 grams of enriched uranium had leaked. 

36

37 Another accident happened also July of 2008 at the Tricastin site near the historic southeast city 

38 of Avignon; 7,925 gallons of a liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a 

39 factory run by AREVA subsidiary, SOCTRI. I can’t pronounce it, S-O-C-T-R-I, spilling from a 

40 reservoir that overflowed. The leak flowed into the ground and into the two rivers, Gaffiere and 

41 Lauzon. 

42

43 French authorities banned the consumption of well water and watering of crops, as well as 

44 swimming, fishing, and water sports. There’s preliminary evidence of higher incidents of 

45 pancreatic cancer in women in the Tricastin area. France’s Nuclear Safety Authority classified 

46 the Tricastin accident as one on a scale of zero to seven. However, there were 86 level one 

47 incidents in France in 2007, and 114 in 2006. 

48
I-32

1 [183-10, James Vincent] I have a photograph from page 17 of public Areva document 

2 “Nunavut Mining Symposium Iqaluit April 2009 by Peter Wollenberg ARC” about one of their 

3 operations in Canada. Even though this is a color photograph, I printed this with a black and 

4 white printer. I would like to submit this to the commission. I believe the conclusions are 

5 obvious, if this is supposed to be a secure Areva facility for radioactive core storage. My 5 year 

6 old grandson could scale this six foot cyclone fence.

7

8 [187-02, John Weber] How can AREVA’s statement, in section 9.2, about protecting people 

9 and the environment from radiation be taken seriously, knowing AREVA’s dismal track record in 

10 Africa, and other parts of the world, for protecting people and the environment?

11

12 Response: These comments raise issues that are outside the scope of the EIS. As discussed 

13 in Section 1.4.5 of this EIS, the reputation of the applicant is an issue that is not within the scope

14 of the EIS. The proposed EREF would be fully subject to the NRC regulations for uranium 

15 enrichment facilities, and to other applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The 

16 NRC evaluates the submitted license application based on its own merits and performs an 

17 independent verification of the proposal put forth in the applicant’s application. Further, 

18 pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70 and 10 CFR Part 2, respectively, the NRC will implement oversight 

19 (inspection) and enforcement programs during construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

20 the proposed EREF to assure safe functions and compliance with NRC requirements.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comments raise the issue of AREVA’s financial stability and/or the 

24 availability of funds to ensure that the proposed EREF site is cleaned up properly.

25

26 [008-04, Carol Bachelder] And they say, oh, well, AREVA will be, you know, totally 

27 responsible for the expenses. But this is based on projected earnings, like so many businesses 

28 do. You know, you plan to pay your loans out of how much money you make. There aren’t any 

29 guarantees for this, are there? The economic times, and being what they are. I just don’t see 

30 that even the promise of jobs is enough to sell me on the feasibility of this plant.

31

32 [028-02, David Coney] Because the risk is so high, I’m going to ask AREVA to front the 

33 money, prove it to us that you’re sincere. Invest in Idaho. Back your play with money. If I go 

34 down to the bank, they’re going to say, where’s your money, buddy? I would ask AREVA to do 

35 it, and if I can do it with five bucks to get a loan, they can do it with 5 billion, or 5 trillion, if they’re 

36 sincere about what they’re bringing to the table. Now I would also ask them to prove to us that 

37 they can be the best steward, and invest in Idaho, before they ask anything of us.

38

39 [050-12, Joanie Fauci] The NRC and the license agreement, if it occurs, should have specific 

40 requirements for Areva, its owners, its stockholders, and the government under which it falls, 

41 with regards to financial responsibility. This should cover all expenses, above and beyond. It 

42 should cover all legal possibilities should the Areva corporation dissolve or go bankrupt before 

43 all waste is removed from the Idaho site.

44

45 [070-01, Virginia Hemingway] On to Areva, because I have such a limited amount of time, 

46 that company had 6.2 billion euros in net debt at the end of 2009, and as recently as June 4 of 

47 2010, it has been downgraded by Standard & Poor’s to a debt rating of BBB plus, due to its 

48 weakened profitability.

49
I-33

1 [078-01, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] As a member of the legislature at the time that the tax 

2 exemptions were being considered (and I voted “no”) I had concerns about the financial viability 

3 of the company.

4

5 [083-05, Diane Jones] How can we expect the company to -- whose financial future is 

6 uncertain, to be able to guarantee that they will bear the cost of treating all that waste and 

7 disposing of all that waste, when the process for disposing of the waste is not even known? 

8 This seems highly reckless to me, and not a very sound economical calculation.

9

10 [106-02, Ted McConaughey] So, once again, I don’t want to come down, either for or against 

11 the facility under consideration here, but I would like to say that the EIS itself ought to address 

12 the possibility of failure at all stages, and have backup plans for funding whatever kind of 

13 cleanup and disposal might be necessary, and that should be part of the environmental costs. I 

14 mean, this is a very big environmental issue, if one of these facilities fail, as many of our nuclear 

15 facilities have. 

16

17 [147-09, Joey Schueler] 5. Areva’s financial stability and history of ethics is unclear. Varied 

18 opinions range from sound to on the verge of bankrupt and no clear agreements have been 

19 made ensuring that they will do right by Idaho if this project fails (reference the BP oil spill for a 

20 comparative potential scenario).

21

22 [154-02, Diana Shipley] They are asking for loan guarantees from the United States 

23 government and I wonder who will be left to clean up the waste and pay the bills if they bail out? 

24 The answer is fairly obvious. We will be left holding the very unpleasant bag of troubles and if 

25 you haven’t heard, AREVA is experiencing financial difficulties. We do not need to be the ones 

26 to bail them out even though they are promising jobs, and wining and dining Idahoans in an 

27 attempt to blind those Idahoans to the simple fact that they will not be doing us any favors in the 

28 long run by contaminating our desert and leaving our communities with one toxic bill to pay. 

29

30 [180-03, Kaye Turner] Is it true this French company is being heavily subsidized by the French 

31 government and is otherwise in serious financial trouble? Is it true if the French and the 

32 U.S. governments stopped propping up Areva financially it would go under? 

33

34 Response: NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 70 require license applicants to be financially 

35 qualified to safely construct, operate, and decommission their proposed facilities. These 

36 regulations apply to AES’s application for the proposed EREF. However, the financial 

37 verification process is outside the scope of this EIS and is conducted by the NRC in conjunction 

38 with the safety review.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comments express the concern that construction and operation of the 

42 proposed EREF may be too risky and dangerous. Some of these comments also express 

43 general opposition to the proposed EREF project.

44

45 [001-01, Reham Aarti] I think the risks are absolutely ridiculous, considering what the benefits 

46 are going to be. I know people are worried about jobs, and they want more jobs in Idaho, and 

47 everything. But I’m sorry, it’s not worth it, it’s not worth, you know, our children being in danger. I 

48 mean, accidents happen all the time. Fires happen all the time. It’s not worth it, in the least bit, 
I-34

1 and I know you guys do your job and everything’s supposed to be really safe, but that doesn’t 

2 mitigate, you know, human error and everything else. 

3

4 [009-01, Steve Barclay; 013-01, Kit Blackburn; 018-01, Deb Brown; 021-01, Linda 

5 Cannarozzo; 029-01, Richard Conner; 035-01, Stephen Crowley; 055-01, Claudia Galaviz; 

6 056-01, Mark Galaviz; 063-01, Martha Haga; 081-01, Lea Johnson; 093-01, Louis Landry; 

7 099-01, Brent Mathieu; 100-06, Wendy Matson; 101-01, Jody May-Chang; 109-01, Eugene 

8 McVey; 117-01, Richard Morgan; 121-01, Jennifer Nordstrom; 161-01, Marisa Smith; 

9 188-01, Lana Weber-Wells; 199-01, Dina Bond; 200-01, Sean Campbell; 201-01, Giovanna 

10 Campos; 202-01, Alison Duffin; 203-01, Danielle Dugge; 204-01, Susan Filkins; 205-01, 

11 Andrea Guerri; 206-01, Pamela Hanson; 207-01, Drew Harris; 208-01, Emily Harvey; 

12 209-01, Courtney Hollar; 210-01, Tyler Hoovis; 211-01, Olivia Joelson; 212-01, Naomi 

13 Johnson; 213-01, Darvel Jones; 214-01, Jacob King; 215-01, Verlyn Larsen; 216-01, 

14 Beau Lee; 217-01, Jodie Mckelvey; 218-01, David Minick; 219-01, Neil Miyaoka; 220-01, 

15 Tim Naftzger; 221-01, Mike Perrington; 222-01, Hannah Raines; 223-01, Mason Richens; 

16 224-01, A. Rolsen; 225-01, Lisa Stimpson; 226-01, Jessica Toinga; 227-01, Joseph Voss] 

17 This enrichment factory:

18

19 • Is unnecessary

20 • Poses a risk to Idaho’s natural resources and people

21 • Should not be licensed 

22

23 [022-01, Judy Carroll] I am strongly opposed to Areva’s plan to build a plant here because I do 

24 not believe that the radioactive waste will be handled appropriately and taken out of Idaho. 

25 Areva is taking advantage of Idaho in the fact that the unemployed and poor need jobs. What 

26 they don’t say is that Areva will also be bringing sickness and death to Idaho. We may seem like 

27 a simple people but we do know in this state how important clean water and land are to our way 

28 of life. Idahoans are the ones who are able to enjoy beautiful wilderness, rivers and wildlife. If 

29 Areva needs uranium enriched, let them enrich it in France!

30

31 [106-01, Ted McConaughey] And I think that the point of all this is that things aren’t going very 

32 well. Our best-laid plans are “gang aft agley,” I guess is the word, and because our record on 

33 completing our project, our nuclear projects, is rather poor, and we don’t have a very good way 

34 of demonstrating that we actually can carry out these projects for the entire lifetime of the 

35 project, including the nuclear fuel, the waste reprocessing, or waste disposal, I think that to 

36 suggest that a 30 year lifetime of the plant is very optimistic, and that the nuclear fuel cycle itself 

37 is - we make all kinds of optimistic projections here, which are very hard to ensure. 

38

39 [112-01, Mark Menlove] I am writing to express my strong concern with the draft 

40 Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility proposed in eastern 

41 Idaho (NUREG-1945 draft). 

42

43 In my view the enrichment factory poses a risk to the people and natural resources of Idaho, is 

44 unnecessary, and should not be licensed. 

45

46 [113-09, Ken Miller] So there is no reason for Idaho, of all places, to be sacrificed for a fuel 

47 production factory for a generation resource that Idaho and our region do not need.

48
I-35

1 [118-01, Caroline Morris] The EREF is unnecessary, presents risks to Idaho’s natural 

2 resources and people, and should not be licensed. I oppose the EREF’s licensing.... Please 

3 consider my concerns and adjust the draft EIS, or deny the license. 

4

5 [120-04, Frank Nicholson] This enrichment factory:...

6

7 • Poses a risk to Idaho’s natural resources and people. If something were to happen and when 

8 the plant is shutdown a foreign company does NOT have the incentive to do what is right. They 

9 can leave and we have no recourse. BP is a great example. Also, importing and exporting the 

10 nuclear fuel will not only put ourselves at risk but many others along the path. 

11

12 [125-02, Holly Paquette] And so the main thing that I want to tell you is that most of the people 

13 who have come in here today, and have supported AREVA, and said that Idaho needs AREVA, 

14 have been talking about money, and that seems to be the underlying basis for why they’re 

15 supporting AREVA. And having introduced myself and my background, I want to tell you --

16 sorry, I’m a little emotional about this -- no amount of money is worth risking the environment or 

17 the safety of the people of Idaho, and that includes the next generation of Idahoans.

18

19 [144-01, Sara Rodgers] This letter is in opposition to the licensing of the Eagle Rock 

20 Enrichment Facility and to suggest that the draft EIS for the EREF is inadequate. Current lives 

21 and many future lives are at risk and at stake in the licensing for one corporation. I urge you to 

22 not license the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility nor adopt the draft EIS. 

23

24 [150-09, Katie Seevers] The potentially devastating health, environmental, and economic 

25 effects to Idaho, that the licensing of the AREVA facility presents make me say that the rejection 

26 of the licensing of this facility is in the best interest of our state and its citizens.

27

28 [153-01, Andrea Shipley; 197-01, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

29 AREVA’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will store radioactive waste above the sole 

30 source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people, impact sensitive species, support transport of 

31 radioactive materials into and out of Idaho, impact the Hell’s Half Acre national monument, 

32 support destruction of the John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended for the 

33 National Register of Historical Places, enjoy billions in state and federal largesse, and utilize 

34 farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. The Alliance is here to say it’s 

35 not worth the risk 

36

37 [184-06, Kitty Vincent] The idea that this will boost the economy of Idaho is short sighted. 

38

39 Affected could be the lives of the future citizens in Idaho and the West. 

40

41 I strongly suggest that the Areva enrichment plant be denied a license. Idaho Falls needs to 

42 develop other avenues to enhance its economy, in ways that do not threaten the people who 

43 live there for hundreds of years to come as well as a major water source of the western United 

44 States. 

45

46 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will store 

47 radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people; impact sensitive 

48 species; require the transport of radioactive materials; impair the Hell’s Half Acre National 
I-36

1 Monument; support destruction of the John Leopard homestead, which has been recommended 

2 for the National Register of Historic Places; devour billions of dollars in state and federal

3 largess; and obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. The 

4 Alliance is here to say it is not worth the risk.

5

6 [192-01, Lisa Young] As a member of the scientific community, and as a member and leader of 

7 many organizations on campus and in the community, I can say that this proposal is irrational, 

8 unnecessary, and a threat to the health, safety, environment, and tax dollars of all Idahoans. 

9

10 [192-07, Lisa Young] Therefore, as a member of the scientific community, and as a member 

11 and leader of many organizations on campus and in the community, I can say that this proposal 

12 is irrational, unnecessary, and a threat to the health, safety, environment, and tax dollars of all 

13 Idahoans. I urge you to select the “no action” alternative when evaluating AREVA’s license 

14 application. 

15

16 Response: The proposed EREF would be licensed only if the Commission finds that public 

17 health and safety and the environment would be adequately protected. In reviewing all of the 

18 comments received on the Draft EIS, the NRC staff has determined that no information has 

19 been provided in these comments that would change the findings and conclusions regarding 

20 environmental impacts in the Draft EIS. Safety issues are not within the scope of the EIS and 

21 are addressed in the NRC’s SER (NRC, 2010b).

22

23

24 I.5.2 General Support for the Project

25

26 The comments addressed in this subsection are those that are limited to expressing support in 

27 some manner for the proposed EREF project. However, comments that contain general support

28 statements and also include topics that are relevant to issues addressed within the scope of the 

29 EIS are not included in this subsection, but are instead included and addressed elsewhere in

30 Section I.5, in the subsections relevant to the specific topics discussed.

31

32 Comment: The following comment supports the construction of transmission lines.

33

34 [171-02, John Tanner] As far as transmission lines are concerned, if we couldn’t build 

35 transmission lines because of environmental impacts, we certainly couldn’t have wind farms, 

36 because they need transmission lines in spades.

37

38 Response: The NRC appreciates this comment and the public participation.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comments express general support for the proposed EREF project. 

42

43 [005-01, Anonymous] I support the EIS. 

44

45 [006-01, Anonymous] I am supportive of the AREVA project but would like to have heard more 

46 from the NRC on how waste from the process will be stored and ultimately disposed of.

47
I-37

1 [007-004, Arnold Ayers] And for those things, we ought to be considering, and building this 

2 facility as fast as we can build it.

3

4 [024-01, Jana Chalfant; 149-01, Wendi Secrist; 196-01, Linda Martin, on behalf of the 

5 Idaho Economic Development Association] The Idaho Economic Development Association 

6 is grateful for the opportunity to show our support for the AREVA Project. IEDA represents over 

7 seventy-five economic development professionals throughout the State. We have supported the 

8 AREVA project from its beginning during the site selection phase with the Department of 

9 Commerce, in several areas across the state. 

10

11 We supported the legislation which positioned Idaho to ultimately become the site chosen for 

12 the project. This was healthy economic legislation which provided for earned benefits for 

13 performance, not only for the AREVA project, but any company that would present similar 

14 investments in Idaho.

15

16 [052-01, Rod Fuger] Idaho wants and needs this project.

17

18 [059-02, Lance Giles] Official comment - Support licensing of facility.

19

20 [058-01, Matt Gerber] We need this for the country. Areva is good for us all.

21

22 [065-03, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] I appreciate being able to voice the support of myself and the 

23 many residents, who I believe are the most pro-nuclear community in the country, that AREVA 

24 be issued a license to begin construction and move forward with this very important facility to 

25 this area as well as the entire nation.

26

27 [079-01, Kristen Jensen; 179-01, Jolie Turek; 194-01, Linda Martin, on behalf of the 

28 Eastern Idaho Economic Development Partners] On behalf of the Eastern Idaho Economic 

29 Development Partners (EIEDP) we wish to express support for the AREVA project. The EIEDP 

30 represents a 13-county area surrounding the Eagle Rock Enrichment plant location, which is in 

31 the effective immediate impact area for the project. We have issued previous letters of support 

32 for the project.

33

34 [090-01, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 123-01, Hon. Jeff Thompson, on 

35 behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] As such, the governor wants to state his support for the proposed 

36 AREVA facility, Eagle Rock, which will be built and operated outside of Idaho Falls. 

37

38 In conclusion, the Governor would strongly encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

39 move forward expeditiously in the review and granting of a license to AREVA so that this 

40 important facility can begin construction next year.

41

42 [137-05, Ralph Reeves] I urge that this uranium low enrichment plant be approved

43

44 [143-04, Hon. James Risch; 172-04, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] In 

45 closing, I support AREVA’s application for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, and recognize 

46 the enormous positive impact they will have for our country, state, and local citizens.

47
I-38

1 [145-05, Ann Rydalch] I encourage you to follow the preliminary recommendation that AREVA 

2 be issued a license to construct and operate the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility here in 

3 Bonneville County, Idaho Falls, Idaho, formerly called Eagle Rock, Idaho

4

5 [158-01, Hon. Mike Simpson; 139-01, John Revier, on behalf of Hon. Mike Simpson] I’m 

6 writing today to express my strong support for AREVA’s license application to construct and 

7 operate the Eagle Rock facility. I’m sorry I cannot join you at the public hearings in Idaho Falls and 

8 Boise, but I’d like to welcome the NRC to Idaho, and express my appreciation for the NRC’s work 

9 on this important matter. 

10

11 [160-01, Jeff Smith] We fully support the need and the purpose of this EIS. I represent some 

12 600 members and their families. We not only feel this is good for Local 449, but Idaho, but for 

13 America and its future.

14

15 [167-02, Andrew Stevenson] Because of the effort made by both the NRC and AREVA, we 

16 would like to, as a Council, voice our approval of the Environmental Impact Statement in its current 

17 form, and urge the NRC to continue on to the next step in the process of getting this project a 

18 reality.

19

20 [166-01, Allen Stears] I am writing in regards to the Areva EIS. It is my opinion that enough 

21 safety procedures will be in place to protect the environment. Therefore I am in favor of granting of 

22 a permit.

23

24 [170-01, David Strobel] I support Areva building an Enrichment Plant west of Idaho Falls, ID. 

25 The benefit will far outweigh the risk.

26

27 [176-05, Hon. Jeff Thompson] I am pleased to give my support to AREVA, and agree with the 

28 NRC recommendation to issue a license to AREVA to construct and operate the Eagle Rock 

29 Enrichment Facility.

30

31 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

32 participation. However, these comments are not within the scope of the EIS analysis because 

33 they do not relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

34

35

36 Comment: The following comments express concern regarding possible misinformation that 

37 has been put forth by various parties about the proposed EREF project and about the nuclear 

38 power industry in general.

39

40 [076-02, Martin Huebner] If it’s true, as we previously stated in Boise, that the Snake River 

41 Alliance now is a research organization, that implies that maybe the Snake River Alliance has 

42 dumped the precautionary principle, and now embraced the facts-based scientific principle. If 

43 that is not the case, I sincerely hope that Snake River Alliance objectively looks at the facts, and 

44 comes to the conclusion that most of us here already have, that safe, reliable, economical, 

45 carbon-free nuclear power must be, and will be a vital part of America’s future.

46
I-39

1 [082-02, Michael Johnston] There are a couple of groups here in the area, Snake River 

2 Alliance and (?) Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, that try to misrepresent and distort the truth. I 

3 have seen where they represent a small but very vocal group and generally turn out larger 

4 groups of anti-nuclear people. I along with a lot of others here are normally very low key, quiet, 

5 supportive of the INL and nuclear power, and sorry to say do not go to these meetings. This 

6 morning I had breakfast with about 18 of these people and do not believe any of them will be at 

7 the meeting to show their support. I think they assume you will know the true facts regarding 

8 environmental and safety factors to discount what these antinuclear groups represent and/or 

9 distort. How can one believe with a INL workforce here there is not great support for the nuclear 

10 industry. 

11

12 [157-11, Hon. Erik Simpson] Risk. At the Boise hearing, those opposed asked the NRC panel 

13 if they could guarantee there would be no mishaps at the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. I 

14 came to the conclusion that even if the NRC could ensure the public there would be no 

15 problems at the facility, those who are opposed to this project would still be opposed. After all, 

16 it’s nuclear.

17

18 [173-01, David Taylor] ...I am strongly in favor of the construction and maintenance of the 

19 Areva complex and hope the rest of the DOE INL site can be used for productive nuclear 

20 research and generating capacity....

21

22 We cannot supplant the energy from fossil fuels to the electric grid without vast improvements to 

23 the grid itself and to generating capacity. Nuclear is the only viable alternative and the only one 

24 that is “eco friendly” to the environment. Fear mongers and professional detractors “Snake River 

25 Alliance” use disgraceful tactics and words in attempting to keep their little source of revenue 

26 alive.

27

28 We possess the technology (Gen IV reactors) and now need the common sense to use these 

29 resources to help sustain a vibrant economy and standard of living that we have all come to 

30 expect. The next generation will not have these opportunities if we squander and make feeble 

31 attempts to make nuclear energy production a reality now.

32

33 I support Areva and the ideas that surround using nuclear technology as a great national effort. 

34 It must be for national security and for economic security. We must have a federal government 

35 that will establish certain protocols and reactor templates that if complied with will move to a fast 

36 track for licensing and construction. From there the government must run interference against 

37 all the special interest that come to bear only for the reason of capital extraction. Thanks for 

38 allowing us to be part of this potentially wonderful venture that will not only bless the lives of 

39 those who live and work here but for the whole nation.

40

41 Response: In the EIS, the NRC staff provides an objective analysis of the potential 

42 environmental impacts in all resource areas, based on NEPA and the NRC regulations for

43 implementing NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC staff has followed these requirements and 

44 has independently evaluated the information used for, and presented in, the EIS.

45

46

47 Comment: The following comments support the development of the proposed EREF and point 

48 out that Idaho is the proper location for such a facility and that the proposed facility can be 
I-40

1 operated safely, based on the technical capability and experience of the workforce in the project 

2 area and on local environmental and legal/regulatory factors. Some of these comments also 

3 express general support for the project.

4

5 [003-01, Philip Anderson] This is to express support for the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment 

6 Facility near Idaho Falls, Idaho.

7

8 In addition, I want to draw your attention to the population demographics of eastern Idaho which 

9 show that one of the highest concentrations of scientists and engineers in the nation already live 

10 in this relatively lightly populated region. Therefore, public support of the project and its 

11 technology would be among the most positive in the nation.

12

13 Specifically, because a substantial fraction of this population has the educational and 

14 professional advantage of understanding nuclear technologies, organized opposition to the 

15 project should be less than in other regions. One would expect the superstitious fears of and 

16 opposition to “everything nuclear” to be less than in other regions, and any that might be 

17 expressed in eastern Idaho can be answered or explained locally.

18

19 [038-03, Brian Davidson] Eastern Idaho’s long history with nuclear research and its current 

20 safety-minded workforce are a strong reason to support Areva’s plant in our area. We have 

21 proved time and again that not only can we operate such technology safely, but we also have 

22 the commitment to ensure generated wastes are dealt with safely.

23

24 [043-01, Rocky Deschamps] I am going to speak just a little bit, and I won’t take much time. 

25 I’m going to talk a little bit about, I spent six years on the Bingham County Planning and Zoning 

26 Commission, the last two years as chairman of that Commission, and there’s one area here on 

27 the Environmental Impact Statement that I’d just like to maybe touch just a little bit of base on, 

28 and it talks about, it’s anticipated the number of workers moving into the area during each phase 

29 of the proposed project they call them migration workers, that might have some impact on the 

30 schools, health care, law enforcement, availability, cost of public utilities, such as electric, water, 

31 sanitary, road, number of migrating workers expected during the construction and operations 

32 might impact the housing.

33

34 My time on the Bingham County Planning and Zoning, we encourage businesses because our 

35 schools are crying out, we need more students. We’re actually declining in our number of youth 

36 in our schools. Our roads are very adequate. Our schools are adequate. We have an 

37 infrastructure here in southeast Idaho because we are so used to having INL, we have the 

38 colleges here that can train the workers. We have the high schools that are there that are ready 

39 to accept anything new that we might have in this area in the schools. We have multiple, 

40 multiple infrastructure in place because of the INL, and the experience we have with the INL out 

41 there.

42

43 Also, I’ve been involved with the supply side. We have contractors in this area that are so 

44 familiar with the requirements to build a facility like this, that it’s just -- you don’t find that in a lot 

45 of areas. We also have suppliers that are used to supplying the specifications, the ASTM 

46 specifications that are required on a nuclear facility to do that, so we are very able to take on a 

47 facility like this, and take care of it, and do what we need to do.

48
I-41

1 [065-02, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] I spend a large amount of time in the city among the residents 

2 and it is exciting to feel the enthusiasm most have for this project coming to Idaho Falls. Of 

3 course the main interest is the economic impact it will have on the area, in other words - jobs. 

4 Also the community supports the fact that there will be a very small environmental impact from 

5 this facility. We thank the NRC again for their efforts in this particular concern. We have a top 

6 notch workforce here which was recognized by AREVA in the beginning. The community as a 

7 whole supports energy being produced by nuclear power. We simply have to address our 

8 independence on foreign oil.

9

10 [094-03, Michael Lange] One of the things that they don’t cover in NEPA is the biggest single 

11 issue of safety, of building any plant in this country, whether you like coal, or nuclear, whatever, 

12 and that’s the quality of the people that build the plant. It’s the skill level of the people that build 

13 the plant. It’s the safety training of the people that build the plant. And I can say that in Idaho, 

14 the times I’ve worked here, and the people I worked with, you have very highly-trained people, 

15 very safe people, very professional people that work hard. And I can tell you from working in 

16 those facilities under those rules, and the NRC Commissioners would be the first to tell you, if 

17 you’ve ever worked in a hot mockup on a nuclear plant, you’ve got 3 R next to you about a few 

18 feet away, you better be doing it right.

19

20 [111-02, Robert Meikle] And Idaho Falls is one of the places that has 40 years of experience 

21 doing this sort of thing. And I’ve been there for 40 years. My first construction company put the 

22 seven big tanks in at CPP, at the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, and I was still in 

23 business 40 years later, and we took those same tanks out.

24

25 [133-02, Richard Provencher] Relative to the potential environmental impacts, this is a perfect 

26 fit nuclear facility to locate in Idaho. ... Overall, this appears to be a facility that affords much 

27 benefit to the country and Idaho Falls that far outweighs the low risk and low potential for 

28 environmental impact and I am fully supportive of NRC granting a license to construct and 

29 operate.

30

31 [135-04, Hon. Dave Radford] Being a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Bonneville 

32 County adopted a comprehensive plan that included located nuclear growth west of -- on the 

33 western side of -- Bonneville County, so we think that will help expedite the process. We, as the 

34 commission, agree with the Environmental Impact Statement’s conclusion.

35

36 Historically, I serve on the Heritage Commission. I think history is important, that homestead, I 

37 think, could be mitigated out there. Historically, Bonneville County, my predecessors at the 

38 County Commission, took very limited resources in terms of property tax dollars and invested 

39 them in improved roads to get out to the site 60 years ago. So, historically, we’ve been a 

40 nuclear-friendly county, and I believe that it will continue. And we applaud your work, we respect 

41 your work, and we hope for a great outcome for an expedited license for AREVA.

42

43 [151-03, Beth Sellers] The fact that Areva Enrichment Services selected Idaho Falls as the 

44 location to construct and operate this enrichment facility speaks to the comfort level this 

45 community has with all things nuclear. There are over 6 decades of nuclear energy R&D&D 

46 experience at the INL. Locating a commercial capability next door makes logical sense, as the 

47 synergy that will co-exist in the professional arena will be a natural outcome and provide benefit 

48 to all involved.

49
I-42

1 [152-01, Steven Serr] I am also responsible for code compliance conformance for building 

2 code, fire code, mechanical code, flood plain rules and regulations. And I have had an 

3 opportunity to work with NRC staff. They’ve been in my office asking questions as to what we 

4 figure impacts are, how we plan on addressing issues, if we have concerns on implementation 

5 of this project. We’ve worked extensively with AREVA, and their staff, to make sure everything 

6 that they are doing would be in compliance with NRC guidelines, with local rules and 

7 regulations, and they’ve made every attempt to make adjustments to their plan, to make sure 

8 that we have a safe facility.

9

10 [152-03, Steven Serr] As far as compliance with zoning rules and regulations, that area was 

11 designed specifically for this type of facility. It’s not designed to have other uses out there that 

12 could be impacted by those uses.

13

14 [152-07, Steven Serr] One of the issues we were concerned, we talked specifically about, was 

15 the storage facilities on site, to make sure that those are contained. We feel that the plan that 

16 they have implemented for on-site retention containment, lined ponds, monitoring would 

17 adequately protect the community. As far as code enforcement officers, that one of my major 

18 charges, is any facility we have come in, that we do see that they are fully code compliant and 

19 protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

20

21 [152-09, Steven Serr] I wanted to address the issue as to the suitability of this property for 

22 development of that site. Again, as the Commissioner mentioned earlier, this area has been 

23 zoned and designated for this type of use. It’s been planned that it could accommodate this type 

24 of operation since 1960. So, it’s been a long-designated piece of property, tract of land out there 

25 for this type of use.

26

27 I approach this as an enforcement site for any facility that’s built in the county. Our concern in 

28 the county is making sure that things are built to code, built complaint, built safe, protect public 

29 health, safety, and welfare. My office, we are responsible for enforcement of the building code, 

30 the fire code, mechanical code, flood plain rules and regulations, and we have addressed most 

31 of these issues with AREVA. We’ve made modifications for some of their design issues on what 

32 they contemplate doing to try to mitigate, and make sure that the operation that they’re 

33 proposing out there will be a safe compliant operation.

34

35 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

36 participation. However, these comments are outside the scope of the EIS analysis because 

37 they do not relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

38

39

40 Comment: The following comments express support for the proposed EREF and state that the 

41 operations at the EREF are expected to be safe and environmentally responsible because 

42 operations would be based on a proven technology. Some of these comments cite the safety of 

43 the nuclear industry as a whole.

44

45 [039-02, Kreg Davis] First. The project is environmentally responsible. It is tested. It is proven 

46 technology. I think most people agree that we need safe, clean, secure, and abundant base 

47 power, baseload power. This baseload power argument has not been discussed as much as I 

48 think it should be tonight.

49
I-43

1 My business is very grateful for the business we get from wind and solar, and would continue to 

2 hope those sectors expand, and at a rapid rate. 

3

4 However, neither one of those provide baseload power. Nuclear can. In my opinion, AREVA’s 

5 project complements these important energy goals. I also believe that serious thinkers on this 

6 issue agree -- nuclear power is the only technology able to deliver on all of these dimensions. I 

7 acknowledge that there are reasonable people who have safety concerns, but most of those I 

8 have spoken with, that oppose nuclear power, believe nuclear safety is possible. However, 

9 there are those that let anxieties rule. Their doubts lead to fight against any implementation of 

10 nuclear power. I personally believe that we are better to focus on growing a safe, clean, secure, 

11 and abundant nuclear industry.

12

13 [039-05, Kreg Davis] First, this project is environmentally responsible. It is tested. It is proven 

14 technology. I think most people agree that we need safe, clean, secure, and abundant base15 load power. In my opinion, Areva’s project complements these important energy goals. I also 

16 believe that serious thinkers on this issue agree nuclear power is the only technology able to 

17 deliver on all of these dimensions. I acknowledge that there are reasonable people who have 

18 safety concerns, but most of those I have spoken with that oppose nuclear power believe 

19 nuclear safety is possible. However, there are those that let anxieties rule. Their doubts lead to 

20 fight against any implementation of nuclear power. I personally believe that we are all better to 

21 focus on growing a safe, clean, secure and abundant nuclear industry.

22

23 [043-02, Rocky Deschamps] The last thing that I was -- I’ll just touch base on, and I’ll touch it 

24 very briefly, and that is, is that it’s too bad that in this day and age that we treat nuclear power 

25 the way we do. And I’ve gone through the Environmental Impact Statement, I didn’t see 

26 anything that touched on this. And the only figures that I have with it, on my note here, in 2006, I 

27 don’t have it. In 2006, there was 46 miners killed in coal mining accidents. If that would happen 

28 in the nuclear industry, it would be shut down so fast, but coal is just left kind of as it is. So, I 

29 think that we need to look at that a little bit and say geez, where -- I think that 2006 is probably a 

30 pretty good year. If we looked at 2009, or 2008, it would even be worse, so I think we need to 

31 take in a little bit of perspective, and look at that. 

32

33 [098-04, Linda Martin] As far as technical impacts, the centrifuge technology is proven and 

34 safe as based on other facilities across the world, and while there conceivably is a significant 

35 gap in the supply-demand equation for enriched uranium to provide our current and future green 

36 energy needs, we can address that with the EREF.

37

38 [098-11, Linda Martin] The company’s use of centrifuge technology is a proven, safe method 

39 of enriching uranium. This technology is more energy efficient, more environmentally friendly 

40 and less expensive to operate than the other accepted uranium enrichment process called 

41 gaseous diffusion.

42

43 [116-01, Richard Mondy] I am in full support of the proposed Eagle Rock enrichment facility.

44

45 I submit that nuclear power is as safe, if not safer, than petroleum based power. Opponents to 

46 the facility neglect to admit the hazards of alternative sources, hazards such as the recent Gulf 

47 oil spill. 

48
I-44

1 It is easy for those with other agendas to be opposed when they can take a narrow view and 

2 just ‘cry wolf’ without having to offer and substantiate a realistic alternative.

3

4 [123-02, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-02, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-02, 

5 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] AREVA is proposing to build a state-of 

6 the-art, technologically-proven, modern facility to enrich uranium needed to operate the existing 

7 U.S. fleet of 104 power reactors. AREVA’s plant will incorporate many unique features which 

8 have been developed over three decades of experience with centrifuge enrichment technology. 

9 AREVA’s vast experience and use of the technology will result in minimizing and, where 

10 possible, eliminating any impacts on the surrounding environment and regional communities, 

11 but there will remain, however, many significant beneficial impacts....

12

13 Safety, integrity, professionalism, and sustainability are demonstrated attributes that AREVA 

14 embraces in all of its projects and operations, and the Governor believes they’ll bring no less to 

15 Idaho Falls. AREVA has been easy to work with, and they are as excited about coming to Idaho 

16 as we are to have them locate their facility here.

17

18 As we look across the country today, there are not many, if any, states or regions that can claim 

19 proposed major energy construction projects or facilities like the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

20 Facility. While large projects are usually accompanied by some environmental impacts, 

21 Governor Otter believes the end result of this facility will be very positive for Idaho and the 

22 country. Eagle Rock will provide much needed domestic production of enriched uranium for our 

23 existing U.S. nuclear power fleet, which will help enable U.S. utilities to move away from 

24 importing nearly 90 percent of this important fuel product. 

25

26 [137-02, Ralph Reeves] 2. The nuclear industry has a great safety record. Then there is oil 

27 drilling, coal mining, etc.

28

29 [143-03, Hon. James Risch; 172-03, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] I also 

30 note the centrifuge technology is proven, reliable, and efficient. The process will use 50 times 

31 less electricity than a gaseous diffusion plant, and the amount of water used by the plant is less 

32 than the current irrigation appropriation.

33

34 [128-02, Bob Poyser] In addition, the Eagle Rock enrichment facility will provide safe and 

35 secure domestic enrichment services that American utilities need to generate carbon-free 

36 energy.

37

38 [163-04, Cindy Smith-Putnam] Over the past five years, approximately a million and a half 

39 Americans have died from smoking, automobile accidents, and alcohol-related incidents. 

40 Obesity has claimed another million and a half lives over the same time period. And according 

41 to the Institute of Medicine’s landmark report titled, “To Err is Human,” my own industry, health 

42 care, is estimated to be responsible for the annual death of nearly 100,000 people through 

43 medical errors. By contrast, according to the Director of the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring 

44 and Research Center, in that same period of time, the past five years, the nuclear industry has 

45 produced zero deaths, and a relative danger index of 0.0.

46
I-45

1 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

2 participation. However, these comments are outside the scope of the EIS analysis because 

3 they do not relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

4

5

6 Comment: The following comments express support for the role of the proposed EREF as part 

7 of the nuclear fuel cycle and/or support for nuclear power in general.

8

9 [010-01, Jack Barraclough] So, when a project like this comes in my study of nuclear needs, 

10 it’s just so obvious that this is what we need. You can look at all these things, and talk about the 

11 aquifer, but this is trivial compared to the needs of this country.

12

13 ... and we don’t need negativism, naysayers, we need positive support of this excellent project 

14 that would help the world, and help the country, and I strongly support this.

15

16 [033-01, Hon. Mike Crapo; 075-01, Leslie Huddleston, on behalf of Hon. Mike Crapo] Now, 

17 more than ever, it is critical to develop secure, economically feasible, and clean supplies of 

18 domestic energy. EREF will supply America’s existing operation fleet of nuclear power reactors, 

19 and further augment the anticipated growth of new commercial nuclear power generation here 

20 in the U.S.

21

22 [034-01, Greg Crockett] While I understand this is not a debate on nuclear energy policy, the 

23 context in which decisions of this nature are made must be considered and cannot be ignored. 

24 Daily headlines demonstrate the devastating environmental consequences of our heavy 

25 dependence on petroleum fuels. Fires in Russia, floods in China and Pakistan, and oppressive 

26 heat currently being experienced within the continental United States remind us continuously of 

27 the ever-increasing consequences of climate change.

28

29 It is time for the U.S. to change directions in the interest of our energy future and our national 

30 interest. It is time for the United States to reassume a leadership role worldwide in nuclear 

31 energy. Our national security interests require that we have enrichment and fuel development 

32 capabilities within our borders. I support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which 

33 likewise recognizes those demands.

34

35 Demand for nuclear fuel is, and will dramatically increase in the future, and I think that’s 

36 demonstrated by the number of pending NRC license applications. To suggest that the Eagle 

37 Rock Enrichment Facility’s production is not or will not be necessary is pure folly. To meet our 

38 current demand for enriched uranium, much of it is imported, and we need robust domestic 

39 suppliers who can provide this service in an environmentally compatible manner.

40

41 We trust AREVA. We trust that the proposed Eagle Rock facility will provide this valuable 

42 service to our nation. I support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and recommend that 

43 it be accepted, and that the license process proceed.

44

45 [038-02, Brian Davidson] As we look to secure our nation’s energy future, nuclear power has 

46 got to be a part of it. Having Areva’s uranium enrichment capacity in Idaho and the 

47 United States will help nuclear power become an even more viable energy alternative.

48
I-46

1 [039-04 and 039-07, Kreg Davis] In the long run, this project will augment our base-load 

2 electrical needs. Nuclear energy is a significant part of the answer to our energy needs. I 

3 worked for Philips Semiconductors during the years when the semiconductor industry started 

4 moving jobs from the United States overseas. Countries with empty fields, cheap and abundant 

5 power, clean and plentiful water, an education program fully developed complete with a steady 

6 stream of graduates, and low taxes. These countries provided all this and an invitation to come.

7

8 If America and Idaho are going to compete in this world, we too need to provide clean water, 

9 quality education, and reasonable taxes. But we also need to provide energy — abundant 

10 power — predictable base-load energy. I personally believe that nuclear energy should be a 

11 significant part of that base. Areva’s project helps us to achieve success. This project is good 

12 for our planet and it is good for our economy. Thank you for giving me this time.

13

14 [041-01, Hon. Tammy de Weerd; 156-01, Robert Simison, on behalf of Hon. Tammy de 

15 Weerd] I am speaking tonight on behalf of Mayor Tammy de Weerd of the City of Meridian, 

16 which is the third largest city in Idaho, located here in the Treasure Valley, in support of the 

17 purpose and need for the proposed Eagle Rock facility, as outlined in the EIS. 

18

19 We believe that the proposed facility will help support our nation’s nuclear power industry and 

20 emphasize the importance of having a reliable source of enriched uranium for national energy 

21 security, as is described in the EIS....

22

23 I think this could be a good partnership for the area. With that, I will go ahead and conclude my 

24 comments, and say, as a nation, we need a generation of safe nuclear energy power plants and 

25 we encourage you to move the EIS for the Eagle Rock facility forward, and know that it will 

26 directly and indirectly benefit thousands of Idahoans.

27

28 [042-01, John Deal] We believe the Eagle Rock Facility is an important and necessary addition 

29 to the fuel cycle in America and will depend on the Eagle Rock facility for fuel enrichment. 

30

31 [051-02, Jackie Flowers] Something else this community is concerned about and cares about 

32 is energy. As this country grapples with visions for a sustainable energy future, and energy 

33 independence, we have to take action and stop the rhetoric. Nuclear energy provides 

34 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. We’ve already heard that tonight. Importantly, we’ve also 

35 heard it provides more than 69 percent of emission-free electricity that keep the lights on in this 

36 country. Let me stress, base load emission-free energy. With less than 15 percent of the nuclear 

37 fuel supply necessary for the existing nuclear energy fleet coming from a single source inside 

38 this country’s border, we have an energy security problem that I believe rallies that of our 

39 dependence on foreign oil. And this is an important step towards building that independence.

40

41 Nuclear energy is ready now to be a central part of a balanced common-sense approach to 

42 clean energy diversity. I agree with the NRC staff’s statement that this facility will contribute to 

43 the attainment of national energy security policy objectives by providing an additional reliable 

44 and economical domestic source of fuel for these important nuclear energy facilities.

45

46 [064-01, Hon. Tom Hally] I support the facility as it is part of a long term solution to our energy 

47 needs. A nation we have failed to come up with a comprehensive energy policy. We all seem to 

48 agree that we need to down size coal. In my opinion nuclear Is part of the solution and I feel is 
I-47

1 green. We need to move forward. Idaho Falls supports the facility and as a member of the Idaho 

2 Falls city council I support the facility.

3

4 [065-02, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] The community as a whole supports energy being produced by 

5 nuclear power. We simply have to address our independence on foreign oil.

6

7 [067-03, Mike Hart] With respect to the need, I, looking at global warming, I know there are 

8 obviously impacts of nuclear energy, but the reality is, seven generations from now I think they 

9 won’t be worrying as much about depleted uranium as they will be about depleted glaciers, 

10 depleted ice caps, and nuclear energy has a significant benefit. It’s not without its warts, it’s not 

11 without its impacts, but there is “no free lunch” when it comes to energy.

12

13 You can conserve, but we do use energy. It is used globally, whether this is a French company, 

14 whether it’s used locally, or nationally, the reality is its carbon-free, and that carbon-free 

15 resource is something that is very precious, and until we have alternative technologies that can 

16 produce significant usable quantities of electricity, nuclear is a very positive step in between 

17 now and a carbon-free future.

18

19 [067-06, Mike Hart] Also, they took exception with the cause and need for action. I think there’s 

20 most definitely a need for this, because there’s a need for carbon-free energy. Throughout the 

21 world, I think we’ve seen that global warming is a significant problem that we need to be paying 

22 attention to, and there’s also a demand for growth in nuclear energy. There’s a couple of facts I 

23 want to point out why we need nuclear energy, why we need this particular enrichment plant.

24

25 Carbon dioxide reflects, or absorbs, infrared energy that does not go back out to space. It 

26 makes the planet warmer. That’s simply a fact. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Levels of 

27 carbon dioxide have gone from 288 parts per million in 1850 to 369 parts per million in the year 

28 2000. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. That is a greenhouse gas that is increasing in 

29 concentration. But I’ll give you a hint as to where it’s coming from: fossil energy. In 1990s, we 

30 annually contribute 6.3 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through fossil 

31 combustion. That’s annual, 6.3 gigatons. The concern about 300,000 metric tons, 300,000 tons 

32 of total waste versus 6.3 gigatons in a single year, I view the problem with carbon as much more 

33 significant than the problem with depleted uranium.

34

35 So, what is a gigaton? Why is that a concern? Well, 2.3 gigatons is one part per million of 

36 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, every year we are steadily increasing carbon dioxide. So, 

37 yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, it’s our fault. Yes, carbon puts more of that in the 

38 atmosphere, and I think nuclear energy is a stopgap that will – is worth pursuing. So, yes, there 

39 is a need.

40

41 Energy demands are increasing worldwide. Currently, the population of the planet is about 

42 4.5 billion. By 2050, that will double, and people are not less energy consumptive. Populations 

43 like China and India used to be in the Third World. They have bought the second world, and 

44 they’ve placed a firm down payment on the first one. So, energy consumption will go up as the 

45 population goes up, so even if nuclear energy just holds its own at 15 percent, there will be a 

46 need for more nuclear plants, and that means there will be a need for more enriched uranium.

47
I-48

1 [072-01, Stephen Herring] Good evening, my name is Steve Herring. I am a nuclear engineer 

2 and have lived here in Idaho since earning my doctorate 31 years ago. During that time I have 

3 seen the NRC carefully exercise its duty in protecting the public health through their diligent 

4 review of proposed facilities. I would like to speak in favor of the AREVA license application for 

5 the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility.

6

7 This facility will be an important part of the nuclear fuel cycle and a key step in providing for 

8 future electricity. In building this facility, AREVA will replace 60-year old technology for uranium 

9 enrichment with new gas centrifuge technology that is more proliferation resistance, cleaner and 

10 a factor of twenty to fifty times more efficient. 

11

12 The 104 reactors in the US provide about 20% of total US electricity and 69% of the emission13 free electricity. However, today, the US has only one operating gas centrifuge plant and the last 

14 gaseous diffusion plants are being decommissioned. The one gas centrifuge plant which began 

15 operation in New Mexico in June 2010, will be capable of producing 3 MSWU/yr, about 25% of 

16 the US need for enrichment. So the US is dependent on imported enrichment for 75% of its 

17 commercial fuel needs. 

18

19 We have seen the construction of many wind turbines in the hills east of Idaho Falls and through 

20 the west in the last five years. I applaud the contribution that these turbines can make, though I 

21 have yet to see any comparable contribution in Jackson or Sun Valley. But it is important to 

22 remember that turbines in the best wind sites have capacity factors of only 30-35%. The nuclear 

23 reactors fueled by means of the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility will provide power with a 

24 capacity factor above 90%, that is, they provide more than 90% of their maximum capacity 

25 when averaged 24-7, year around. The US needs reliable, sustainable energy for decades to 

26 come, and not just when the wind is blowing. 

27

28 Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

29

30 [082-01, Michael Johnston] I would like to submit my support for the proposed AREVA 

31 Enrichment Service’s proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant to be built in Eagle 

32 Rock, Idaho, report number, “NUREG- 1945 draft.”

33

34 We need nuclear power and the facilities to support them. I feel this facility will be a safe asset 

35 to the overall program. I started working at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in 1976 and 

36 retired in 2000, I always felt safe there. One of my biggest complaints was the general US 

37 population was never provided with enough truthful educational information to know how safe 

38 Nuclear Power was and what a good source of safe power it was. I know just a little about the 

39 planning, review process, and construction overview that goes into building nuclear facilities 

40 after working at the INL and am supportive of this project.

41

42 [098-13, Linda Martin] Conceivably there is a significant gap in the supply/demand equation 

43 for enriched uranium to provide for our current and future green energy needs. The uncertainty 

44 of the future supply of energy could evolve into a national security issue. The Eagle Rock 

45 Enrichment Facility would be a principal supplier for this valuable and needed material.

46

47 [111-01, Robert Meikle] The issue of risk is the risk of what we don’t do if we don’t adopt 

48 nuclear. What are our options if we don’t adopt nuclear? And so if we don’t do nuclear, ten 
I-49

1 years from now we’ll still be doing coal. And what are the risks of coal, if we’re doing coal ten 

2 years--as opposed to doing nuclear?

3

4 And so I think you have to weigh the risks. You have to weigh them, carefully, and you have to 

5 look at all of the science, and you have to look at all of the economics. But I don’t think 

6 economics should be the driver here.

7

8 Boone Pickens made one other really great point, and I’ve lived in Wyoming the last few years. I 

9 understand Wyoming’s economy, with coal and natural gas. But we need to go to natural gas, 

10 and if we don’t go to natural gas, we’re going to be in trouble.

11

12 It’s going to take all of these things. But Mr. Davis brought out what I think is the most important 

13 point that’s been made in this entire hearing, and that is we have to have a baseload. We have 

14 to have a baseload that’s reliable.

15

16 I was in the ski business in 1976-77, and in that year, we did not see one storm come through 

17 from September clear through till January, and in that year wind wasn’t going to do it, solar 

18 wasn’t going to do it for Idaho, nor was hydro. And so we’ve got -- we’ve got to look at the “big 

19 picture” with our energy policy, and I think you’re doing the right thing, although I totally agree, 

20 there are risks. But the risks, when you look at the risks and weigh them against the rewards, 

21 and our other alternatives, then we’ve got to move in this direction.

22

23 [114-01, Anne Mitchell] Thank you for granting Areva a license to help create a clean, efficient 

24 energy source so direly needed in this country. They, of course, are a proven entity with a 

25 sterling history for safety, economy in their enrichment facilities. Our country needs this forward 

26 thinking element of clean energy and nuclear energy (so long over-looked by this country) is 

27 direly needed. I strongly appreciate the NRC’s approval of Areva’s license and embrace this not 

28 only for Idaho Falls, but also for my country which I love.

29

30 [119-01, Bob Neilson] One of the things that’s very important in this country to be looking at in 

31 these days and ages is carbon management, and because of carbon management and the 

32 issues associated with it, I’m a strong supporter of renewable energy, including biomass, 

33 geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind.

34

35 However, for the same reason, I’m also a supporter of nuclear energy. And because I’m a 

36 supporter of nuclear energy, if you’re going to have nuclear energy you have to have 

37 enrichment plants. There’s no way around that.

38

39 Now we’ve all talked about environmental impacts. It’s an interesting, a little fact, that if you talk 

40 about life cycle analysis for a variety of energy sources, and I’m talking about from the time that 

41 you’re talking about mining, through transportation, through conversion, through manufacturing, 

42 through operation, through decommissioning. That if you look at nuclear energy in terms of 

43 carbon management, it produces the same, or less, carbon dioxide on a life cycle basis than 

44 wind energy does.

45

46 Now that doesn’t say that nuclear is better or worse, or wind is better or worse. What it does 

47 say, though, is that no matter what kind of energy generation technology you’re talking about, 

48 there are impacts, impacts to all of them, and those impacts need to be carefully considered, so 
I-50

1 that we, as the citizens of Idaho, can make the decisions that are important to our livelihoods 

2 and the state.

3

4 Now nuclear energy produces about 20 percent of the electrical energy in this country today. I 

5 would maintain that because nuclear is one of the few sources that’s baseload compared to 

6 renewable energy for which most renewable energy is not baseload, we need to have nuclear 

7 energy, and if we need to have nuclear energy we need to have enrichment, and I’m afraid that, 

8 unfortunately, it’s an important source among all the others. There’s no “silver bullet.” We need 

9 a mix. Nuclear is a part of that mix.

10

11 [123-04, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-04, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-04, 

12 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] Third, Eagle Rock will help rebuild the 

13 nation’s nuclear infrastructure, and enhance energy security for all those who depend on 

14 nuclear power for their health and welfare right here from Idaho.

15

16 [128-01, Bob Poyser] We welcome this opportunity to provide factual information about our 

17 project to Boise and the surrounding communities. Assuming we are granted a license next 

18 year, those in Boise, who make the trip to Idaho Falls by way of Highway 20, will see the

19 beginning of an important step towards our nation’s energy independence, the development of a 

20 significant investment in Idaho, and construction of an American facility which will provide jobs 

21 to American workers, and strength to the local economy.

22

23 [133-01, Richard Provencher] I fully support the NRC’s proposed preferred alternative to build 

24 a uranium enrichment plant west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The facility being pursued by AREVA will 

25 provide an additional reliable and economical domestic source of low enriched uranium to be 

26 used in commercial nuclear power plants. Having more capability for enrichment in this country 

27 helps reduce the risk related to importation of this type of material from foreign sources. The 

28 AREVA facilities planned capacity can provide 40% of the current and planned demand for 

29 enriched uranium. AREVA’s business plan fits well within the country’s plan to reduce 

30 dependency on foreign oil, improve the climate, and make nuclear energy a larger contributor to 

31 the domestic energy supply. This creates a clear mandate for the capability which is critically 

32 important to beginning the review of environmental impacts related to its operation.

33

34 [134-01, William Quapp] First of all, I commend the staff’s preliminary conclusions, and hope 

35 that they retain those conclusions on the favorable benefit cost assessment. My only 

36 disagreement with the NRC’s impact statements may be one of semantics. I believe that the 

37 risks or impacts identified shouldn’t be attributed to low and moderate, but the word should be 

38 trivial. I believe those impacts are trivial compared to the impacts associated with a societal 

39 continued importation of foreign oil. I believe, furthermore, that nuclear power can provide the 

40 indigenous energy supply while employing Americans in the USA. And, in fact, I believe there is 

41 no bigger impact than sending our soldiers to support energy policy in countries of foreign, or 

42 the Middle East. So, I support the Draft EIS conclusions for the reasons that have been stated 

43 therein, but for many more societal benefits, as I see it, in use of safe and sensible use of 

44 nuclear power. 

45

46 [135-03, Hon. Dave Radford] And, to me, when we develop nuclear in this country, and yet we 

47 only arrive at 20 percent of our power, with French getting 80 percent of their power from 

48 nuclear, and we have an opportunity to learn some things about getting this energy on the grid, 
I-51

1 so I’m optimistic that it can eventually translate to more electricity, cheaper power, a better 

2 quality of life.

3

4 [143-01, Hon. James Risch; 172-01, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] As a 

5 U.S. Senator from Idaho, I have the privilege of serving as the Ranking Member of the 

6 Subcommittee on Energy. From that position, I have seen firsthand the efforts this country is 

7 making to formulate a forward-looking energy policy. Supporting nuclear power, and its 

8 associated technologies, such as enrichment, is one way to make our country more energy 

9 secure. 

10

11 Years of broken energy policy have led us to become dependent on foreign sources of energy. 

12 We’ve also lost our competitive edge in the nuclear field, a field where the United States and 

13 Idaho once led. This community knows what it takes to regain that competitive edge, and once 

14 again place Idaho and this nation at the pinnacle of the nuclear industry.

15

16 There is a growing recognition that nuclear power is the most viable option to meet the clean 

17 energy demands of the future. Demand for enriched uranium is increasing in the United States 

18 and across the world to fuel clean nuclear power. This proposed facility will allow that need to 

19 be met from domestic sources, while providing a much needed economic boost to the entire 

20 region.

21

22 [146-01, Doug Sayer] You know, what happens to my grandson happens to me. We’re both 

23 Idahoans. But more importantly, we’re both Americans. And we have to have that baseload 

24 energy. And until we have an alternative, nuclear is the answer. Decisions I made about my 

25 grandson’s future are important. I realize that the decisions that we make, and the projects that 

26 we undertake are going to be his legacy to deal with....

27

28 We encourage you to pursue this license and approve it, so that we can get back to work and 

29 build these nuclear projects like our country needs them.

30

31 [151-01, Beth Sellers] The purpose of the facility has been made clear in the draft EIS. It is in 

32 the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we continue to support and increase the 

33 percentage of electricity generated by commercial nuclear power. It is a proven mission-free 

34 source of electricity. Furthermore, its increased use will enhance our national energy security. 

35 The sooner we become self-sufficient in fulfilling our energy needs, the more secure our nation 

36 will remain in these turbulent times.

37

38 [152-08, Steven Serr] And my planning hat side. We are encouraging development and 

39 expansion. As mentioned, we are promoting alternate energy resource facilities. We have 

40 160 megawatts of wind power under construction at this time. For promoting the nuclear side 

41 with this, we’ve been promoting the nuclear research on the INL site, and we’re also currently 

42 producing, or hope to be producing a cogeneration facility with a four county region, with a 

43 cogeneration facility for waste burning that also generates electricity.

44

45 So we are promoting all sources of energy. we feel this is also a safe one, that meets the needs 

46 of the community, meets our rules and regulations.

47
I-52

1 [155-01, Jerry Shivly] First of all, it was going to help our nation, because we need the nuclear 

2 energy. 

3

4 [163-02, Cindy Smith-Putnam] The bigger picture is this project’s significance to our regional 

5 and national energy future, and it is the national energy future that fundamentally and absolutely 

6 requires a significant reset from the status quo.

7

8 Currently, under the E in Energy, Grow Idaho Falls has taken an active role in supporting the 

9 development and expansion of green renewable sources of energy. We can, we should, we 

10 have, and we will continue to support the diversification of the energy portfolio of our region and 

11 nation, to include harnessing the power of wind, water, heat, and light, to reduce the harmful 

12 effects to the environment of carbon emitting sources, and to promote our national security by 

13 becoming less reliant on foreign oil.

14

15 Increasing renewables, promoting conservation, decreasing use of fossil fuels, all very 

16 important, we can, and we should do all of those things. And, yet, even taken together, none of 

17 that is enough, not nearly enough to meet our growing energy demands. Nuclear energy stands 

18 alone as the best way to produce the energy we need, while at the same time minimizing 

19 harmful environmental and geopolitical consequences. It gives us the opportunity to turn away 

20 from the practices of the past toward a more stable and sustainable energy future.

21

22 Therefore, just as we need to be independent of unstable and unpredictable sources of oil, we 

23 also need to be independent of unstable and unpredictable sources of enriched uranium. Simply 

24 put, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility beautifully addresses that need.

25

26 [173-01, David Taylor] ...I am strongly in favor of the construction and maintenance of the 

27 Areva complex and hope the rest of the DOE INL site can be used for productive nuclear 

28 research and generating capacity....

29

30 We cannot supplant the energy from fossil fuels to the electric grid without vast improvements to 

31 the grid itself and to generating capacity. Nuclear is the only viable alternative and the only one 

32 that is “eco friendly” to the environment. Fear mongers and professional detractors “Snake River 

33 Alliance” use disgraceful tactics and words in attempting to keep their little source of revenue 

34 alive.

35

36 We possess the technology (Gen IV reactors) and now need the common sense to use these 

37 resources to help sustain a vibrant economy and standard of living that we have all come to 

38 expect. The next generation will not have these opportunities if we squander and make feeble 

39 attempts to make nuclear energy production a reality now.

40

41 I support Areva and the ideas that surround using nuclear technology as a great national effort. 

42 It must be for national security and for economic security. We must have a federal government 

43 that will establish certain protocols and reactor templates that if complied with will move to a fast 

44 track for licensing and construction. From there the government must run interference against 

45 all the special interest that come to bear only for the reason of capital extraction. Thanks for 

46 allowing us to be part of this potentially wonderful venture that will not only bless the lives of 

47 those who live and work here but for the whole nation.

48
I-53

1 [176-02, Hon. Jeff Thompson] As an eastern Idahoan and Representative, I’m excited to hear 

2 that we are looking for sustainable energy solutions for our future, such as those provided by 

3 AREVA. The demand for electricity is becoming greater, and with this demand we’re beginning 

4 to see prices soar. Nuclear energy offers a solution to our need for reliable energy sources now 

5 and in the future.

6

7 [178-02, Randy Trane] This is a project that will serve two purposes. It will allow nuclear power 

8 to serve the world and it will help the economy in the Eastern Idaho area with much needed 

9 employment. I have several friends who are experts in the nuclear power industry and they are 

10 telling me that this project will not have any negative impact on the environment in this area.

11

12 [186-01, Lauren Walker] We are supportive of the nuclear industry. Though we are, ourselves, 

13 not employed by the industry, we feel that the experience that we’ve had is absolutely 

14 compatible with the things that we do in our industry.

15

16 We’re supportive of bringing back manufacturing to the United States. We’ve become a service17 oriented country. We need to start manufacturing for ourselves. Our dependence on foreign 

18 energy has taught us by sad experience that it’s time to bring our independence home. It’s a win 

19 for Idaho; it’s a win for the United States of America.

20

21 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

22 participation. However, these comments are outside the scope of the EIS analysis because 

23 they do not relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

24

25

26 Comment: The following comments express confidence in AES’s capabilities and/or in the 

27 proposed EREF.

28

29 [023-01, Rebecca Casper] I am pleased as a community member with AREVA’s arrival in our 

30 community. They began giving back almost immediately upon their arrival, and corporate 

31 citizenship like that is nothing to be taken lightly. To me, it’s a sign of responsible management 

32 and conscientious management, but that’s just an observation.

33

34 [033-02, Hon. Mike Crapo; 075-02, Leslie Huddleston, on behalf of Hon. Mike Crapo] I am 

35 confident EREF will meet the strong environmental and safety standards enforced by the NRC, 

36 and other federal, state, and local entities. 

37

38 [034-04, Greg Crockett] We trust AREVA.

39

40 [053-02, Hon. Jared Fuhriman] You know, it was just a year ago, March, that I had the 

41 opportunity, along with two high school teachers and 20 high school students, to travel back to 

42 Tricastin, France, and there we were able to go through the George Besse Plant, which the 

43 Eagle Rock facility is modeled after. And I’ve got to tell you, it was very impressive as we were 

44 on the site, be able to witness the production of that.

45

46 I had a chance to talk to elected officials there, as well as citizens of Tricastin, and they’re very 

47 proud of the George Besse plant, and they’re with AREVA, that they’re their neighbor, and also 

48 the partnership in energy.

49
I-54

1 One of the things that I noted when I was back there. All the plants were built right next to cities. 

2 And we had the opportunity to talk to many of the citizens, and there was absolutely no residual 

3 problems, that they could ever detect. I had the opportunity to meet with many AREVA 

4 executives and staff, both in France and the United States, and I have total confidence that the 

5 Eagle Rock enrichment facility will be operated safely and efficiently.

6

7 [053-03, Hon. Jared Fuhriman] As Mayor of Idaho Falls, and as members of the City Council, 

8 we’re elected to represent the best interests that our city has to the best of our ability, so when a 

9 proposed project like AREVA comes along, it’s imperative that we do everything we can to 

10 exercise our due diligence in ferreting out the project, itself, and making sure that it’s the best fit 

11 for our city and our communities.

12

13 It is my opinion that we have tried to turn over every stone possible, as we looked into AREVA, 

14 and if it would be a benefit to our community. We have met with several mayors in eastern 

15 Idaho, and received their endorsement on this project. Myself, along with several other 

16 community leaders have personally met with representatives from AREVA numerous times, not 

17 only here in Idaho Falls, but at the headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, in addition to a 

18 personal visit to Paris, France to the corporate office just to seek direction and information from 

19 them.

20

21 One of the best pieces of evidence that I’ve obtained through my personal research regarding 

22 the potential environmental impacts was when I, along with 24 other members of our 

23 community, 20 of those being youth in our community, traveled back to Pierrelatte, France, 

24 population of 13,000. Pierrelatte is next door to the Tricastin Georges Besse plant, which has 

25 been operational for several years. I had the opportunity to personally visit with many of the city 

26 and the community leaders, as well as speaking with many of the citizens, themselves, in 

27 regards to the Tricastin plant, and if there was any residual issues that they have seen as a 

28 result of having lived right next door to that plant.

29

30 I was able to see firsthand AREVA’s sustainable development philosophy of protecting the 

31 environment. Through this visit, I found no evidence of any negative environmental impact on 

32 their community. What I saw, instead, was a vibrant and beautiful city and community.

33

34 [098-12, Linda Martin] In its application, AREVA has proven itself to be technically capable of 

35 addressing and satisfying any NRC criteria or requirements, as well as addressing any waste 

36 issues per DOE and NRC guidelines, which may be necessary for the full and successful 

37 operation of this plant. 

38

39 [114-01, Anne Mitchell] Thank you for granting Areva a license to help create a clean, efficient 

40 energy source so direly needed in this country. They, of course, are a proven entity with a 

41 sterling history for safety, economy in their enrichment facilities. Our country needs this forward 

42 thinking element of clean energy and nuclear energy (so long over-looked by this country) is 

43 direly needed. I strongly appreciate the NRC’s approval of Areva’s license and embrace this not 

44 only for Idaho Falls, but also for my country which I love.

45

46 [123-02, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-02, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-02, 

47 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] AREVA is proposing to build a state-of 

48 the-art, technologically-proven, modern facility to enrich uranium needed to operate the existing 
I-55

1 U.S. fleet of 104 power reactors. AREVA’s plant will incorporate many unique features which 

2 have been developed over three decades of experience with centrifuge enrichment technology. 

3 AREVA’s vast experience and use of the technology will result in minimizing and, where 

4 possible, eliminating any impacts on the surrounding environment and regional communities, 

5 but there will remain, however, many significant beneficial impacts....

6

7 Safety, integrity, professionalism, and sustainability are demonstrated attributes that AREVA 

8 embraces in all of its projects and operations, and the Governor believes they’ll bring no less to 

9 Idaho Falls. AREVA has been easy to work with, and they are as excited about coming to Idaho 

10 as we are to have them locate their facility here.

11

12 As we look across the country today, there are not many, if any, states or regions that can claim 

13 proposed major energy construction projects or facilities like the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

14 Facility. While large projects are usually accompanied by some environmental impacts, 

15 Governor Otter believes the end result of this facility will be very positive for Idaho and the 

16 country. Eagle Rock will provide much needed domestic production of enriched uranium for our 

17 existing U.S. nuclear power fleet, which will help enable U.S. utilities to move away from 

18 importing nearly 90 percent of this important fuel product. 

19

20 [135-01, Hon. Dave Radford] The people I’ve met at AREVA have been wonderful. They 

21 already have 7,000 employees in the United States, so we’re real comfortable with their way of 

22 doing business here in eastern Idaho.

23

24 [145-03, Ann Rydalch] Our country is open to legal immigrants that come here for the 

25 American dream. Our country is open to legal foreign companies that want to do business in the 

26 United States. AREVA is a very experienced and credible company that wants to do business in 

27 the U.S.

28

29 [157-12, Hon. Erik Simpson] I have great trust in those who have proposed this facility, and 

30 have considered a multitude of emergency situations, and have a plan for mitigation. With that, I 

31 am in support of the Draft EIS, and encourage the NRC to grant the license.

32

33 [158-03, Hon. Mike Simpson; 139-03, John Revier, on behalf of Hon. Mike Simpson] Areva 

34 has a strong record of corporate safety and achievement, and the technology that Eagle Rock 

35 will use have been well-proven in the United Kingdom, mainland Europe, and now in the United 

36 States. I have the utmost confidence in the quality, safety, and security of their facilities. 

37

38 [162-01, Michael Smith] It is my opinion that AREVA should in fact be granted the license and 

39 permit to build the uranium enrichment facility located near Idaho Falls. I am a local citizen both 

40 born and raised in Idaho, I as most Idahoans care a great deal about the environment and the 

41 quality of life here in this area. I believe AREVA has gone beyond required measures to ensure 

42 the process used in the proposed facility will protect the environment and the citizens of this 

43 state.

44

45 While there are still clean up measures on going at the INL we as a nation and the organizations 

46 working in the nuclear industry have learned a great deal in how to safely manage the relatively 

47 small amounts of waste generated. I fully support the NRC for its decision to allow the 

48 construction and operation of the new Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. 

49
I-56

1 I also applaud AREVA for their decision to trust Idaho and its citizens enough to desire joining 

2 our neighborhood.

3

4 [167-01, Andrew Stevenson] We weren’t without our concerns originally on this project. As 

5 Erica mentioned, the facility is obviously going to have a significant impact on our community, 

6 and we were concerned that some of these impacts could, potentially, be negative, and so we 

7 wanted to find out more about that. But in March of 2009, AREVA took us to go see the 

8 Georges Besse II facility in France, which is, essentially, the same thing they would be building 

9 here, and while we were there, Erica actually raised some of those concerns.

10

11 She touched briefly on the myriad recreational activities that are available here, just because of 

12 the pristine condition of our countryside, and our desire to see those areas preserved. There 

13 was also some concern about pollution, particularly in the water supply due to accidental 

14 pollution, but when we raised those questions, AREVA showed us some of the measures that 

15 they’d implemented to prevent such spillage and pollution. And we have to say, we were 

16 extremely impressed with it, even in cases of flood and earthquake, and crazy natural disasters 

17 that are never going to happen. It was extremely unlikely that any waste was going to be spilled 

18 into the surrounding area. An even greater reassurance came when we visited with residents of 

19 Pierrelatte, a French town in the area around the Tricastin site. They all live relatively normal 

20 lives, and there were no real noticeable effects from having that site on their borders. Most of 

21 them actually said that they felt that having the site there improved their general lifestyles, so we 

22 were very comforted by that. Also notable is the fact that the Tricastin site sits right on a river, 

23 and yet in all the time that that facility has been there, there have really never been any major 

24 issues with water contamination there, and that also eased our mind.

25

26 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public 

27 participation. However, these comments are outside the scope of the EIS analysis because 

28 they do not relate to the content of the Draft EIS.

29

30

31 I.5.3 NEPA Process

32

33 Comment: The following comment requests that the PowerPoint presentations and speaker’s 

34 notes from the public meetings be made public on the NRC’s website.

35

36 [115-01, Nicholas Molenaar] Could the Power Point presentations be made public on your 

37 Web site? Also speaker’s notes please.

38

39 Response: The NRC staff’s PowerPoint presentations from the August 9 and August 12, 2010, 

40 public meetings in Boise and Idaho Falls, Idaho, respectively, can be found on the NRC’s public 

41 website for the proposed EREF project, at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle42 fac/arevanc.html#3 (click on “Meeting Slides” links). The PowerPoint presentation given by Liz 

43 Woodruff of the Snake River Alliance during the August 9, 2010, public meeting in Boise, Idaho, 

44 can also be found on the NRC’s website for the proposed EREF project, at 

45 http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/arevanc.html#3 (click on “Meeting Transcript and 

46 Other Meeting Information” link, and then on the “Slides from Public Meeting Between the 

47 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Snake River Alliance” link).

48
I-57

1 There are no speakers’ notes available from the two public meetings. However, the statements 

2 of all of the speakers at these meetings can be found in the meeting transcripts, which are 

3 available on the NRC’s website at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/arevanc.html#3

4 (click on “Meeting Transcript and Other Meeting Information” link). 

5

6

7 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that copies of the Draft EIS and 

8 supporting documents were difficult to access and that inadequate numbers of hard copies of 

9 these documents were made available to the public. 

10

11 [131-02, Morty Prisament] Availability and Access to Documents: A related issue involves 

12 availability and access to the copies of the EIS and the above-referenced technical supporting 

13 documents. Distribution of the EIS and supporting documents has been extremely limited, 

14 thereby limiting opportunities for comment. Adequate numbers of hard copy documents should 

15 be provided to libraries, local government, and interested organizations in order to facilitate the 

16 broadest public review opportunities. This is a project of statewide significance and, therefore, 

17 multiple copies of the DEIS and all supporting documents should be, at minimum, made 

18 available through the Boise Main Library, given that Boise is the State Capitol. I do acknowledge 

19 that NRC did ultimately decide to hold a DEIS hearing in Boise. However, given that this was a 

20 late decision by NRC, I was unable to re-schedule and was out of the country at the time.

21

22 Response: Pursuant to the NRC’s regulations under 10 CFR 51.74, on July 21, 2010, the NRC 

23 staff published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS in the Federal Register 

24 (75 FR 42466), announcing the issuance of the Draft EIS for public comment, in accordance 

25 with 10 CFR 51.73, 51.74, and 51.117. Among other information, the NOA contained 

26 information on how to access the Draft EIS and other documents related to the proposed EREF 

27 project. Documents were made available in hard copy at the NRC’s Public Document Room in 

28 Rockville, Maryland, and at the Idaho Falls Public Library, 457 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, 

29 Idaho 83402. The Idaho Falls Public Library maintains an information repository on the 

30 environmental review for the proposed EREF project. Documents were also made available 

31 electronically through the NRC’s public website, the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

32 Management System (ADAMS), and the Federal Rulemaking website. Information on how to 

33 access each of these venues was provided in the NOA. Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.74, 

34 the NRC distributed the Draft EIS to approximately 135 individuals including Federal, Tribal, 

35 State, and local government officials and other interested parties (including members of the 

36 general public). Furthermore, references cited in the Draft EIS were publicly available through 

37 the NRC’s ADAMS website (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html) and/or 

38 through other publicly accessible venues such as the Internet, Federal, State and local 

39 government agencies and their websites, and public libraries. 

40

41

42 Comment: The following comment maintains that the NEPA process should be restarted due to 

43 significant changes in the proposed Federal action.

44

45 [131-06, Morty Prisament] Scoping: NEPA provides for a public scoping process in order to 

46 facilitate public and agency identification of issues to be analyzed in the DEIS. Public Scoping 

47 meetings, also required by NEPA, provides opportunities to comments on the issues to be 

48 studied in the DEIS. NEPA also stipulates that if the proposed federal action undergoes 
I-58

1 significant changes, the scoping process needs to be re-started. Major changes to the proposed 

2 action have occurred, not the least of which has been doubling the capacity of the centrifuges. 

3 Therefore, the NEPA process should be re-started, beginning with a new Scoping Process, in 

4 order to afford adequate opportunities for comment and properly focus the DEIR analysis.

5

6 Considering the extent and depth of my concerns, and those of others, the NEPA process does 

7 not provide for NRC to simply address comments in a Final EIS. NEPA calls, instead, for re8 noticing and re-release of a revised EIS and, where needed, supporting documents. Also called 

9 for is a formally revised project (preferred action) description and initiation of a new Scoping 

10 Process. 

11

12 Response: As noted in Section 1.4.2 of the EIS, the NRC staff’s announcement of the Notice of 

13 Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS, which initiated the NEPA process, was published in the Federal 

14 Register on May 4, 2009 (74 FR 20508). Publication of this NOI was purposely delayed by the 

15 NRC because AES notified the NRC of its intent to double the enrichment capacity of the 

16 proposed EREF. The NOI was published after the modified license application was received by 

17 the NRC from AES on April 23, 2009 (AES, 2009a), for the current proposed capacity of 6.6 

18 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The NOI established a 45-day scoping period 

19 and announced a public scoping meeting that was held in Idaho Falls on June 4, 2009. No 

20 significant changes in the scope of the EIS have occurred since that time which would 

21 necessitate re-scoping the EIS.

22

23 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that the commenter’s scoping 

24 comments were not addressed in the Draft EIS.

25

26 [141-01, Peter Rickards] The Eagle Rock Draft EIS appears incomplete, not addressing the 

27 technical scoping issues I submitted. I do see the actual issues listed as received, on pages 88 

28 & 89 of 234 in the appendix section, but no actual answers were given.

29

30 Response: Responses to individual scoping comments were not prepared. Those comments 

31 relevant to the scope of the EIS were considered in the preparation of the EIS as discussed in 

32 Section 1.4.2 of the EIS.

33

34

35 Comment: The following comment questions the analysis of impacts in the Draft EIS.

36

37 [181-02, Roger Turner] And what is the science and environmental research behind the 

38 endorsement of the AREVA project? Well, science and environmental risks are being 

39 downplayed on this proposed project, because of job creation, and economic development. 

40

41 Response: The NRC staff believes that it has provided an objective analysis in the EIS for all 

42 resource areas, based on the requirements of NEPA and the NRC regulations for implementing 

43 NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. In the case of job creation and economic development, the 

44 socioeconomic impacts, beneficial and adverse, were found to be SMALL as presented in 

45 Section 4.2.12 of the EIS. The NRC staff does not believe that such a finding downplays the 

46 potential adverse impacts found in other resource areas with SMALL-to-MODERATE or 

47 MODERATE impacts.

48

49
I-59

1 Comment: The following comment maintains that the Draft EIS fails to follow NEPA guidelines 

2 with respect to a number of issues.

3

4 [181-22, Roger Turner] In summary the EIS fails to follow NEPA guidelines with respect to 

5 evaluation of the need, evaluation of temporary storage risks, evaluation of treatment facilities 

6 for depleted uranium. The EIS fails to follow up with a realistic evaluation of the proliferation 

7 risks, and to advance alternatives to the dangerous centrifuge system and its risks to violating 

8 the NPT treaty. The EIS must evaluate the risks of handling, moving and storing Uranium 

9 compounds at Areva, in the context of historical accidents with the casks, spills and releases of 

10 the material, the actual toxicity of the uranium and the associated indirect and cumulative risks 

11 to the environment, as required by NEPA.

12

13 Response: As stated in Section 1.1 of the EIS, the NRC has specific regulations under 10 CFR 

14 Part 51 to implement the requirements of NEPA. The NRC staff has followed the requirements

15 of NEPA and the NRC regulations to independently evaluate all information used in the EIS.

16 The need for the proposed EREF is discussed in Section 1.3 of the EIS. Potential impacts and 

17 risks from handling uranium compounds in various forms and the temporary storage of depleted 

18 uranium are discussed in Sections 4.2.10 and 4.2.11. Potential impacts from disposal of the 

19 depleted uranium are also discussed in Section 4.2.11. Potential impacts and risks from 

20 transportation of uranium feed material and waste are addressed in Section 4.2.9. Additional 

21 evaluation regarding proliferation risks is not within the scope of the EIS for reasons discussed 

22 in Section I.5.6 of this appendix. Alternatives to the gas centrifuge technology are identified and 

23 evaluated in Section 2.3.3. Accidental and intentional releases are considered in 

24 Sections 4.2.15 and 4.2.18. The toxicity of uranium compounds is discussed in Section 3.11.3 

25 and 4.2.15. Potential cumulative impacts and risks to the environment are covered in 

26 Section 4.3.

27

28

29 Comment: The following comments suggest that the NRC’s approach is one of advocacy and 

30 pre-determination.

31

32 [120-01, Frank Nicholson] Very superficial – Did not address critical issues. As with city 

33 councils, your minds have already been made up. 

34

35 [131-01, Morty Prisament] Independent Analysis: The overall tone of the document is one of 

36 advocacy, which makes one question the objectivity of the document’s conclusions. The 

37 document relies upon a number of technical documents. What were these documents 

38 precisely? Were these documents subjected to any type of independent peer review? Lacking 

39 such review, the objectivity of these documents would, likewise, be in question. Specifically, 

40 these documents relate to engineering studies, system safety and emergency response 

41 (including failure analysis and redundancy procedures), human health and ecological health risk 

42 assessments and associated probalistic risk assumptions, benefit-cost analysis, socioeconomic 

43 impact analysis, and groundwater quality impact-related studies. The discussion of these issues 

44 is extremely limited given the scale of the action and associated risks.

45

46 Response: The NRC is a regulatory agency charged with protecting public health and safety 

47 and the environment. The NRC’s mission does not include advocacy of nuclear technologies. 

48 The NRC staff believes that it used the best technical documentation available to support all 
I-60

1 aspects of the environmental review. The documents used are identified and cited as

2 references in the EIS.

3

4

5 Comment: The following comments express concern regarding the level of detail provided in 

6 the Draft EIS, such as information and analyses regarding impacts from construction, operation, 

7 and decommissioning of the proposed EREF.

8

9 [027-05, Sara Cohn] The ICL has reviewed the draft (EIS) for the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

10 facility and is concerned that construction and operation of the facility will pollute Idaho’s natural 

11 resources and compromise public health. The EIS does not provide the level of detail that would 

12 allow ICL to assess environmental and public health impacts associated with the proposed 

13 project. Additionally, under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, federal 

14 agencies are directed to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of 

15 and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. Section 102 

16 also requires federal agencies to lend appropriate support to initiatives and programs designed 

17 to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of the public health and the environment. ICL 

18 believes the draft EIS does not accomplish either of these requirements. More detailed analysis 

19 must be provided in the final EIS and the not yet released Safety Report to allow the public and 

20 interested parties the opportunity to evaluate the project and to ensure that no adverse impacts 

21 occur that pollute Idaho’s clean water and clean air, or endanger public health.

22

23

24 [105-06, Eve McConaughey] My most serious concerns were around the EIS and why no 

25 details were given for impacts of construction, operation, or decommissioning of the proposed 

26 EREF.

27

28 [120-01, Frank Nicholson] Very superficial – Did not address critical issues. As with city 

29 councils, your minds have already been made up. 

30

31 Response: Section 4.2 of the EIS presents detailed information and analyses regarding the 

32 impacts on human health and the environment from construction, operation, and 

33 decommissioning of the proposed EREF project. Chapter 2 describes and compares the 

34 proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC staff believes that sufficient

35 attention has been given to the level of detail of the information and analyses to ensure that the 

36 NRC’s obligations under NEPA and the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations under 10 CFR 

37 Part 51 have been met.

38

39

40 Comment: The following comments indicate that the NRC needs improvement on its 

41 implementation of public outreach.

42

43 [059-01, Lance Giles] No ads regarding meeting. Just articles or opinion pieces in local paper. 

44 Information about meeting difficult to find. No actual EIS comment form.

45

46 [105-01, Eve McConaughey] I was not satisfied that the public received correct or true 

47 information or that the public had full opportunity to express their concerns because of the 

48 timing of the hearing and lack of information as presented by the officials. Presentation of the 
I-61

1 EIS was very inadequate. It was completed only last month (July 2010). There was little 

2 opportunity given for questioning prior to testimony.... Also there was too much early time in the 

3 hearing allotted to elected and other officials out of the Boise area.

4

5 [131-07, Morty Prisament] Also of note that NRC outreach has been “lackluster” at best.

6

7 [147-04, Joey Schueler] I am in opposition to the Eagle Rock Uranium enrichment plant being 

8 put in Idaho Falls, Idaho! Although I understand the positive incentive arguments for the 

9 proposed plant, the arguments against the plant far outweigh the rather short term positive 

10 benefits. I think careful consideration should be given to each of the fifteen points I listed below 

11 when deciding whether to take this action. I also doubt many Idahoans know about this action 

12 and should be brought to a larger table of discussion. 

13

14 Response: Public participation is an essential part of the NRC’s environmental review process 

15 under NEPA. Section I.2 of this appendix discusses the process for public participation during 

16 the NRC staff’s development of the EIS for the proposed EREF. As indicated in Section I.2, the 

17 NRC conducted an open, public EIS development process consistent with NEPA and the NRC’s 

18 NEPA implementing regulations under 10 CFR Part 51. 

19

20 Written comments on the Draft EIS could be submitted in many forms, including postal mail, 

21 emails, and uploads to the Federal rulemaking website, as well as written comments provided to 

22 the NRC staff at the two public comment meetings. No EIS comment form was needed, 

23 although the NRC staff did provide NRC Public Meeting Feedback forms at the public meetings, 

24 which could be used, and were used by many of the meeting participants, to provide written 

25 comments.

26

27 The NRC staff provided accurate information to the public at the two public meetings. This 

28 information was commensurate with the time available for the NRC’s presentation and the need 

29 to present information that could be understood by all meeting attendees. All members of the 

30 public and government officials who registered to speak at the meetings were given an equal 

31 opportunity to speak. Due to the very large numbers of registered speakers at the two 

32 meetings, most of the meeting time was allotted to receiving public comments. Question and 

33 answer sessions were also limited by the large number of meeting attendees and speakers, but 

34 NRC staff were available prior to and after the meetings to discuss the Draft EIS with, and 

35 respond to questions from, members of the public.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comments relate to attendance and speakers/commenters at the NRC 

39 public comment meetings for the Draft EIS.

40

41 [068-06, Anne Hausrath] I very much appreciate having a public meeting in Boise. This 

42 proposed project would have a profound impact on Boise and all of Idaho.

43

44 I am concerned that it appears people from Idaho Falls who testified in Boise might be given 

45 time in Idaho Falls as well at that public meeting. If that was the case I do not appreciate them 

46 being given preference and allowed to testify first in Boise.

47

48 One opportunity to testify is great – thank you!

49
I-62

1 [083-01, Diane Jones] If I might, I’d like, respectfully, to make a comment on procedure. I’d 

2 just like to say, if you’re going to have a hearing in Idaho Falls and a hearing in Boise, I think it’s 

3 appropriate for people from Idaho Falls to testify there and not be able to testify twice in both 

4 hearings. There’s a lot of us from Boise who really appreciate being able to testify but, you 

5 know, they have their hearing. There’s one here for us.

6

7 [098-06, Linda Martin; 098-15, Linda Martin] Stakeholders that reside in the immediate 

8 vicinity of the facility are the appropriate people to comment on these reviews. As residents, 

9 voters, and taxpayers, we locally represent the immediate concerns for impacts to our 

10 community. 

11

12 [178-01, Randy Trane] Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Areva 

13 project in the Idaho Falls, Idaho area. I hope common sense will prevail with this decision. It 

14 seems as though the minority in this country rules the masses. The Snake River Alliance and 

15 similar type people and groups have one objective in mind. That is to slow or stop progress at 

16 any costs. Of course they are against any drilling of gas, oil or coal and they are against nuclear 

17 power. I suppose they feel like solar and wind will take care of the world.... Please do not allow 

18 this small minority group to override the wishes of this area and with needed nuclear power 

19 worldwide. 

20

21 Response: Public meetings held by the NRC, such as the two public comment meetings the 

22 NRC staff held on the Draft EIS for the proposed EREF project, are open to all members of the 

23 public, and all persons who register to speak at such meetings are given an equal opportunity to 

24 speak.

25

26

27 Comment: The following comments caution the NRC to provide a careful, thorough, and 

28 credible analysis in the EIS, and to consider all public comments provided.

29

30 [067-04, Mike Hart] I would urge the NRC to review their testimony for the legitimate concerns, 

31 but also pay attention to the procedural trip wires, because an EIS is an important legal 

32 document. It has to be done well, otherwise the proposal gets caught up in court. So, please do 

33 your job, listen, and pay attention to the procedural trip wires....

34

35 I think the NRC has done a good job with the EIS, but I think they also need to make sure it’s 

36 procedurally tight, so we don’t spend a lot of time in court, so that this EIS moves through 

37 quickly, but that means they have to do a thorough and excellent job, and I would encourage 

38 them to review all opposition comments, adhere to the letter of the law, follow the procedure, 

39 and give us an EIS that we can proceed forward with the license. 

40

41 [077-01, Larry Hyatt] I’d like to speak briefly to the issue of credibility and accuracy of information. 

42 I’ve observed, personally, for over years, basically the life of the Snake River Alliance, and have 

43 been a member of that group for many years, that time and time again, when they have taken 

44 positions based on concerns, research, and positions of information to implement, and suggestions 

45 and requests, that over and over and over again, they have been correct. And that says a heart full 

46 of information for me. Therefore, I sincerely request that you evaluate, to the deepest level you 

47 possibly can, all of the accurate, sincere information, that our Snake River Alliance has 

48 compiled and presents to you. 

49
I-63

1 [098-07, Linda Martin] We appreciate the time and expertise, and patience, at this point, the 

2 NRC has devoted to the licensing and permitting process. We hope that your studies and 

3 deliberations will continue to rely on scientific fact, and technology for a timely and positive 

4 outcome for our community and Idaho.

5

6 [145-02, Ann Rydalch] I urge the NRC to continue to listen to scientific facts, and to disregard 

7 untruthful or scare tactic statements, statements such as DOE is giving $2 billion loan 

8 guarantee, a misleading statement, because no money exchanges hands. DOE is not giving 

9 AREVA the 2 billion dollars. However, by it being included in the Loan Guarantee Program, 

10 AREVA and other companies in that program will be able to possibly receive lower interest 

11 rates. It’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Or another scare statement that 

12 building this will cause further degradation of the habitat for sage grouse. The truth is, the NRC 

13 preliminary conclusion, as described in Chapter Four, which I have read, the environmental 

14 impacts of preconstruction and the proposed actions would mostly be small.

15

16 [159-02, Robert Skinner] My caution to the NRC is to take all comments and evaluate them 

17 based on their technical merit.

18

19 [177-02, Hon. T.J. Thomson] Also, please adequately plan, at the front-end, for any 

20 environmental impacts and long-term effects to the area and dedicate the time necessary to 

21 realistically prepare for any unforeseen consequences, both financial and otherwise. 

22

23 Response: As stated in Section 1.1 of the EIS, the NRC has specifically formulated regulations 

24 under 10 CFR Part 51 to implement the requirements of NEPA. In preparing this EIS, the NRC

25 staff has followed the requirements to independently evaluate and verify all information used in 

26 the EIS. In addition, as demonstrated in Section I.5 of this appendix, the NRC staff has 

27 reviewed and considered all comments provided on the Draft EIS in preparing the Final EIS.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comments express appreciation for, and approval of, the NRC’s 

31 efforts with regard to the Draft EIS and licensing process for the proposed EREF.

32

33 [034-05, Greg Crockett] As citizens of the communities closest to the facility, we feel there are 

34 certain potential environmental impacts that needed to be addressed in the EIS. We want to 

35 thank NRC and its staff for the amount of work that went into the research and evaluation of this

36 Draft EIS along with the Safety Analysis Report.

37

38 Last June at the EIS scoping meeting held in Idaho Falls, we asked you to consider the

39 following potential impacts. (1) land use, (2) transportation, (3) geology and soils, (4) water 

40 issues, (5) ecological issues, (6) air quality, (7) historic and cultural issues, (8) socioeconomic, 

41 (9) public and occupational health, (10) noise, and (11) waste management.

42

43 We understand and support the NRC’s primary role in the protection of public health and

44 safety and as neighbors of the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility we thank you for your

45 dedication and expertise.

46

47
I-64

1 [002-01, Lane Allgood] Last June, at the EIS scoping meeting held in Idaho Falls, we asked 

2 you to consider the following impacts. Land use, transportation, geology and soils, water issues, 

3 air quality, historic and cultural issues, social, economic, public and occupational health, noise, 

4 and waste management. All of those potential impacts were addressed in the EIS and we 

5 appreciate that. 

6

7 As citizens of the communities closest to the facility, these potential impacts are very important 

8 to us. We want to thank you for the obvious amount of work that went into the research and 

9 evaluation of this draft EIS, along with the safety analysis report, and after reviewing this draft, 

10 we understand why the licensing process takes so long. 

11

12 [024-02, Jana Chalfant; 149-02, Wendi Secrist; 196-02, Linda Martin, on behalf of the 

13 Idaho Economic Development Partners] We appreciate the NRCs use of scientific expertise 

14 to guide the decisions for issuance of the license and permit for the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

15 Facility. We feel that the NRC procedures for the licensing process have been very satisfactory, 

16 and thank you for your thoroughness.

17

18 [026-04, Rob Chiles] Over the last few years, the business community and members of the 

19 Chamber of Commerce have shown support for this important economic development project. 

20 We are here again tonight to commend you for a job well done. We are confident in your 

21 analysis, and agree with your recommendation to grant AREVA the license.

22

23 [033-03, Hon. Mike Crapo; 075-03, Leslie Huddleston, on behalf of Hon. Mike Crapo] The 

24 staff of the NRC have consulted with Tribal, federal, state, and local entities. They have 

25 considered the comments released in the environmental review received during the public 

26 scoping process. They have thoroughly reviewed the report revisions, and supplementary 

27 information submitted b AES. I have confidence in the NRC to analyze potential impacts of 

28 construction, operation, and decommissioning of this proposed facility. 

29

30 I strongly support the NRC’s preliminary recommendation that AREVA Enrichment Services be 

31 issued a license to construct and operate the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility.

32

33 [042-03, John Deal] We commend the process completed thus far and appreciate that the 

34 NRC’s only role is that of protecting public health and safety.

35

36 Hyperion Power, as a member of the Idaho community, and future neighbors of the Eagle Rock 

37 Enrichment Facility, thank you for your dedication.

38

39 [051-01, Jackie Flowers] I want to thank you, the NRC staff, for your due diligence as you 

40 evaluated the AREVA license application for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, and your 

41 commitment in safeguarding that process.

42

43 This facility is proposed to be located in our collective backyard. Your work has resulted in 

44 identifying and evaluating potential environmental impacts that our community is concerned 

45 about, important topics like water resources, air quality, waste management that could impact 

46 our day-to-day lives, and our quality of life. You have also completed important work related to 

47 safety analysis report, another topic of community concern. I appreciate the NRC’s commitment 
I-65

1 to its primary role, protecting public health and safety, as you have contemplated the application

2 before you. 

3

4 As Idahoans look to welcoming new industry in eastern Idaho, we want to know that we are 

5 doing so, while maintaining the clean, safe, and healthy environment we currently enjoy. We 

6 look to you, the NRC staff, the experts, to conduct a thorough analysis. You have completed this 

7 Draft EIS investigating areas of concern as expressed by the community, and we look forward 

8 to welcoming AREVA to eastern Idaho.

9

10 [065-01, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] My name is Ida Hardcastle, I currently serve as the President of 

11 the Idaho Falls City Council, a position I have held for 17 years. My husband and I came to 

12 Idaho Falls 45 years ago for him to accept a position with the nuclear industry as an engineer. 

13 Obviously we are very much in favor of this project. In addition we appreciate the efforts of the 

14 NRC Staff as you have worked through this licensing applications and the detail to safety for the 

15 Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. Obviously the Draft EIS and the Safety Analysis Report have 

16 taken a large amount of time and it appears that you have addressed appropriately the potential 

17 impacts identified at the June EIS scoping meeting in Idaho Falls. We thank you for your 

18 thoroughness.

19

20 [053-01, Hon. Jared Fuhriman] I also want to congratulate, and thank the NRC for a very 

21 thorough draft EIS, and safety analysis report. It’s obvious that a great deal of work has gone 

22 into this production. I understand, acutely understand better, the great work and the effort that it 

23 takes, and as mayor, I appreciate the detail in your research, and the potential impacts that it 

24 has on this project and our communities.

25

26 Please be assured that before we decided to support this project, we did a great deal of 

27 research ourselves, to ensure that this type of facility was appropriate for our community.

28

29 While I’m not a nuclear expert, many Idaho Falls residents are, and we have the luxury to 

30 receive counsel from them when we have questions involving nuclear and environmental 

31 issues.

32

33 I also agree, recognize the expertise of the NRC team that is working on this licensing 

34 application, and I thank you for the time that you’ve given to us as we’ve traveled back to 

35 Washington, D.C. and have met with you. We truly appreciate that. Your courtesy and frankness 

36 has helped our community better understand the licensing process.

37

38 [053-04, Hon. Jared Fuhriman] I once again want to go on record one more time stating that 

39 I’m personally satisfied with the thoroughness and the efforts that NRC has made to this point in 

40 time regarding the EIS, and endorse that AREVA should be licensed to construct the Eagle 

41 Rock Enrichment Facility.

42

43 [079-03, Kristen Jensen; 179-03, Jolie Turek; 194-02, Linda Martin, on behalf of Eastern 

44 Idaho Economic Development Partners] We feel that the NRC procedures for the licensing 

45 process have been very satisfactory, and thank you for your thoroughness.

46

47
I-66

1 [094-04, Michael Lange] So, AREVA, notwithstanding, I don’t know AREVA. I’ve never worked 

2 for AREVA, but I trust the NRC. And being -- during my time in government -- being what most 

3 people in Montana would consider me a right-wing Republican, was also the president of a labor 

4 union, I can tell you that I have confidence in a few government agencies to regulate properly. 

5 One of them is the NRC, so we can be thankful that we have an agency that is that concerned 

6 about safety, about mockups, about making sure that it’s done right the first time. So, that’s real 

7 kudos for the Commission. I would extend that to you from personal experience.

8

9 [098-07, Linda Martin] We appreciate the time and expertise, and patience, at this point, the 

10 NRC has devoted to the licensing and permitting process. We hope that your studies and 

11 deliberations will continue to rely on scientific fact, and technology for a timely and positive 

12 outcome for our community and Idaho.

13

14 [094-01, Michael Lange] I have a unique perspective. In 2002, I was elected to the Montana 

15 State legislature. I served there for six consecutive years, before going on to lose the United 

16 States Senate race in Montana. And the last four of those years, I served as the House Majority 

17 Leader, so I’m well aware of the particulars of a NEPA review. I have thoroughly read this EIS, 

18 and it is very professionally written. It is very accurately done. It does, in fact, comply with NEPA 

19 requirements, and I commend the NRC for that effort.

20

21 [133-09, Richard Provencher] From an operational safety standpoint, the Nuclear Regulatory 

22 Commission is involved in reviewing the license application and will ultimately ensure that 

23 operations are being conducted safely, that proper safety controls are in place, and that 

24 possible safety events have been evaluated with response plans in place. As an independent 

25 licensing agent, it is comforting to know the NRC will review this facility as a third party to 

26 ensure the protection of the public and environment.

27

28 [135-04, Hon. Dave Radford] And we applaud your work, we respect your work, and we hope 

29 for a great outcome for an expedited license for AREVA.

30

31 [138-01, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

32 Region 10] We note with appreciation that the DEIS addresses many of the issues we raised 

33 during the project scoping period in June 2009, including analysis of cumulative impacts and 

34 climate·change effects. Also, we commend NRC staff for working with a variety of stakeholders 

35 and considering public comments in the NEPA analysis for the project. The DEIS document 

36 includes a good description of resources within the project area, analysis of anticipated 

37 environmental impacts from the project, mitigation measures to offset the impacts, and 

38 monitoring programs for potential radiological and non-radiological releases from the facility to 

39 the environment and measures to be taken to prevent such releases and ensure protection of 

40 environmental resources and human health in case an accidental release occurred.

41

42 [143-02, Hon. James Risch; 172-02, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] I am 

43 confident that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will address the safety and environmental 

44 impacts from this proposed facility.

45

46
I-67

1 [176-01, Hon. Jeff Thompson] Thank you all for attending tonight, and for listening to 

2 everyone’s concerns and questions. It is obvious you have taken time to address many of our 

3 concerns in the Safety Analysis Report. We appreciate the commitment to protecting the 

4 public’s health and safety.

5

6 Response: The NRC acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public participation.

7

8

9 Comment: The following comments express approval of the Draft EIS and state that the 

10 Draft EIS addresses the appropriate concerns.

11

12 [011-01, Donald Baxter] I am in complete agreement with the comment previously submitted 

13 by another supporter of the Eagle Rock Facility. “I support the NRC assessments regarding the 

14 potential impacts named in the draft EIS, and agree with the findings that the impacts are small 

15 to moderate. We also find them more than acceptable when viewed in relation to the positive 

16 benefits this project will bring, which are not small to moderate, but instead massive and 

17 transformative. Finally, we agree with your preliminary conclusions that this project deserves to 

18 move forward.”

19

20 [026-01, Rob Chiles] After careful review with a number of scientific environmental and socio 

21 economic experts, we strongly feel that the Draft EIS has covered all of our concerns. We are 

22 convinced the NRC has done a thorough job in analyzing all the aspects of this project, and agree 

23 the results are complete and accurate.

24

25 [034-06, Gregg Crockett] Following review of the Draft EIS, we concur that the following 

26 potential impacts were evaluated and scored correctly under the Council on Environmental 

27 Quality’s significance levels:

28

29 • Land Use: Small

30 • Transportation: Small to Moderate

31 • Geology and Soils: Small

32 • Water Resources: Small

33 • Ecological Issues: Small to Moderate

34 • Air Quality: Small to Large (We do understand that during construction dust from heavy 

35 equipment working on the proposed site will generate dust from land grading 

36 operations that would result in a large but temporary condition. We live in eastern 

37 Idaho with its wind and agricultural activity. We don’t believe dust will be a significant 

38 problem.)

39 • Historic and Cultural Issues: Small to Moderate

40 • Public and Occupational Health: Small

41 • Noise: Small

42 • Waste Management: Small

43

44 ...In closing we agree with the NRC staff recommendation that due to insignificant environment 

45 impacts of the EREF, AREVA should be issued a license to construct and operate the facility

46
I-68

1 [042-02, John Deal] After reviewing the Draft EIS scoping on community impact we concur that 

2 the impacts were scored correctly and reflect a conservative and measured approach to the 

3 study.

4

5 [051-03, Jackie Flowers] I support the NRC staff recommendation that due to small 

6 environmental impacts from the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, AREVA should be issued a 

7 license to construct and operate the facility.

8

9 [060-01, Ericka Gianotto] Now with the release of the Environmental Impact Statement for the 

10 public comment, our concerns about the impact on the surrounding area and whether this 

11 facility would affect the pristine condition of Idaho’s countryside, have been allayed.

12

13 While we know the facility will affect the surrounding area, we believe these impacts will be 

14 small and have been or will be mitigated.

15

16 [065-01 and 065-02, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] My name is Ida Hardcastle, I currently serve as the 

17 President of the Idaho Falls City Council, a position I have held for 17 years. My husband and I 

18 came to Idaho Falls 45 years ago for him to accept a position with the nuclear industry as an 

19 engineer. Obviously we are very much in favor of this project. In addition we appreciate the 

20 efforts of the NRC Staff as you have worked through this licensing applications and the detail to 

21 safety for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. Obviously the Draft EIS and the Safety Analysis 

22 Report have taken a large amount of time and it appears that you have addressed appropriately 

23 the potential impacts identified at the June EIS scoping meeting in Idaho Falls. We thank you for 

24 your thoroughness.

25

26 I spend a large amount of time in the city among the residents and it is exciting to feel the 

27 enthusiasm most have for this project coming to Idaho Falls. Of course the main interest is the 

28 economic impact it will have on the area, in other words - jobs. Also the community supports the 

29 fact that there will be a very small environmental impact from this facility. We thank the NRC 

30 again for their efforts in this particular concern. We have a top notch workforce here which was 

31 recognized by AREVA in the beginning. The community as a whole supports energy being 

32 produced by nuclear power. We simply have to address our independence on foreign oil.

33

34 [067-05, Mike Hart] One of the concerns was that there’s project clearing going on before the 

35 impact statement is done. NEPA requires you’re not supposed to have an irrevocable 

36 commitment of resources. I don’t believe the site clearing counts as that, so as a result, I think 

37 the project can continue forward without violating that NEPA precept. 

38

39 [069-01, Scott Hawk] I support the NRC assessments regarding the hazards and potential 

40 impacts addressed in the draft EIS I agree with the findings that the impacts are acceptable to 

41 manage safely. I look forward to the massive and transformative positive benefits this project 

42 will bring to Eastern Idaho. Finally, I agree with your preliminary conclusions that this project 

43 deserves to move forward

44

45 [073-01, Mark Holzmer] I wholeheartedly support the NRC assessments regarding the 

46 potential impacts named in the draft EIS. You concluded that the environmental impacts are 

47 small to moderate, and I personally believe that your conclusions easily bound the 
I-69

1 environmental impacts and may indeed be much lower. These impact findings are more than 

2 acceptable, especially considering the positive benefits this project will bring to southeast Idaho.

3

4 Finally, I agree with your preliminary conclusions that this project deserves to move forward.

5

6 [076-01, Martin Huebner] I want to address my personal and informed opinion on the 

7 adequacy of the Draft Environmental Statement for AREVA’s proposed Eagle Rock facility. I 

8 reviewed the EIS, and I find no errors or omissions in it. It is a well-crafted and complete 

9 document, which should be accepted and approved, as is. The impact statement has been 

10 criticized unnecessarily and repeatedly by the Snake River Alliance, who I have been dealing 

11 with since it was founded years ago.

12

13 [079-02, Kristen Jensen; 179-02, Jolie Turek; 194-02, Linda Martin, on behalf of Eastern 

14 Idaho Economic Development Partners] We feel confident that the NRC and AREVA have 

15 addressed all necessary safety and environmental concerns in the draft EIS. We urge the NRC 

16 to stay on scope and utilize scientific expertise to guide their decisions for issuance of the 

17 license and permit for the EREF plant. 

18

19 [228-07, Jim Kay] Our comments on the DEIS are only editorial. As we have indicated 

20 previously, we believe the DEIS was well prepared and adequately supports the proposed 

21 action to issue a license.

22

23 [102-03, R.D. Maynard] I applaud the NRC on your very thorough work on this licensing 

24 application and appreciate the detail of research that went into the EIS. 

25

26 I would suggest that anyone with concerns about environmental issues associated with this 

27 project spend some time reading the environmental impacts, mitigation, environmental 

28 measures, and monitoring programs, and summary of environmental consequences section of 

29 the EIS.

30

31 I strongly support this as a citizen of the State of Idaho. 

32

33 [124-01, Lane Packwood] We’ve also reviewed the EIS, and from a technical point of view, we 

34 find it is adequate, and we encourage you to proceed to the next step, licensing.

35

36 [130-01, Park and Sharon Price] We support the NRC assessments regarding the potential 

37 impacts named in the draft EIS and agree with the findings that the impacts are small to 

38 moderate. The need for an enrichment facility as proposed by AREVA is long overdue. The 

39 importance of increasing the production of power by nuclear generation is vital to the 

40 United States. 

41

42 [135-04, Hon. Dave Radford] We, as the commission, agree with the Environmental Impact 

43 Statement’s conclusion.

44

45 [142-01, Blake Rindlisbacher, on behalf of the Idaho Transportation Department] Thank 

46 you for your early and close consultation with the Idaho Transportation Department in the 

47 development of this environmental impact statement. We believe the statement as expressed in 

48 this draft is accurate with regards to our state highway system and the impacts this project will 
I-70

1 have on it. The mitigation you cite for those impacts are indeed appropriate and we encourage 

2 the NRC to make ride sharing and shifts staggered from those of the Idaho National Laboratory 

3 a part of the operating license for AREVA Enrichment Services. We will continue to discuss with 

4 them the terms and conditions of their access to US-20, but specific operation behavior that 

5 may reduce risk is beyond our authority to require.

6

7 [145-01, Ann Rydalch] We thank the NRC for the staff’s preliminary conclusion that the Eagle 

8 Rock Enrichment Facility would have mostly small impacts on the local environment and that 

9 AREVA should be issued a license to construct and operate the facility. I encourage you to 

10 follow the preliminary recommendation that AREVA be issued a license to construct and 

11 operate the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility here in Bonneville County, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 

12 formerly called Eagle Rock, Idaho.

13

14 [151-02, Beth Sellers] The draft EIS covered a wide range of impacts. They are the standard 

15 impacts that are seen with any major construction activity. The areas of most concern to me 

16 include water resources, ecological and cultural resources, waste management, and the 

17 transportation impacts to those of us in Idaho Falls. The NRC analysis was comprehensive and 

18 the impacts were noted to be small in the majority of the impacts analyzed. For those 

19 environmental impacts noted to be in the moderate to large range, the mitigations detailed by 

20 the applicant were deemed acceptable.

21

22 I support the NRC staff recommendation that due to small environmental impacts from the 

23 Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, Areva should be issued a license to construct and operate the 

24 facility.

25

26 [152-02, Steven Serr] I’ve had an opportunity to read your draft EIS. I agree with most of the 

27 issues that you’ve stated in there as far as compliance, with what we feel are important within 

28 the jurisdictions for enforcement.

29

30 [157-05, Hon. Erik Simpson] In conclusion, I want to state that I strongly support the AREVA 

31 project, and feel the draft EIS is very adequate and considers the environmental factors associated 

32 with the facility. I believe AREVA will be a positive addition to the State of Idaho, and an integral 

33 part of our nation’s development of energy independence.

34

35 [159-01, Robert Skinner] I have carefully read the Draft EIS, all of it I have not read totally, 

36 because it is huge. You’re going to put the guys that sell sleeping pills out of business, I’m sure, 

37 but I would like to commend the crafters of this document for their hard work and diligence. I find 

38 it to be thorough, and lacking in no respect technically. I am here to address the technical 

39 aspects of the EIS....

40

41 I believe AREVA should be issued a license to construct and operate the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

42 Facility at the earliest opportunity.

43

44 [163-03, Smith-Putnam, Cindy] As your EIS shows, and like in all human endeavors, the 

45 project is not wholly devoid of impact. The air quality issue is an impact; yet, we are mindful that 

46 land and dust issues are a normal part of any major construction, and will be temporary and 

47 brief in duration. Risks and impacts are an inherent part of life on this planet. They cannot be 
I-71

1 avoided, but they can be anticipated, and evaluated, weighed and measured in comparison to 

2 their relative reward and benefits.

3

4 What is important to maintain, as Rocky said, is a sense of perspective when evaluating those 

5 risks and impacts. And that is what the opponents of this license approval fail to do when they 

6 engage in hyperbole and misdirection bringing more heat to the subject than light....

7

8 We support the Preliminary NRC assessments regarding the potential impacts named in the 

9 Draft EIS, and we agree with the findings that the impacts are small to moderate. We also find 

10 them more than acceptable when viewed in relation to the positive benefits this project will 

11 bring, which are neither small nor moderate, but, instead massive, and transformative.

12

13 Finally, we agree with your preliminary conclusions that this project deserves to move forward. 

14 We hope you will continue to rely on scientific fact in making these decisions, and not be 

15 swayed by emotion or opinion, and we urge you to grant the license for the AREVA project in a 

16 timely manner. Thank you for considering our perspective.

17

18 Response: The NRC acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public participation. 

19

20

21 I.5.4 Purpose and Need

22

23 Comment: The following comment questions the need for the proposed EREF with regard to 

24 U.S. national energy security.

25

26 [015-09, Beatrice Brailsford] The basis for and discussion of the second “need” - domestic 

27 supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security - is beyond puzzling. Setting aside the 

28 fact that the enriched uranium market is an international market, the key word in the current 

29 rationale is “domestic.” The “national energy security policy objective” Areva’s plant is supposed 

30 to meet was enunciated in a letter from Assistant Secretary William Magwood at the Department 

31 of Energy (DOE) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission eight years ago. The focus of the letter 

32 was not that the US needed a foreign company to build a plant here, but rather that an 

33 American company should have a stake in US enrichment capacity. The US Enrichment 

34 Corporation has been granted a license - though not a federal loan guarantee - to build a plant, 

35 which would seem to more directly meet the policy objective enunciated in the letter. If the NRC 

36 is pointing to a “policy objective,” that objective must have been articulated more recently and 

37 with a “higher profile” than a single letter from an Assistant Secretary provides.

38

39 Response: While the enriched uranium market may be an international one, the addition of 

40 domestic uranium enrichment capacity, as would be provided by the proposed EREF, would 

41 help fulfill the need for U.S. domestic energy security, as discussed in Section 1.3 of the EIS.

42 As discussed in Section 1.6 of the EIS, AES is a Delaware limited liability corporation that was 

43 formed solely to provide uranium enrichment services for commercial nuclear power plants. As 

44 discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the EIS, one of the needs for the proposed EREF is increased 

45 domestic uranium enrichment for enhanced energy security. The DOE letter (DOE, 2002)

46 referenced in the comment is one reflection of that need, and it also references the concurrence 

47 of the U.S. Department of State on the matter.

48

49
I-72

1 Comment: The following comment questions the adequacy of the economic justification for the 

2 proposed EREF.

3

4 [068-04, Anne Hausrath] My husband and I raised our children in Idaho. We are very much 

5 concerned about the current economic climate for their generation, and we believe there’s a 

6 responsibility of all of us to provide for that. I don’t believe that this plant is adequate -- that the 

7 economic is adequate justification for that.

8

9 Response: As discussed in Section 1.3 of the EIS, the need for domestic enriched uranium 

10 services is one of the reasons why the proposed EREF is needed. The potential beneficial 

11 economic impacts are just one of the outcomes that result from the range of analyses over 

12 multiple resource areas considered in the EIS.

13

14

15 Comment: The following comment questions the credibility of statements in the Draft EIS that 

16 the proposed EREF will aid the United States in achieving energy independence and/or more 

17 national security.

18

19 [147-17, Joey Schueler] 13. The notion that this plant will aid the United States in achieving 

20 energy independence and/or more national security is a myth. The United States does not 

21 control all steps in the Nuclear Power generation process. As a result, every other step that we 

22 can produce is dependent upon other nations and what they can contribute. Removing one step 

23 in the process would curtail or stop our nuclear energy system.

24

25 Response: The addition of domestic uranium enrichment capacity, as would be provided by the 

26 proposed EREF, would help fulfill the need for U.S. domestic energy independence and 

27 security, as discussed in Section 1.3 of the EIS. As noted in the comment, other steps are 

28 required so as not to curtail or halt nuclear energy in the United States, but those aspects are 

29 outside the scope of this EIS because they do not relate to the environmental review of the 

30 proposed EREF project.

31

32

33 Comment: The following comment questions the need for an AES uranium enrichment plant in 

34 the U.S. when a similar plant AES is constructing in France could instead be expanded.

35

36 [168-07, Lon Stewart] If Areva is currently building a similar plant in France, economy of scale 

37 would make more sense to expand that plant rather than building another plant in the western 

38 United States. 

39

40 Response: As discussed in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the proposed action, which is to construct, 

41 operate, and decommission a uranium enrichment plant near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, 

42 Idaho, is intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and economical domestic source 

43 of uranium enrichment services. Expanding AES’s plant in France would not satisfy that need.

44

45

46 Comment: The following comment questions the premise in the Draft EIS regarding the need to 

47 lessen the U.S. dependence on enriched uranium from foreign sources.

48
I-73

1 [193-11, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And when our country gets 

2 crude oil from overseas and refines it here, does that lessen our dependence? So these are 

3 questions we need to ask about the premise set up in the EIS.

4

5 Response: The proposed action is intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and 

6 economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services. While the proposed action would 

7 not entirely remove dependence on foreign sources, it would partially address that dependence.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comments question the premise in the Draft EIS that a reliable source 

11 of enriched uranium is needed. 

12

13 [191-07, Liz Woodruff] The draft EIS fails to establish that the current approach to supplying 

14 enriched uranium is unreliable. There is uranium enrichment in the US, enriched uranium has 

15 always been an international market, the raw material comes from foreign sources, and this 

16 system has adequately provided fuel for US reactors for decades.

17

18 [193-10, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And I’d just like to pause here, 

19 to check in on this theory of theirs, that there is this need for reliability. Have we ever shut down 

20 a reactor because the fuel source was unreliable, in this country? It seems like it’s been working 

21 pretty well so far. 

22

23 Response: The proposed action is intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and 

24 economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services to help ensure that no U.S. 

25 reactors would have to be shut down in time of crisis because of lack of fuel. Past experience 

26 may not be predictive of whether such a crisis will occur in the future. The current domestic 

27 enrichment services are not sufficient to support U.S. demand if needed. As discussed in 

28 Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the current capacity falls short and is heavily dependent on the aging 

29 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which is not economical and expected to cease operations in 

30 the near future due to the high cost of maintenance.

31

32

33 Comment: The following comments suggest that demand in the U.S. for enriched uranium will 

34 go down as the currently operating reactors are decommissioned.

35

36 [181-10, Roger Turner] 1. The purpose and need analyses needs up-dated in EIS. The 

37 following conditions, in combination, eliminate the need for this project: (a) recent finds of large 

38 amounts of natural gas in the U.S. is reducing interest in nuclear power and rendering nuclear 

39 power uneconomical in comparison; (b) the cost of solar and wind power are coming down 

40 resulting in a larger role for these power sources and; (c) with the reduction of nuclear power 

41 plants in the U.S. domestic uranium enrichment plants will be able to supply the nuclear power 

42 industry with ample supplies of U-235, without the need for this proposed, expensive, AREVA 

43 plant. The aforementioned points are detailed below: 

44

45 (A) Recent finds of large amounts of natural gas fields in the U.S. reducing the interest and 

46 momentum by power companies in developing nuclear power. New finds of domestic natural 

47 gas has resulted in a switch in interest from coal and nuclear to gas for power supplies. A 

48 recent MIT study, that is more up-to-date than the study referenced in the draft EIS, reveals a 
I-74

1 likely economically realistic switch to natural gas for the United States power supplies. This 

2 study, by a group of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers and graduate students reflects the 

3 more accurate conditions for power plant construction in the United States for the next 40 years. 

4 The study shows a baseline global estimate of recoverable gas resources reaching some 

5 16,200 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), enough to last over 160 years at current global consumption 

6 rates. (The Future of Natural Gas -- Study finds significant potential to displace coal, reducing 

7 greenhouse gas emissions, MIT, June 2010) In addition the study reports the following trend:

8

9 “Natural-gas consumption will increase dramatically and will largely displace coal in the power 

10 generation sector by 2050 (the time horizon of the study) under a modeling scenario where, 

11 through carbon emissions pricing, industrialized nations reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 

12 2050, and large emerging economies, e.g. China, India and Brazil reduce CO2 emissions by 

13 50 percent by 2070. This assumes incremental reductions in the current price structures of the 

14 alternatives, including renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration.”

15

16 According to U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2010, domestic 

17 and Canadian gas supply will increase, at least to 2035. 

18

19 Shale gas provides largest source of growth in U.S. natural gas supply 

20

21 The increase in U.S. natural gas production from 2008 to 2035 in the AEO-2010 Reference 

22 case results primarily from continued growth in production of shale gas, recent discoveries in 

23 deep waters offshore, and, to a lesser extent, stranded natural gas brought to market after 

24 construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline is completed in 2023. Shale gas and coalbed 

25 methane make up 34 percent of total U.S. production in 2035, doubling their 17-percent share in 

26 2008. Shale gas is the largest contributor to the growth in production, while production from 

27 coalbed methane deposits remains relatively stable from 2008 to 2035. 

28

29 (B) The cost of solar power is lower than nuclear power, resulting in a larger role for these 

30 power sources. The New York Times reports the following article: 

31

32 Solar power costs have been declining, the costs of nuclear power have been rising inexorably 

33 over the past eight years, said Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont 

34 Law School’s Institute for Energy and Environment. Estimates of construction costs — about 

35 $3 billion per reactor in 2002 — have been regularly revised upward to an average of about 

36 $10 billion per reactor, and the estimates are likely to keep rising, said Mr. Cooper, an analyst 

37 specializing in tracking nuclear power costs. (New York Times; Special Report: Energy and 

38 Environment, Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage, July 26, 2010) 

39

40 (C) Switch to other power sources means no need for Areva. Given the above two examples of 

41 a switch to other power sources than nuclear, the existing plans for enrichment will be adequate 

42 to supply the U.S. nuclear industry. The Les Urenco company has plans to produce up to 6 

43 million SWU; while the USEC produces 10.5 Million SWUs. 

44

45 Also, in 2008, an amended agreement allows Russia to export increasing amounts LEU 

46 available to nuclear power companies to the United States, starting with 442,000 pounds in 

47 2011 and up to 13.7 Million pounds in 2020. 

48
I-75

1 While it is true that some nuclear plants may expand their existing power plant, such as Watts

2 Bar 2 (TVA), there will be nowhere near the number of new units predicted by the NRC’s Energy 

3 Assessment Administration Report (EIA 2009a) and nowhere near the need for SWUs 

4 referenced in the draft EIS for AREVA; and because of many nuclear plants are 

5 decommissioning -- there will be less and less need for enriched uranium. Many of the firms 

6 that initially consider nuclear construction are bound by State requirements that they be ‘prudent 

7 investors’. Therefore, many initial applicants to NRC are dropping out completely, or keeping 

8 them on hold. 

9

10 Consequently, the EIS should carefully review current studies and assessments that show a 

11 general swing to natural gas, solar and wind. Unfortunately the NRC fails to take a hard look at 

12 this purported need. A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the United States in two 

13 decades. The EIS needs to provide economic comparisons of nuclear vs. Solar and Natural 

14 Gas. More and more companies are dropping their nuclear power applications to NRC, and 

15 therefore the need for this plant is not justified, given the existing and soon to open facilities in 

16 the U.S. to provide sources of enriched uranium. 

17

18 [187-06, John Weber] I recommend the “no action alternative” for the following reasons. With 

19 many of the current US reactors nearing the end of the design life expectancy and very few, if 

20 any, new reactors likely to be build due to economics, a case has not been made for a need for 

21 this plant.

22

23 Response: As discussed in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the EIS, the need for the proposed 

24 EREF is based on both the projected increase in the number of U.S. commercial nuclear 

25 reactors and the current inadequate capacity for domestic enriched uranium production.

26 Section 1.3.1 has been revised to note that most current U.S. reactors that have come, or are 

27 coming, to the end of their original 40-year license are undergoing a license renewal process for 

28 an additional 20 years of operation. Therefore, as discussed in Section 1.3.1, a net increase in 

29 U.S. reactors is expected, and the proposed EREF would help supply the additional enriched 

30 uranium required for their operation, as well as ensure that U.S. capacity for enriched uranium 

31 production would remain commensurate with U.S. demand.

32

33

34 Comment: The following comments suggest that the correlation between future energy demand 

35 and the corresponding future demand for low enriched uranium is speculative.

36

37 [113-01, Ken Miller] The Draft EIS in Section 1.3.1 suggests that “as future demand for 

38 electricity increases, the need for low enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power plants is also 

39 expected to increase,” and they’re citing the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy 

40 Outlook in 2009. In fact, the correlation between future energy demand and the corresponding 

41 future demand for low enriched uranium today is speculative, at best. 

42

43 [113-07, Ken Miller] The Draft EIS in Section 1.3.1 suggests that, “As future demand for 

44 electricity increases, the need for Low Enriched Uranium to fuel nuclear power plants is also 

45 expected to increase.” In fact, any correlation between future electricity demand and a 

46 corresponding future demand for Low Enriched Uranium is speculative at best. The Department 

47 of Energy does not put the nation’s future electricity eggs in the nuclear basket. Far from it: It 

48 envisions a much more diverse energy portfolio that is more reliant than ever on energy 

49 efficiency and conservation and other truly renewable baseload energy resources.

50
I-76

1 Response: The quote in these comments from Section 1.3.1 of the Draft EIS does not include 

2 the reference, immediately following the quote in the EIS text, that was given to 

3 U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Annual Energy 

4 Outlook 2009 With Projections to 2030.” In that reference, the EIA of the U.S. Department of 

5 Energy (DOE) estimates the increasing need for nuclear power (and therefore, enriched 

6 uranium) based on an increasing need for electricity, taking into account increases from other 

7 sources of electric power and conservation measures.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comments note that the proposed EREF would use a more 

11 economical and environmentally friendly uranium enrichment process.

12

13 [098-11, Linda Martin] The company’s use of centrifuge technology is a proven, safe method 

14 of enriching uranium. This technology is more energy efficient, more environmentally friendly 

15 and less expensive to operate than the other accepted uranium enrichment process called 

16 gaseous diffusion.

17

18 [143-03, Hon. James Risch; 172-03, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] ...I also 

19 note the centrifuge technology is proven, reliable, and efficient. The process will use 50 times 

20 less electricity than a gaseous diffusion plant, and the amount of water used by the plant is less 

21 than the current irrigation appropriation.

22

23 Response: As stated in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the proposed action is intended to satisfy the 

24 need for an additional economical domestic source of enriched uranium.

25

26

27 Comment: The following comments support the national security goal of sufficient domestic 

28 enrichment capability.

29

30 [034-02, Greg Crockett] It is time for the U.S. to change directions in the interest of our energy 

31 future and our national interest. It is time for the United States to reassume a leadership role 

32 worldwide in nuclear energy. Our national security interests require that we have enrichment 

33 and fuel development capabilities within our borders. I support the Draft Environmental Impact 

34 Statement, which likewise recognizes those demands.

35

36 [051-02, Jackie Flowers] Something else this community is concerned about and cares about 

37 is energy. As this country grapples with visions for a sustainable energy future, and energy 

38 independence, we have to take action and stop the rhetoric. Nuclear energy provides 

39 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. We’ve already heard that tonight. Importantly, we’ve also 

40 heard it provides more than 69 percent of emission-free electricity that keep the lights on in this 

41 country. Let me stress, base load emission-free energy. With less than 15 percent of the nuclear 

42 fuel supply necessary for the existing nuclear energy fleet coming from a single source inside 

43 this country’s border, we have an energy security problem that I believe rallies that of our 

44 dependence on foreign oil. And this is an important step towards building that independence.

45

46 Nuclear energy is ready now to be a central part of a balanced common-sense approach to 

47 clean energy diversity. I agree with the NRC staff’s statement that this facility will contribute to 
I-77

1 the attainment of national energy security policy objectives by providing an additional reliable 

2 and economical domestic source of fuel for these important nuclear energy facilities.

3

4 [123-04, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-04, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-04, 

5 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] Third, Eagle Rock will help rebuild the 

6 nation’s nuclear infrastructure, and enhance energy security for all those who depend on 

7 nuclear power for their health and welfare right here from Idaho

8

9 [128-09, Bob Poyser] AREVA is really excited to be a part of Idaho's business community, and 

10 we look forward to continuing our work with the state, and the people of Southeastern Idaho. 

11 We plan to build and operate a safe environmentally sustainable world class facility that is 

12 important to America's energy security, important to our American utility customers, and 

13 important to the advancement of Idaho's continued leadership in nuclear programs. Thank you 

14 very much.

15

16 [133-01, Richard Provencher] I fully support the NRC’s proposed preferred alternative to build 

17 a uranium enrichment plant west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The facility being pursued by AREVA will 

18 provide an additional reliable and economical domestic source of low enriched uranium to be 

19 used in commercial nuclear power plants. Having more capability for enrichment in this country 

20 helps reduce the risk related to importation of this type of material from foreign sources. The 

21 AREVA facilities planned capacity can provide 40% of the current and planned demand for 

22 enriched uranium. AREVA’s business plan fits well within the country’s plan to reduce 

23 dependency on foreign oil, improve the climate, and make nuclear energy a larger contributor to 

24 the domestic energy supply. This creates a clear mandate for the capability which is critically 

25 important to beginning the review of environmental impacts related to its operation.

26

27 [158-02, Hon. Mike Simpson; 139-02, John Revier, on behalf of Hon. Mike Simpson] It is 

28 more important than ever, that our nation take the steps needed to end our dependence on 

29 foreign sources of energy and become energy independent. Currently, the United States 

30 imports nearly 90 percent of the uranium enrichment services it uses. The Eagle Rock facility 

31 will provide a stable domestic supply of enriched uranium for existing and planned commercial 

32 nuclear reactors, and it will serve an important part of an overall domestic energy strategy.

33

34 [163-02, Cindy Smith-Putnam] The bigger picture is this project’s significance to our regional 

35 and national energy future, and it is the national energy future that fundamentally and absolutely 

36 requires a significant reset from the status quo.

37

38 Currently, under the E in Energy, Grow Idaho Falls has taken an active role in supporting the 

39 development and expansion of green renewable sources of energy. We can, we should, we 

40 have, and we will continue to support the diversification of the energy portfolio of our region and 

41 nation, to include harnessing the power of wind, water, heat, and light, to reduce the harmful 

42 effects to the environment of carbon emitting sources, and to promote our national security by 

43 becoming less reliant on foreign oil.

44

45 Increasing renewables, promoting conservation, decreasing use of fossil fuels, all very 

46 important, we can, and we should do all of those things. And, yet, even taken together, none of 

47 that is enough, not nearly enough to meet our growing energy demands. Nuclear energy stands 

48 alone as the best way to produce the energy we need, while at the same time minimizing 
I-78

1 harmful environmental and geopolitical consequences. It gives us the opportunity to turn away 

2 from the practices of the past toward a more stable and sustainable energy future.

3

4 Therefore, just as we need to be independent of unstable and unpredictable sources of oil, we 

5 also need to be independent of unstable and unpredictable sources of enriched uranium. Simply 

6 put, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility beautifully addresses that need.

7

8 [171-03, John Tanner] It is a fact that we import well more than half of the enriched uranium 

9 that we presently need, not that some future reactors might need, but that we presently need. 

10

11 Furthermore, we would like to shut down the one remaining gas diffusion enrichment plant in 

12 Paducah, Kentucky, because the gaseous diffusion is so much more inefficient than gas 

13 centrifuge technology. In fact, I think they use about 10 times as much electricity for a given 

14 amount of separation as a gas centrifuge plant does.

15

16 Now, okay, we could import enriched uranium, but then not only the profits go abroad, but the 

17 jobs, as well. I don’t think that’s what we want to do.

18

19 [173-01, David Taylor] ...I am strongly in favor of the construction and maintenance of the 

20 Areva complex and hope the rest of the DOE INL site can be used for productive nuclear 

21 research and generating capacity....

22

23 We cannot supplant the energy from fossil fuels to the electric grid without vast improvements to 

24 the grid itself and to generating capacity. Nuclear is the only viable alternative and the only one 

25 that is “eco friendly” to the environment. Fear mongers and professional detractors “Snake River 

26 Alliance” use disgraceful tactics and words in attempting to keep their little source of revenue 

27 alive.

28

29 We possess the technology (Gen IV reactors) and now need the common sense to use these 

30 resources to help sustain a vibrant economy and standard of living that we have all come to 

31 expect. The next generation will not have these opportunities if we squander and make feeble 

32 attempts to make nuclear energy production a reality now.

33

34 I support Areva and the ideas that surround using nuclear technology as a great national effort. 

35 It must be for national security and for economic security. We must have a federal government 

36 that will establish certain protocols and reactor templates that if complied with will move to a fast 

37 track for licensing and construction. From there the government must run interference against 

38 all the special interest that come to bear only for the reason of capital extraction. Thanks for 

39 allowing us to be part of this potentially wonderful venture that will not only bless the lives of 

40 those who live and work here but for the whole nation.

41

42 Response: As stated in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the proposed action is intended to satisfy the 

43 need for an additional economical domestic source of enriched uranium.

44

45

46 Comment: The following comments suggest that the proposed EREF is needed to address the 

47 potential short-fall in enriched uranium supply with a safe, proven, and efficient uranium

48 enrichment process.

49
I-79

1 [033-01, Hon. Mike Crapo; 075-01, Leslie Huddleston, on behalf of Hon. Mike Crapo] Now, 

2 more than ever, it is critical to develop secure, economically feasible, and clean supplies of 

3 domestic energy. EREF will supply America’s existing operation fleet of nuclear power reactors, 

4 and further augment the anticipated growth of new commercial nuclear power generation here 

5 in the U.S.

6

7 [034-03, Greg Crockett] Demand for nuclear fuel is, and will dramatically increase in the 

8 future, and I think that’s demonstrated by the number of pending NRC license applications. To 

9 suggest that the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility’s production is not or will not be necessary is 

10 pure folly. To meet our current demand for enriched uranium, much of it is imported, and we 

11 need robust domestic suppliers who can provide this service in an environmentally compatible 

12 manner.

13

14 [067-06, Mike Hart] Also, they took exception with the cause and need for action. I think there’s 

15 most definitely a need for this, because there’s a need for carbon-free energy. Throughout the 

16 world, I think we’ve seen that global warming is a significant problem that we need to be paying 

17 attention to, and there’s also a demand for growth in nuclear energy. There’s a couple of facts I 

18 want to point out why we need nuclear energy, why we need this particular enrichment plant.

19

20 Carbon dioxide reflects, or absorbs, infrared energy that does not go back out to space. It 

21 makes the planet warmer. That’s simply a fact. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Levels of 

22 carbon dioxide have gone from 288 parts per million in 1850 to 369 parts per million in the year 

23 2000. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. That is a greenhouse gas that is increasing in 

24 concentration. But I’ll give you a hint as to where it’s coming from: fossil energy. In 1990s, we 

25 annually contribute 6.3 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through fossil 

26 combustion. That’s annual, 6.3 gigatons. The concern about 300,000 metric tons, 300,000 tons 

27 of total waste versus 6.3 gigatons in a single year, I view the problem with carbon as much more 

28 significant than the problem with depleted uranium.

29

30 So, what is a gigaton? Why is that a concern? Well, 2.3 gigatons is one part per million of 

31 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, every year we are steadily increasing carbon dioxide. So, 

32 yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, it’s our fault. Yes, carbon puts more of that in the 

33 atmosphere, and I think nuclear energy is a stopgap that will – is worth pursuing. So, yes, there 

34 is a need.

35

36 Energy demands are increasing worldwide. Currently, the population of the planet is about 

37 4.5 billion. By 2050, that will double, and people are not less energy consumptive. Populations 

38 like China and India used to be in the Third World. They have bought the second world, and 

39 they’ve placed a firm down payment on the first one. So, energy consumption will go up as the 

40 population goes up, so even if nuclear energy just holds its own at 15 percent, there will be a 

41 need for more nuclear plants, and that means there will be a need for more enriched uranium.

42

43 [072-01, Stephen Herring] I’d like to speak in favor of the AREVA license application for the 

44 Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, and particularly on the need for that facility.

45

46 This facility would be an important part of the nuclear fuel cycle, and a key step in providing for 

47 future electricity. In building this facility, AREVA will replace 60-year old technology for uranium 

48 enrichment, that is, the gaseous diffusion process, with the new gas centrifuge technology,
I-80

1 which is more proliferation-resistant, cleaner, and a factor of 20 to 50 times more energy 

2 efficient. 

3

4 The 104 reactors in the United States provide, as you’ve heard earlier this evening, about 

5 20 percent of the total U.S. electricity, and about 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity. 

6 However, today the U.S. has only one operating gas centrifuge plant, and the last gaseous 

7 diffusion plant is in the process of being decommissioned. The one gas centrifuge plant in New 

8 Mexico began operation in June 2010, and will be capable of producing 3 million separative 

9 work units per year, which is about 25 percent of the U.S. need for enrichment. So, the U.S. is 

10 importing, from one place or another, the enrichment needed for 75 percent of our nuclear 

11 electricity.

12

13 We have seen the construction of many wind turbines in the hills east of Idaho Falls in the last 

14 five years, and throughout the west. I applaud the contribution that these turbines can make, 

15 though I have seen very little contribution from Jackson or Sun Valley, but it is important to 

16 remember that these turbines, even at the best wind sites, have capacity factors of only 30 to 

17 35 percent. A nuclear reactor’s fuel by means of the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility will provide 

18 power with a capacity factor of above 90 percent; that is, they will produce 90 percent of their 

19 maximum power for an average, year-round, 24/7. The U.S. needs reliable, sustainable energy 

20 for the decades to come, and not just when the winds blow.

21

22 [098-04, Linda Martin] As far as technical impacts, the centrifuge technology is proven and 

23 safe as based on other facilities across the world, and while there conceivably is a significant 

24 gap in the supply-demand equation for enriched uranium to provide our current and future green 

25 energy needs, we can address that with the EREF.

26

27 [098-13, Linda Martin] Conceivably there is a significant gap in the supply/demand equation 

28 for enriched uranium to provide for our current and future green energy needs. The uncertainty 

29 of the future supply of energy could evolve into a national security issue. The Eagle Rock 

30 Enrichment Facility would be a principal supplier for this valuable and needed material.

31

32 [123-02, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-02, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-02, 

33 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] AREVA is proposing to build a state-of 

34 the-art, technologically-proven, modern facility to enrich uranium needed to operate the existing 

35 U.S. fleet of 104 power reactors. AREVA’s plant will incorporate many unique features which 

36 have been developed over three decades of experience with centrifuge enrichment technology. 

37 AREVA’s vast experience and use of the technology will result in minimizing and, where 

38 possible, eliminating any impacts on the surrounding environment and regional communities, 

39 but there will remain, however, many significant beneficial impacts....

40

41 Safety, integrity, professionalism, and sustainability are demonstrated attributes that AREVA 

42 embraces in all of its projects and operations, and the Governor believes they’ll bring no less to 

43 Idaho Falls. AREVA has been easy to work with, and they are as excited about coming to Idaho 

44 as we are to have them locate their facility here.

45

46 As we look across the country today, there are not many, if any, states or regions that can claim 

47 proposed major energy construction projects or facilities like the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

48 Facility. While large projects are usually accompanied by some environmental impacts, 

49 Governor Otter believes the end result of this facility will be very positive for Idaho and the 
I-81

1 country. Eagle Rock will provide much needed domestic production of enriched uranium for our 

2 existing U.S. nuclear power fleet, which will help enable U.S. utilities to move away from 

3 importing nearly 90 percent of this important fuel product. 

4

5 [128-03, Bob Poyser] This is a project that AREVA’s American utility customers have 

6 embraced, as demonstrated by their willingness to already contract, in advance, for more than 

7 half of the production capacity of this facility.

8

9 All of the natural uranium that will arrive at the Eagle Rock facility under these contracts belong 

10 to American utilities, and is destined for use in American reactors.

11

12 I would quickly like to address just a few of key aspects of the EIS, and the Eagle Rock facility.

13

14 Let me start by saying that a clear and definite need, today, in the United States, for enrichment 

15 services exists. Today, more than half of the enriched material for America’s current nuclear 

16 plant plants is imported from Russia. Another one third is imported from other nations, and 

17 Eagle Rock and Idaho will help significantly reduce America’s dependence on these foreign 

18 sources of supply.

19

20 Nevertheless, when Eagle Rock comes online, America will need to import enrichment services 

21 just to fulfill the need for the current existing fleet of 104 reactors.

22

23 [130-01, Park and Sharon Price] We support the NRC assessments regarding the potential 

24 impacts named in the draft EIS and agree with the findings that the impacts are small to 

25 moderate. The need for an enrichment facility as proposed by AREVA is long overdue. The 

26 importance of increasing the production of power by nuclear generation is vital to the United 

27 States. 

28

29 [143-01, Hon. James Risch; 172-01, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] As a 

30 U.S. Senator from Idaho, I have the privilege of serving as the Ranking Member of the 

31 Subcommittee on Energy. From that position, I have seen firsthand the efforts this country is 

32 making to formulate a forward-looking energy policy. Supporting nuclear power, and its 

33 associated technologies, such as enrichment, is one way to make our country more energy 

34 secure. 

35

36 Years of broken energy policy have led us to become dependent on foreign sources of energy. 

37 We’ve also lost our competitive edge in the nuclear field a field where the United States and 

38 Idaho once led. This community knows what it takes to regain that competitive edge, and once 

39 again place Idaho and this nation at the pinnacle of the nuclear industry.

40

41 There is a growing recognition that nuclear power is the most viable option to meet the clean 

42 energy demands of the future. Demand for enriched uranium is increasing in the United States 

43 and across the world to fuel clean nuclear power. This proposed facility will allow that need to 

44 be met from domestic sources, while providing a much needed economic boost to the entire 

45 region.

46

47 [145-04, Ann Rydalch] As you know, nuclear power currently supplies about 20 percent of the 

48 nation’s electricity, and surveys show over 70 percent of the public throughout the nation 

49 support nuclear energy. We have one company that is currently the sole U.S. supplier of low-
I-82

1 enriched uranium for nuclear fuel in the U.S., although there are some being built that may 

2 provide enrichment services in the future. However, that still leaves an extremely high percent of 

3 low-enriched uranium that is being imported from foreign suppliers, imposing reliability risks for 

4 the nuclear fuel supply to U.S. nuclear power plants. 

5

6 National energy policy emphasizes the importance of having a reliable domestic source of 

7 enriched uranium for national energy security. The production of enriched uranium at the Eagle 

8 Rock Enrichment Facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected 

9 demand for enrichment services within the U.S. Thus, still a high percent of current and 

10 projected demand for enrichment services that’s left to fulfill.

11

12 [157-10, Hon. Erik Simpson] Need for an enrichment facility. At the Boise hearing that I 

13 attended on Monday, those opposed to this project said there is no need for additional uranium 

14 enrichment. They quoted a so-called expert from the Vermont School of Law who said, “The 

15 nuclear renaissance is dying.”

16

17 Now, at my count, currently there are 468 nuclear power plants planned around the world, 

18 including 26, give or take, in the United States. This does not sound like a dying renaissance to 

19 me. It is important the United States to continue to be a world leader in nuclear power 

20 development and research. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility and the Idaho National 

21 Laboratory will help continue this nuclear renaissance.

22

23 [176-04, Hon. Jeff Thompson] Additionally, the Eagle Rock plant will enrich uranium for use 

24 as fuel for the nuclear reactors, which today accounts for 20 percent of U.S. electricity.

25

26 Response: As stated in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the proposed action is intended to satisfy the 

27 need for an additional economical domestic source of enriched uranium.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comments question the location of the proposed EREF in Idaho 

31 because nuclear power is not needed in Idaho.

32

33 [015-13, Beatrice Brailsford] There is, of course, another aspect to “purpose and need,” and 

34 that’s the local rationale: why is this project proposed for this location. Here, too, the draft EIS 

35 comes up short. We are told that nuclear reactors that would theoretically be supplied in part by 

36 EREF are needed because of our need for non-coal “baseload” or “firm” generation resources. 

37 In fact, nuclear power is not being considered at all as a baseload resource here in Idaho. Our

38 region’s Sixth Power Plan, developed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and 

39 vetted by utilities and energy officials in Idaho and throughout our region, projects that we will 

40 meet 85 percent of our new electric load growth over the next 20 years through energy 

41 efficiency, with the balance coming primarily from renewable generation, mostly from wind. Our 

42 region’s Power Plan does not anticipate any new large supply-side generation resources, 

43 including nuclear.

44

45 [025-04, Hon. Sue Chew] And, you know, we’ve heard that the energy that would be 

46 developed through this particular mechanism doesn’t benefit our state. I’d like for us to reflect on 

47 that.

48
I-83

1 [032-01, Cindy Cottrell] I am writing about my deep concerns of the proposal to open Areva 

2 uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. This would be a big mistake. Of all the States in the United 

3 States this should be the last State ever considered to take on such a plant. First of all, Idaho is 

4 one of the few States who doesn’t need nuclear power. We have all kinds of options for 

5 alternative energy. A State like Rhode Island may need to consider such options but Idaho 

6 should never be accepting energy that creates waste when there are other options. We have 

7 thermal resources to tap, wind power, dams, and some solar. I’m sure more are options too 

8 since we live in a large State with a variety of resources.

9

10 [113-08, Ken Miller] We are told that nuclear reactors that would theoretically be supplied in 

11 part by EREF are needed because of our need for non-coal “baseload” or “firm” generation 

12 resources. In fact, nuclear is not being considered at all as a baseload resource - here in Idaho 

13 and at regulated electric utilities, at least. Our region’s Sixth Power Plan, developed by the 

14 highly regarded Northwest Power and Conservation Council and vetted by utilities and energy 

15 officials in Idaho and throughout our region, projects that we will meet 85 percent of our new

16 electric load growth over the next 20 years through energy efficiency, with the balance coming 

17 primarily from renewable generation, mostly from wind. Our region’s Power Plan does not 

18 anticipate any new large supply-side generation resources, including nuclear. 

19

20 Response: The location of the proposed EREF was not chosen by AES based on the need for 

21 nuclear power in Idaho. The determination of the proposed EREF location is based on the 

22 criteria identified in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS, which include factors related to geology, hydrology, 

23 weather, required resources, available workforce, and local acceptance. The NRC reviewed 

24 AES’s site selection criteria and selection process as part of its environmental review.

25

26

27 Comment: The following comments indicate that the justification for domestically enriched 

28 uranium is unsupported.

29

30 [015-23, Beatrice Brailsford] In conclusion, since the only justification for the facility is an 

31 asserted but unsupported need for domestically produced enriched uranium, which the EREF 

32 does not in any case provide, a true “no action” alternative - without any preconstruction 

33 activities - should be chosen.

34

35 [153-14, Andrea Shipley; 161-03, Marisa Smith; 197-16, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the 

36 Snake River Alliance] In conclusion, since the only justification for the facility is an asserted 

37 but unsupported need for domestically produced enriched uranium, which the EREF does not in 

38 any case provide, a no action alternative should be chosen.

39

40 [100-05, Wendy Matson] So therefore, I feel, very strongly, that since the only justification for 

41 the facility is an asserted by unsupported need for domestically-produced enriched uranium, 

42 which EREF does not, in any case provide. I vote for a no action alternative. 

43

44 [110-01, John and Susan Medlin] As the Snake River Alliance presentation pointed out, there 

45 is no current need for this facility, no compelling evidence that a nuclear renaissance is coming 

46 (or inevitable), no rationale for a French company building a nuclear facility in Idaho that 

47 purports to promote US energy security while importing inputs and exporting outputs, no 

48 provision for the deteriorating and dangerous waste that will haunt us for decades or maybe 
I-84

1 forever, no concern for yet another threat to the Snake River aquifer, the lifeblood of Idaho 

2 agriculture.

3

4 So how can the NRC conclude that building this facility is vital, and that the most problematic 

5 outcome to be evaluated is construction dust?

6

7 [131-03, Morty Prisament] Need for Action: The DEIS has not established a “need” for this 

8 action, as required under NEPA. Need is required to be discussed in specific, quantitative, 

9 terms and within the scope of global production and markets. there exists a competitive global 

10 market to provide enriched uranium. Russia (CIS) has been one of the leading suppliers of 

11 enriched U2. If there is a national security rationale for building such facilities in the U.S., the 

12 EIS needs to discuss and document such an assertion. Moreover, the document needs to 

13 explore the reasons why the supply of enriched U2 from nuclear weapons decommissioning 

14 could not meet projected demand for enriched U2.

15

16 [148-02, Eric Schuler] But there’s a bigger issue here. Before we can ask whether the impact 

17 will be small or devastating, we need to ask why we’re making an impact at all. This question is 

18 paramount, but the draft EIS failed to provide a convincing answer. The EIS claims that the 

19 EREF needs to be build to improve national security. For this to be a legitimate need, however, 

20 the U.S.’s supply of enriched uranium would have to be unreliable currently. This is not the 

21 case.

22

23 The U.S.’s enriched uranium sources are reliable partners and the U.S. even seems to tacitly 

24 acknowledge this fact, when it states that some of the enriched uranium will be exported to 

25 foreign countries. Even so, it is useful to evaluate the sources more fully, just to understand just 

26 how unnecessary this facility is.

27

28 Now we’ve heard earlier that 90 percent of our enriched uranium is imported, and about half of 

29 that is from Russia, and we’ve also heard that uranium enrichment is a necessary technology 

30 because we need nuclear power to deal with global warming.

31

32 However, strictly speaking, that’s not true, as a great example of that is the megatons to 

33 megawatts program that we operate with Russia. This is an agreement between Russia and the 

34 U.S. where by Russian nuclear warheads are downblended to make fuel grade uranium, and 

35 thus, since we have an abundant supply of warheads, is a very bountiful source of this 

36 enrichment – or of enriched uranium. Moreover, this program diminishes the threat of 

37 proliferation and prevents the environmental degradation associated with continued mining.

38

39 In other words, it’s beneficial in many ways, and it’s been existing for several years and there is 

40 no reason to expect that it would not be renewed in the future.

41

42 The other enriched uranium sources are also reliable. Although much of the enriched uranium 

43 is, indeed, imported, this fact alone does not indicate instability. We live in an age of 

44 globalization and there is no international market for enriched uranium. Credit counseling with a 

45 comparative advantage in the production of enriched uranium, whether because they have 

46 highly-accessible reserves, low-cost labor in Africa, or other factors, will specialize in producing 

47 enriched uranium while the U.S. focuses its resources in other areas, like agriculture.

48
I-85

1 Our reliance on this marked is not a sign of weakness or vulnerability, but a sign of efficiency. 

2 Energy independence is an outdated idea, is one that is not based on security or patriotism, but 

3 of ignorance. 

4

5 The current system works, and has worked for several years. The entire project that we are 

6 discussing here tonight is predicated on the assertion that it will provide national energy security 

7 with respect to enriched uranium.

8

9 The fact of the matter is that this security already exists and the EREF facility is not necessary, 

10 and if the benefits stated in this proposal do not exist, no amount of environmental impact is 

11 tolerable, and this facility cannot be licensed.

12

13 [182-01, Brianna Ursenbach] The EIS states the facility is necessary for U.S. energy security; 

14 however, this argument is based on the unstated and unproven premise that the U.S. must have 

15 domestic sources for all of its nuclear fuel needs. 

16

17 [184-22, Kitty Vincent] In conclusion, since the only justification for the facility is an asserted 

18 but unsupported need for domestically produced enriched uranium, which EREF does not in any 

19 case provide, a “no action” alternative should be chosen. 

20

21 [191-04, Liz Woodruff] After reviewing the draft EIS in full, I believe it inadequately addressed 

22 may critical issues and must be revised to integrate the following concerns. Most importantly, 

23 the entire premise of the draft EIS, that there is a need for domestically supplied enriched 

24 uranium, is deeply flawed, fully hypothetical, repeatedly contradicted and disproven in the draft 

25 EIS itself, and an unacceptable warrant for the licensing of this facility. The NRC must either find 

26 legitimate warrants for taking the proposed action that actually outweigh the environmental and 

27 public health risks associated with this facility, or they must choose the “no action alternative”

28 and not license the proposed EREF.

29

30 [191-19, Liz Woodruff] Alternatives

31 • Since the only justification for the facility is an asserted but unsupported need for domestically 

32 produced enriched uranium, which the EREF does not in any case provide, a “no action” 

33 alternative should be chosen.

34

35 [193-06, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] First, the purpose and need 

36 for this facility is not proven in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, for either current or 

37 new reactors. It’s inadequately proven. It remains to be a hypothesis. 

38

39 Response: National energy policy issues are not within the scope of the EIS for the proposed 

40 EREF. The proposed action is intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and 

41 economical domestic source of enriched uranium.

42

43

44 Comment: The following comments assert that there is no need for the proposed EREF 

45 because an adequate supply of enriched uranium is and will be available, and that construction 

46 and operation of the proposed facility would only result in an excess supply of domestically 

47 enriched uranium.

48
I-86

1 [009-02, Steve Barclay; 021-02, Linda Cannarozzo; 081-02, Lea Johnson; 161-02, Marisa 

2 Smith; 202-02, Alison Duffin; 205-02, Andrea Guerri; 206-02, Pamela Hanson; 209-02, 

3 Courtney Hollar; 210-02, Tyler Hoovis; 211-02, Olivia Joelson; 212-02, Naomi Johnson; 

4 215-02, Verlyn Larsen; 217-02, Jodie Mckelvey; 222-02, Hannah Raines; 224-02, A. 

5 Rolsen; 225-02, Lisa Stimpson] The draft EIS makes an unproven assertion that there is a 

6 need for domestically produced enriched uranium. However, this claim was never proven and 

7 often contradicted in the draft. 1) The nuclear renaissance is too expensive and faces enormous 

8 delays; 2) the current US fleet of reactors has operated with an adequate supply of fuel for 

9 decades; 3) the draft EIS asserts that the licensing of this facility would create a supply of 

10 enriched uranium in excess of the need.

11

12 [015-01, Beatrice Brailsford] According to the current Draft EIS, the purpose of AREVA’s 

13 enrichment factory is to meet two needs, for enriched uranium to fulfill electricity generation 

14 requirements, and for domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security. That 

15 first need, enriched uranium for electricity generation is undeniably true, as long as the majority 

16 of nuclear reactors use low enriched uranium fuel, but the Draft EIS does not even attempt to 

17 make the case that that need is not already being met. 

18

19 Furthermore, the draft clearly acknowledges that even if the nuclear renaissance occurs as 

20 advertised, already planned new enrichment would exceed U.S. demand by about the same 

21 amount as AREVA’s factory might produce.

22

23 [015-08, Beatrice Brailsford] One of the most important parts on an EIS is the examination of 

24 the purpose and need for the proposed action. According to the current draft EIS, the purpose 

25 of Areva’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Factory is to meet two needs: 1) The need for enriched 

26 uranium to fulfill electricity generation requirements; and 2) the need for domestic supplies of

27 enriched uranium for national energy security.

28

29 That first “need” - enriched uranium for electricity generation - is undeniably true as long as the 

30 majority of nuclear reactors use low-enriched uranium fuel. But the draft EIS does not even 

31 attempt to make the case that that need is not already being met. It must do so. The draft does, 

32 however, state “Based on the projected need for LEU by existing reactors and proposed new 

33 reactors, with the target capacity of 6.6 million SWUs per year for the proposed EREF, the total 

34 enrichment capacity in the United States would exceed the projected demand (approximately 

35 16 million SWUs per year) by about 6 million SWUs per year if all of the enrichment facilities 

36 were constructed and operated at their rated capacities” (Draft EIS, 1-6). Thus, even if the 

37 “nuclear renaissance” occurs as advertised, which is not at all certain, already planned new 

38 enrichment would exceed US demand by about the same amount as Areva’s factory is slated to 

39 supply.

40

41 [030-05, Kerry Cooke] Lack of need: The world already has redundancy in provision of 

42 enriched uranium for nuclear plants. With additional enrichment facilities already approved or 

43 under construction, the Areva facility would far exceed any expected need for more enriched 

44 uranium, in the US and elsewhere. The idea that a new wave of nuclear reactors will demand 

45 increased enriched uranium is based on unsubstantiated and wishful prognoses by the nuclear 

46 industry. As is playing out every day in the financial market, financiers are shying away from this 

47 industry that is risky at all levels: cost, market need, and remuneration, to name three. This 

48 plant should be denied until and unless there is solid proof that there is a need.

49
I-87

1 [068-01, Anne Hausrath] I do not believe that we have been provided with sufficient evidence 

2 of a need for domestically-produced uranium, enriched uranium.

3

4 [071-03, David Hensel] I think that, I don’t mean to be unkind, but I don’t think you did a very 

5 good job of looking at a very good market analysis. And here I’m going to quote from the 

6 Nuclear Engineering International, November 2009. And I’m assuming these guys aren’t 

7 appearing for Greenpeace. I mean, I don’t necessarily read this magazine, but if I could quote 

8 once again, they talk about “enrichment requirements for the world’s growing fleet of nuclear 

9 power plants are expected to expand significantly. Current enrichment capacity on a worldwide 

10 basis is just sufficient to meet those requirements.” And this is what I want to highlight, “but the 

11 potential pace of enrichment capacity expansion is expected to outstrip the growth 

12 requirements.” So, we use this language of we want to be energy independent. I mean, and 

13 that’s sort of -- I mean, it’s a meaningless term. 

14

15 [086-02, Paula Jull] A new US plant to enrich uranium for electricity production is not needed. 

16 Current supplies are clearly adequate, and already operating or planned new enrichment 

17 capacity would exceed US demand by about the same amount as Areva’s plant might produce. 

18

19 [088-02, Stan Kidwell] Current supplies of enriched uranium are more than adequate, and 

20 already operating or planned new enrichment capacity would exceed US demand by about the 

21 same amount as Areva’s plant might produce, even if a nuclear renaissance occurs.

22

23 [095-02, Linda Leeuwrik] • There is no need for a new US plant to enrich uranium for 

24 electricity production. Current supplies are clearly adequate. 

25

26 [096-05, Arjun Makhijani] ...but I can tell you, simple calculation that the treaty that the U.S. 

27 and Russia have signed, if that enriched uranium on both sides is used, plus LES, plus 

28 Portsmouth, plus a couple of years of operation of Paducah before it is shut down will provide 

29 far more enrichment services than the entire lifetime, so what might happen here is, for the 

30 entire U.S. reactor fleet, so you may be building a plant here that may wind up only exporting 

31 enriched uranium, if there is a market. 

32

33 [103-02, Karen McCall] “The potential pace of enrichment capacity expansion is expected to 

34 out-strip the growth requirements.” Nuclear engineering International , November 2009

35

36 [113-06, Ken Miller] First and foremost and as to the need for this facility, I do not believe 

37 Areva’s application contains a sound justification for this facility. Not only is there an adequate 

38 existing supply of enriched uranium to meet current and expected needs of the U.S. domestic 

39 nuclear reactor fleet, that capacity would exceed demand roughly by the amount of enriched 

40 uranium EREF would produce.

41

42 [118-04, Caroline Morris] The draft EIS too asserts without proof a greater need for 

43 domestically produced enriched uranium, Yet the document then contradicts the claim by these 

44 factors showing no need for the EREF: 1) the enormous expense and delays of the US nuclear 

45 renaissance, 2) decades of adequate fuel supply for currently operating the US reactors, and 

46 3) creating an excess supply of enriched uranium by the licensing this proposed facility. Since 

47 the only justification given for EREF, the asserted, unsupported need for more domestically 

48 produced enriched uranium, is fallacious, a “no action” alternative should be chosen.

49
I-88

1 [120-03, Frank Nicholson] This enrichment factory: • Is unnecessary. We were told it was for 

2 national consumption but as there is not that much demand, the finished product will be sent 

3 overseas no matter what they promise. 

4

5 [122-03, Kathy O’Brien] I understand that there is no need for a new US plant to enrich 

6 uranium for electricity production. Current supplies are adequate, so it seems that this plant may 

7 be useless as well as dangerous.

8

9 [168-08, Lon Stewart] Nuclear engineering periodicals are claiming the world has plenty of 

10 enrichment capacity.

11

12 [175-03, Ellen Thomas] There is no need for a new US plant to enrich uranium for electricity 

13 production. Current supplies are clearly adequate, and as we develop healthy solar, wind, tidal 

14 and other truly clean energy systems, there is no need for new nuclear power plants.

15

16 [180-11, Kaye Turner] Is it possible we may not need this enriched uranium Areva wants to 

17 produce?

18

19 [183-06 and 183-14, James Vincent] In conclusion, the EIS (4-136) states the French 

20 company, AREVA’s enriched product will be shipped overseas as is their profits. I do not see 

21 how this proposed project will make my country have any more domestic control over our needs 

22 for enriched fuel. The EIS specifies that the numbers of license requests for new enriched 

23 uranium, EIS 1-6, are in excess of the need for the new enriched uranium. Given the potential 

24 for accidents is considerable, I would urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny this 

25 permit at this time. I would also like to thank the Commission for hearing my testimony.

26

27 [191-07, Liz Woodruff] The draft EIS fails to establish that the current approach to supplying 

28 enriched uranium is unreliable. There is uranium enrichment in the US, enriched uranium has 

29 always been an international market, the raw material comes from foreign sources, and this 

30 system has adequately provided fuel for US reactors for decades.

31

32 [191-09, Liz Woodruff] The EIS specifies that the numbers of license requests for new 

33 enrichment facilities in the US are in excess of the need for new enriched uranium (draft EIS, 

34 1-6). The EIS does not adequately prove that the Areva facility is necessary.

35

36 [193-08, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Third, there’s currently 

37 enough enriched uranium for domestic use, and AREVA is a French company and gets it 

38 uranium supply from the international market. So how does this facility give us a more reliable 

39 source of domestically-produced uranium, enriched uranium? 

40

41 [193-14, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] The NRC acknowledges that 

42 the licensing if this facility is in excess of the need by 6 million SWUs. 

43

44 [192-06, Lisa Young] Perhaps if this facility was necessary and urgent, these risks could be 

45 ignored. But it’s clear that we do not need this facility. The current system and sources for 

46 enriched uranium have provided adequate fuel for reactors for decades, and with a total of three 

47 enrichment facilities expected in the U.S. in the nature future, one already in operation and two 

48 that are being constructed right now, the need for more enriched uranium is nonexistent.

49
I-89

1 This enriched uranium will be shipped overseas, leaving the dangerous waste in Idaho for at 

2 least 30 years and potentially much longer. There’s no need to take these risks at this time and 

3 the EIS unfairly represents these risks. 

4

5 Producing this waste is irresponsible and my sense is this facility is irresponsible. Thanks.

6

7 [192-12, Lisa Young] Perhaps if this facility was necessary and urgent, these risks could be 

8 ignored or set aside, but it is clear that we do not need this facility: the current system and 

9 sources for enriched uranium have provided adequate fuel for reactors for decades, and with a 

10 total of 3 enrichment facilities expected in the U.S. in the near future (1 already in operation, 

11 2 being constructed), the “need” for more enriched uranium is non-existent. This enriched 

12 uranium would be shipped overseas, leaving this dangerous waste in Idaho for at least 

13 30 years, and potentially much longer. No, there is no need to take these risks at this time, and 

14 the EIS unfairly represents these risks. Producing this waste is irresponsible and my sense is 

15 this facility is irresponsible. 

16

17 Response: As pointed out in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the need for the proposed EREF includes 

18 the need for domestically produced enriched uranium. The only currently operating uranium 

19 enrichment facilities in the United States are the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) and 

20 URENCO USA (formerly known as the NEF). The operation of the PGDP is expected to cease 

21 in the near future due to costs associated with maintaining an aging facility and the inefficiency 

22 of the gaseous diffusion process compared to newer technologies such as uranium enrichment 

23 using centrifuges. The URENCO USA facility is currently under construction, but started initial 

24 operations in June 2010; it is expected to reach a capacity of 1.6 million SWUs per year in 

25 August 2011 (about half of its full capacity of approximately 3 million SWUs per year, as 

26 currently licensed by the NRC). Full licensed capacity would not be reached until sometime 

27 later. An expansion to 5.9 million SWU per year is being considered by URENCO USA, but an 

28 application for the expansion has not yet been submitted to the NRC. As discussed in 

29 Section 1.3.1, of the other potential domestic sources of enriched uranium, the American 

30 Centrifuge Plant (ACP) is not yet in operation and the GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC 

31 (GLE) Facility is not yet licensed.

32

33 The decrease in an inadequate supply of enriched uranium for domestic reactors, due to the 

34 eventual shutdown of the PGDP and the end of the Megatons to Megawatts Program, together 

35 with increased domestic and global demand, emphasize the need for more domestic capacity. 

36 As noted in Section 1.3.1, the NRC is currently processing license applications for more than 

37 20 nuclear plants. The availability of foreign enriched uranium is expected to become more 

38 competitive with the global expansion of nuclear power. Within the last 10 years, 32 nuclear 

39 plants have become operational, with 60 additional nuclear plants currently under construction 

40 (IAEA 2010) including one in the United States.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comments assert that it is not clear that new nuclear reactors will be 

44 constructed in the United States, thereby increasing the domestic need for enriched uranium.

45

46 [009-02, Steve Barclay; 021-02, Linda Cannarozzo; 081-02, Lea Johnson; 161-02, Marisa 

47 Smith; 202-02, Alison Duffin; 205-02, Andrea Guerri; 206-02, Pamela Hanson; 209-02, 

48 Courtney Hollar; 210-02, Tyler Hoovis; 211-02, Olivia Joelson; 212-02, Naomi Johnson; 
I-90

1 215-02, Verlyn Larsen; 217-02, Jodie Mckelvey; 222-02, Hannah Raines; 224-02, 

2 A. Rolsen; 225-02, Lisa Stimpson] The draft EIS makes an unproven assertion that there is a 

3 need for domestically produced enriched uranium. However, this claim is never proven and 

4 often contradicted in the draft. 1) The nuclear renaissance is too expensive and faces enormous 

5 delays; 2) the current US fleet of reactors have operated with an adequate supply of fuel for 

6 decades 3) the draft EIS asserts that the licensing of this facility would create a supply of 

7 enriched uranium in excess of the need.

8

9 [030-05, Kerry Cooke] Lack of need: The world already has redundancy in provision of 

10 enriched uranium for nuclear plants. With additional enrichment facilities already approved or 

11 under construction, the Areva facility would far exceed any expected need for more enriched 

12 uranium, in the US and elsewhere. The idea that a new wave of nuclear reactors will demand 

13 increased enriched uranium is based on unsubstantiated and wishful prognoses by the nuclear 

14 industry. As is playing out every day in the financial market, financiers are shying away from this 

15 industry that is risky at all levels: cost, market need, and remuneration, to name three. This 

16 plant should be denied until and unless there is solid proof that there is a need.

17

18 [110-01, John and Susan Medlin] As the Snake River Alliance presentation pointed out, there 

19 is no current need for this facility, no compelling evidence that a nuclear renaissance is coming 

20 (or inevitable), no rationale for a French company building a nuclear facility in Idaho that 

21 purports to promote US energy security while importing inputs and exporting outputs, no 

22 provision for the deteriorating and dangerous waste that will haunt us for decades or maybe 

23 forever, no concern for yet another threat to the Snake River aquifer, the lifeblood of Idaho 

24 agriculture.

25

26 So how can the NRC conclude that building this facility is vital, and that the most problematic 

27 outcome to be evaluated is construction dust?

28

29 [118-04, Caroline Morris] The draft EIS too asserts without proof a greater need for 

30 domestically produced enriched uranium, Yet the document then contradicts the claim by these 

31 factors showing no need for the EREF: 1) the enormous expense and delays of the US nuclear 

32 renaissance,... 

33

34 [131-04, Morty Prisament] Finally, the document’s projected demand for U2 is based upon 

35 certain scenarios regarding future nuclear energy power plants. This scenario needs to be 

36 defined in far greater detail and, further, the document needs to present alternative scenarios in 

37 recognition of that alternative public policy decisions, domestically and globally, are equally 

38 likely. A multitude of factors can influence these projections, including economics of nuclear 

39 power as compared to alternatives, resolution of nuclear waste storage issues, liability issues, 

40 system safety issues, proliferations concerns, and governments’ ability and willingness to 

41 provide funding (i.e.; loan guarantees, subsidies, excess liability coverage, etc.) to support 

42 nuclear energy development. 

43

44 [153-05, Andrea Shipley; 197-05, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

45 Not to mention that the EIS claims that the need for AREVA’s enriched uranium will be spurred 

46 by the building of a fleet of reactors. Economic costs, delays, and safety issues all indicate that 

47 this supposed renaissance is not only improbable, but unlikely. 

48
I-91

1 [169-01, Margaret Stewart] And aside from AREVA’s greed, grim, and very, very devastating 

2 global environmental and human rights record around the world, particularly in Africa, I 

3 vehemently oppose the NRC licensing of this facility on grounds that the facility has not been 

4 proven necessary, a huge amount of dangerous radioactive waste that would be created has no 

5 disposal place, the nuclear reactors that the EIS says will need AREVA’s product more than 

6 likely will never be built. 

7

8 [169-03, Margaret Stewart] This Draft EIS appears to be based on the unproven assumption 

9 that there will be a large number of nuclear reactors built needing AREVA’s product. Given that 

10 we all live in a globally threatened economic world, where scarce monies are ever-shrinking, 

11 there are ever-present reactor construction delays, safety questions unanswered, and spiraling 

12 out of control costs, these assumptions seem dubious, at best. 

13

14 [181-04, Roger Turner] So, this brings to mind the other error in this EIS in assuming a need 

15 for enrichment based on new nuclear power plants in the United States. Unfortunately, the 

16 NRC fails to take a hard look at this purported need. A nuclear power plant hasn’t been built in 

17 the United States for two decades. The fact is, most states and power companies don’t want 

18 nuclear power plants with their high cost, especially the high cost of spent fuel storage and 

19 cleanup. Especially considering that there’s no permanent repository. The emphasis may be for 

20 less nuclear, given the problems with waste, and the fact the higher cost that these states and 

21 power companies must endure, because there isn’t a permanent repository. 

22

23 The final EIS should more carefully evaluate and revise the projected need for this plant. The 

24 fact is, there’s not general support in the U.S. for new nuclear power plants to the extent that 

25 warrants this project, and other sources of enriched uranium meets our needs....

26

27 [187-06, John Weber] I recommend the “no action alternative” for the following reasons. With 

28 many of the current US reactors nearing the end of the design life expectancy and very few, if 

29 any, new reactors likely to be build due to economics, a case has not been made for a need for 

30 this plant.

31

32 [191-11, Liz Woodruff] The EIS claims that the need fulfilled by the Areva facility will be 

33 spurred by the building of a new fleet of reactors. Economic costs, delays, and safety issues all 

34 indicate that this supposed resurgence is not only improbable, but unlikely.

35

36 [193-09, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And finally, the draft EIS 

37 claims the need for AREVA’s enriched uranium will be spurred by the building of a new fleet of 

38 reactors. But economic cost delays and safety issues all indicate the supposed renaissance is 

39 unlikely.... And we would argue that this is not in fact a renaissance. That the very premise of 

40 the EIS is incorrect. We’re actually set up for a collapse of the nuclear power industry. 

41

42 Response: As discussed in Section 1.3.1 of the EIS, the NRC expects to license the next 

43 generation of nuclear power plants using 10 CFR Part 52. Part 52 governs the issuance of 

44 standard design certifications (DCs), early site permits (ESPs), and combined licenses (COLs) 

45 for nuclear power plants. The NRC staff is engaged in numerous ongoing interactions with 

46 vendors and utilities regarding prospective new reactor applications and licensing activities. 

47 Based on these interactions, the NRC staff has received a significant number of new reactor 

48 COL applications (COLAs) since 2007. As of December 2010, the NRC is actively reviewing 
I-92

1 12 COLAs for a total of 20 nuclear reactor units. The NRC has suspended 6 COLA reviews due 

2 to changes in applicants’ business strategies or the timing of their construction plans. One of 

3 the suspended COLAs was converted by the applicant to an ESP application. Assuming 

4 regulatory requirements are met, the NRC expects to issue two COLs by the end of 2011. 

5

6 The NRC has three DC applications and two DC amendment applications currently under 

7 review. As of December 2010, one DC application and one DC amendment are in rulemaking. 

8 The NRC has received two Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) DC renewal requests in 

9 calendar year 2010 and expects to receive one new DC application by fiscal year 2012.

10

11

12 Comment: The following comments assert that foreign ownership of the proposed EREF and 

13 other U.S. enrichment facilities does not fulfill the need for a domestic supply of enriched 

14 uranium.

15

16 [015-02, Beatrice Brailsford] The National Energy Security Policy objective AREVA’s plant is 

17 supposed to meet was enunciated in a 2002 letter from the DOE to the NRC. The focus of that 

18 letter was not that the U.S. needed a foreign company to build a plant here, but rather that an 

19 American company should have a stake in U.S. enrichment capacity. Eight years later, there 

20 are no more nuclear reactors operating in the world, but as of June, URENCO, a German 

21 company, is enriching uranium in New Mexico. The NRC’s efforts to ignore that plant in the 

22 Draft EIS are painful to watch.

23

24 At any rate, let’s go back to the need for domestic supplies of enriched uranium. The key word 

25 here is “domestic.” AREVA is owned by the French government.

26

27 [015-10, Beatrice Brailsford] At any rate, Areva is owned by the French government.

28

29 [031-01, James Cooper] I am OPPOSED to the Areva project. As an Idaho taxpayer and voter 

30 I feel this state does NOT NEED a foreign company to build any facility on our soil - much less 

31 one which is subject to accidents and one whose profits go to another country.

32

33 [088-04, Stan Kidwell] French-owned Areva’s plant will not increase US energy security by 

34 providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium.

35

36 [095-04, Linda Leeuwrik; 127-01, Sheila Plowman] Areva’s plant would not increase US 

37 energy security by providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium. Areva is owned by the 

38 French government.

39

40 [110-01, John and Susan Medlin] As the Snake River Alliance presentation pointed out, there 

41 is no current need for this facility, no compelling evidence that a nuclear renaissance is coming 

42 (or inevitable), no rationale for a French company building a nuclear facility in Idaho that 

43 purports to promote US energy security while importing inputs and exporting outputs, no 

44 provision for the deteriorating and dangerous waste that will haunt us for decades or maybe 

45 forever, no concern for yet another threat to the Snake River aquifer, the lifeblood of Idaho 

46 agriculture.

47
I-93

1 So how can the NRC conclude that building this facility is vital, and that the most problematic 

2 outcome to be evaluated is construction dust?

3

4 [115-02, Nicholas Molenaar] Why isn’t there a United States Corporation capable and willing 

5 to build this type of enrichment facility? 

6

7 [150-07, Katie Seevers] The company who is creating this facility is French, and its production 

8 of enriched uranium in the United States does not result in domestic control of that product as 

9 addressed in the draft EIS, section 2-17.

10

11 [153-03 and 153-04, Andrea Shipley; 191-10, Liz Woodruff; 197-04, Andrea Shipley, on 

12 behalf of the Snake River Alliance] The EIS clearly states that Areva’s product will be 

13 shipped overseas, therefore nullifying the project’s effects on domestic uses of enriched 

14 uranium. Because Areva is a French company, its production of enriched uranium in the U.S.

15 does not actually result in domestic control of that product (draft EIS, 2-17).

16

17 [175-06, Ellen Thomas] Areva’s plant would not increase US energy security or 

18 nonproliferation by providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium. Areva is owned by the 

19 French government.

20

21 [183-06 and 183-14, James Vincent] In conclusion, the (EIS 4-136) states the French 

22 company, AREVA’s enriched product will be shipped overseas as is their profits. I do not see 

23 how this proposed project will make my country have any more domestic control over our needs 

24 for enriched fuel. The EIS specifies that the numbers of license requests for new enriched 

25 uranium, EIS 1-6, are in excess of the need for the new enriched uranium. Given the potential 

26 for accidents is considerable, I would urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny this 

27 permit at this time. I would also like to thank the Commission for hearing my testimony.

28

29 [187-07, John Weber] A plan owned by a foreign company will do nothing to protect US 

30 national security. 

31

32 [193-08, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Third, there’s currently 

33 enough enriched uranium for domestic use, and AREVA is a French company and gets it 

34 uranium supply from the international market. So how does this facility give us a more reliable 

35 source of domestically-produced uranium, enriched uranium? 

36

37 [193-13, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] So the uranium, which is what 

38 we need the reliable supply of, is coming from international markets. Why does building a facility 

39 by a French government-owned company in the US increase the reliability of that supply, if it’s 

40 coming internationally?

41

42 [192-18, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope that it is recognized that, while the proposal for this facility 

43 is based on the sole premise that a domestic uranium enrichment facility is needed to increase 

44 our national energy security, it will not increase our national energy security to have a foreign 

45 company enrich foreign chemicals, reap foreign profits, and sell the product to other foreign 

46 nations, as the AREVA proposal promises to do.

47

48 Response: As discussed in Section 1.6 of the EIS, AES is a Delaware limited liability 

49 corporation that was formed solely to provide uranium enrichment services for commercial 
I-94

1 nuclear power plants. The investigation of any foreign relationship to determine whether it is 

2 inimical to the common defense and security of the United States is beyond the scope of this 

3 EIS and was addressed as part of the NRC’s SER (NRC, 2010b). 

4

5

6 Comment: The following comments suggest that the need for domestic production of enriched 

7 uranium is not being met because the uranium feed material would be coming from a foreign 

8 source.

9

10 [083-02, Diane Jones] I believe that the EIS really needs to address the obvious contradiction 

11 between the assertion that enrichment uranium is needed for the US energy independence, and 

12 the stated fact that the uranium itself may be imported and the product of enrichment may be 

13 exported.

14

15 [095-03 and 095-04, Linda Leeuwrik; 127-01, Sheila Plowman] Areva’s plant would not 

16 increase US energy security by providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium. Areva is 

17 owned by the French government. The raw material for the plant would be imported and some 

18 portion of its product would be exported.

19

20 [153-02, Andrea Shipley; 197-02, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

21 The purpose and the need for this facility fails to be addressed in the EIS. There is already 

22 uranium enrichment in the U.S., and the raw material comes from a foreign source. Since the 

23 uranium that will be enriched by Areva will come from foreign sources, the licensing of this 

24 facility does not create increased domestic control of reliable supplies of enriched uranium, Draft 

25 EIS, 2-6 

26

27 [182-02, Brianna Ursenbach] The EIS states the facility is necessary to US energy security;

28 however, this argument is based on the unstated and unproven premise that the U.S. must have 

29 domestic sources for all of its nuclear fuel needs.

30

31 For the sake of argument, let us accept this dubious notion, and assume all parts of the fuel 

32 cycle must be available in the U.S., to have a reliable and secure supply. From there it follows 

33 that we would need to source all of our raw uranium domestically as well. 

34

35 Yet the EIS acknowledges that the U.S. will continue to import yellow cake from foreign 

36 countries. If we cannot get all the raw material, then we cannot convert it to UF6 and domestic 

37 enrichment facilities become irrelevant.

38

39 In many ways, this energy security argument is analogous to saying that we would be insulated 

40 from OPEC, and oil supply fluctuations, if only we were to find all or our oil in the U.S. Clearly, 

41 both of these ideas are absurd.

42

43 Now one may argue that we simply need to resume uranium mining at home to solve this 

44 conundrum. But while it is true that U.S. does have extensive uranium reserves, the legacy of 

45 destruction and contamination left by past mining efforts make resurgence very improbable.

46

47 Indeed, as one example, the Navaho Nation, whose land contains nearly one-quarter of all U.S. 

48 reserves, has specifically banned uranium mining If mining is not going to be resumed in the 
I-95

1 U.S. in any significant way, then additional enrichment facilities cannot ensure a reliable fuel 

2 supply, and the Eagle Rock facility is once again shown to be unnecessary.

3

4 [191-08, Liz Woodruff] Since the uranium slated for enrichment will be from foreign sources, 

5 the licensing of this facility does not in fact create increased domestic control of reliable supplies 

6 of enriched uranium (draft EIS, 2-6).

7

8 [193-08, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Third, there’s currently 

9 enough enriched uranium for domestic use, and AREVA is a French company and gets it 

10 uranium supply from the international market. So how does this facility give us a more reliable 

11 source of domestically-produced uranium, enriched uranium? 

12

13 [193-13, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] So the uranium, which is what 

14 we need the reliable supply of, is coming from international markets. Why does building a facility 

15 by a French government-owned company in the US increase the reliability of that supply, if it’s 

16 coming internationally?

17

18 Response: Although the NRC staff recognizes that some of the uranium feed material for the 

19 proposed EREF may come from foreign sources, the specific need in the case of the proposed 

20 EREF is for domestic uranium enrichment capacity, as discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the EIS. 

21 The source of the uranium hexafluoride for enrichment is part of the need for energy security, 

22 but is a separate concern and, therefore, not within the scope of this EIS. However, it should be 

23 noted that, as discussed in Sections 2.1.3, 2.1.4.2, 4.2.9.2, D.3.1.1, and D.4 of the EIS, the 

24 proposed EREF would receive a portion of its feed material from a U.S. UF6 production plant in 

25 Metropolis, Illinois; and would also receive UF6 feed material from a production facility in Port 

26 Hope, Ontario, Canada, which obtains some of its uranium feed from a U.S. source (Cameco, 

27 2010).

28

29

30 Comment: The following comments note that the enriched uranium product could be shipped 

31 outside the U.S., thereby negating any enhanced U.S. energy security. Some of these

32 comments also suggest that the profits would also go overseas.

33

34 [001-02, Reham Aarti] And I just don’t think there’s any need for it. There’s no need for that 

35 uranium, especially when it’s going somewhere else. It’s not even helping us. It’s not doing 

36 anything here but creating trash. We.re a big giant trash can for France, and I don’t think it’s 

37 acceptable. 

38

39 [014-02, William Blair] While some jobs would be created, the processed uranium would likely 

40 be exported and much of the financial benefit would be to France.

41

42 [015-03, Beatrice Brailsford] And, finally, the product, enriched uranium. The Draft EIS tells 

43 us that all AREVA’s enriched uranium could, theoretically, be sold to U.S. companies, but it also 

44 tells us that potential customers are in Washington, South Carolina, North Carolina, and 

45 overseas. Is overseas a new state? But perhaps the theory will play out. 

46

47 [015-07, Beatrice Brailsford] So, that’s the proposal to meet the need of a domestic supply of 

48 enriched uranium. A uranium factory without any national purpose will produce fuel for 
I-96

1 everywhere in the world but here in Idaho, send its profits to France, and leave us with the 

2 waste. 

3

4 [015-11, Beatrice Brailsford] According to Areva, the natural uranium destined for its plant 

5 here belongs to American companies. But according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, as of 2007, 

6 owners and operators of US nuclear power plants bought 92 per cent of their uranium from 

7 foreign sources. And where is the natural uranium converted to uranium hexafluoride on its way 

8 to Idaho? According to the draft EIS, in Illinois, Canada, and overseas. And finally, the product, 

9 enriched uranium. The Draft EIS tells us that enriched uranium from Areva’s plant could 

10 “theoretically” all be sold to US companies. But it also tells us that potential customers are fuel 

11 fabrication facilities in Washington, South Carolina, North Carolina, and overseas. 

12

13 [040-02, Collin Day] We don’t need this facility. It’s already been proven – or it’s been shown 

14 that all this is going to be exported out. It’s not going to help our energy independence. 

15

16 [031-01, James Cooper] I am OPPOSED to the Areva project. As an Idaho taxpayer and voter 

17 I feel this state does NOT NEED a foreign company to build any facility on our soil - much less 

18 one which is subject to accidents and one whose profits go to another country.

19

20 [032-04, Cindy Cottrell] I’m against a foreign country making the profit from this plant and 

21 leaving the contamination in our Country.

22

23 [071-04, David Hensel] I think what you need to look at a little more closely is there doesn’t 

24 seem to be any guarantees that the enriched uranium that this plant is going to produce will be 

25 used in this country, meaning there’s no guarantee.

26

27 [088-03, Stan Kidwell] The raw material for the plant would be imported, a portion of its 

28 product would be exported.

29

30 [095-04, Linda Leeuwrik; 127-01, Sheila Plowman] Some portion of its product would be 

31 exported.

32

33 [104-01, Carolyn McCollum] There’s little advantage to us Idahoans when Areva’s nuclear 

34 fuel would be sent worldwide and its profits back to France while we are left with its radioactive 

35 waste, compounding INL’s nuclear activities that have plutonium-contaminated the aquifer. 

36

37 [120-03, Frank Nicholson] This enrichment factory: • Is unnecessary. We were told it was for 

38 national consumption but as there is not that much demand, the finished product will be sent 

39 overseas no matter what they promise. 

40

41 [147-08, Joey Schueler] 4. Areva, a French company, will be the owner of this company 

42 meaning much of the revenues will go over sees. It’s also unclear how many employees will be 

43 Idaho residents.

44

45 [153-03 Andrea Shipley; 197-03, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

46 The EIS clearly states that AREVA’s product will be shipped overseas, therefore nullifying the 

47 project’s effects on domestic uses of enriched uranium. 

48
I-97

1 [171-04, John Tanner] Now, okay, we could import enriched uranium, but then not only the 

2 profits go abroad, but the jobs, as well. I don’t think that’s what we want to do.

3

4 [175-06, Ellen Thomas] Areva’s plant would not increase US energy security or 

5 nonproliferation by providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium. Areva is owned by the 

6 French government. The raw material for the plant would be imported. Some portion of its 

7 product would be exported.

8

9 [180-10, Kaye Turner] Is it true Areva is planning to export most of their product to other 

10 countries?

11

12 [191-10, Liz Woodruff] The EIS clearly states that Areva’s product will be shipped overseas, 

13 therefore nullifying the project’s effects on domestic uses of enriched uranium. Because Areva 

14 is a French company, its production of enriched uranium in the US does not actually result in 

15 domestic control of that product (draft EIS, 2-17).

16

17 [193-07, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Secondly, the draft EIS clearly 

18 states that AREVA’s product will be shipped overseas, nullifying the project’s effects on 

19 domestic uses of enriched uranium....

20 And finally, quote: “Potential customers are fuel fabrication facilities in Richmond, Washington, 

21 Columbia, South Carolina, Williams, North Carolina, and overseas, through ports in Virginia and 

22 Maryland.” So this domestic reliable supply of enriched uranium that we need in this country will 

23 be shipped overseas by AREVA. The need argument is highly problematic and doesn’t stand. 

24

25 [192-18, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope that it is recognized that, while the proposal for this facility 

26 is based on the sole premise that a domestic uranium enrichment facility is needed to increase 

27 our national energy security, it will not increase our national energy security to have a foreign 

28 company enrich foreign chemicals, reap foreign profits, and sell the product to other foreign 

29 nations, as the AREVA proposal promises to do.

30

31 Response: As discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the EIS, one purpose of the proposed EREF is to 

32 promote U.S. energy security by providing an additional domestic source of enriched uranium

33 production capacity. The export of any enriched uranium from the proposed EREF in excess of 

34 that required by domestic U.S. customers is not inconsistent with that purpose, as long as this 

35 export complies with applicable laws and regulations. The destination of the enriched uranium 

36 from the proposed EREF is specified by the utility customer who is also responsible for 

37 specifying the supplier of the uranium to be enriched. The NRC licenses the import and export 

38 of radioactive materials under 10 CFR Part 110. 

39

40 As discussed in Section 1.6 of the EIS, AES is a Delaware limited liability corporation that was 

41 formed solely to provide uranium enrichment services for commercial nuclear power plants. 

42 AES’s principal business location is in Bethesda, Maryland, while operations would occur at the 

43 proposed EREF in Bonneville County, Idaho. These locations, both within the United States, 

44 would benefit from the investments made to construct and operate the proposed EREF. 

45 Determination of the destination of any additional profits is not within the scope of this EIS.

46

47
I-98

1 I.5.5 Scope of the EIS Analysis

2

3 Comment: The following comment discusses national versus local issues pertaining to the 

4 construction of the proposed EREF.

5

6 [035-01, Stephen Crowley] I guess my concern is a certain kind of inconsistency in how you’re 

7 evaluating the cost and benefits. And it might just be a misunderstanding. But it seems to me

8 that the primary positive reason for constructing an enrichment facility is one having to do with 

9 provision of safe energy resources for the nation. If that’s correct, then what you’ve given me is 

10 an argument for building an enrichment plant somewhere. Okay. Now I’m not -- I don’t want to 

11 bore into the issue of whether or not that’s correct. But what I’m going to say is what you’re 

12 talking about is whether or not we should have a plant at all.

13

14 That’s what I got. They call that dancing, where I’m from. Right. So the-- yes. So putting aside 

15 any issues about the correctness or incorrectness of this judgment -- right -- this is an argument 

16 for building a plant somewhere. Right.

17

18 Now what we haven’t heard -- so what that makes me worry about, then is the process that the 

19 EIS went through in ruling out a certain kind of alternative sources for this product; right? 

20 Because, really, in conducting that process, what you thought about was whether or not to build 

21 the Eagle Rock facility. Right? So it’s a question of should the Eagle Rock facility be built or not, 

22 and then you looked at alternative locations and ruled those out. 

23

24 But that’s not the same question; right. That’s a question about a particular facility at a particular 

25 place, and we’ve been -- we’ve identified positives and negatives of building that particular 

26 facility; right. And whatever you think of those, those would be equally true if you built that 

27 facility anywhere at all; right. There would be waste concerns. There would be economic 

28 benefits. 

29

30 So there’s a certain kind of mismatch between the primary motivation for the existence of this 

31 facility, right, which is a national motivation, and the terms of the debate, which is a particular 

32 debate about an individual facility; right. So whether I agree with the proponents, or whether I 

33 agree with the people who aren’t impressed, I’m like -- I’m saying that seems to be inconsistent 

34 with your primary motivation. That seems to me, that given that this is an EIS for a particular 

35 facility, that general -- or that national level motivation has to come off the table; right. It should 

36 be the issues about the particular facility under consideration, and if what you’re doing is 

37 identifying features of this facility that could equally well be provided by any other facility, then 

38 those are not relevant to identifying whether or not to build this facility.

39

40 Response: As pointed out in the comment, the need for the proposed EREF is national in 

41 scope. The process used to select the location of the proposed EREF is discussed in 

42 Section 2.3.1 of the EIS. Potential impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

43 the proposed EREF at the chosen site are analyzed to comply with NEPA. All impacts, 

44 regardless of whether they are similar to those if the facility were built elsewhere, must be 

45 considered in the EIS.

46

47
I-99

1 Comment: The following comment requests that certain conditions be included in AES’s

2 license.

3

4 [066-01, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] In 

5 addition to comments on the EIS, if the AREVA facility is granted a license by the NRC we 

6 requested the following conditions be included in the license.

7

8 1. The state requests the NRC require AES to submit a yearly report to the Director of the 

9 Idaho DEQ on or before January 15th of each year that identifies the number of cylinders of 

10 DUF6 stored on site and the date of the longest stored container.

11

12 2. The state requests the NRC require AES to provide the state the same access to documents 

13 and materials relating to the AES radiation protection program that is required to be provided to 

14 the NRC.

15

16 3. The state requests the NRC require AES to allow Idaho DEQ to accompany NRC staff on 

17 any of its inspections of the AES facility. In this regard, the state requests the NRC require AES 

18 to allow Idaho DEQ staff the same access to its facilities, documents, materials and personnel 

19 to which NRC is entitled. Idaho DEQ shall execute any confidentiality agreement necessary to 

20 participate in such inspections and shall comply with all appropriate AES plant rules (e.g., 

21 safety, security) and any applicable NRC requirements when participating in such inspections.

22

23 4. The state requests the NRC require AES to provide the Idaho DEQ the physical security plan 

24 for the AES facility.

25

26 5. The state requests that NRC require AES to provide periodic training to local emergency 

27 responders for both transportation and plant operation incidents, and that the Idaho DEQ be 

28 sent a copy of the training plan and notified when such training occurs.

29

30 6. It is common for facilities of this nature to fund monitoring programs run by a separate party, 

31 in addition to their own program. The state requests that NRC require AES to fund an 

32 independent third party Environmental Monitoring program for the Eagle Rock Facility.

33

34 Response: As stated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in the above 

35 comment, its request for including the license conditions is “in addition to comments on the EIS.” 

36 AES’s license and the conditions in that license are not included in the scope of the EIS 

37 analysis, and are separate issues that are determined by the Commission following the 

38 issuance of the SER and Final EIS and the conclusion of the mandatory hearings. In the 

39 meantime, the NRC plans to work with IDEQ and AES regarding IDEQ’s requested license 

40 conditions.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comment relates to spent fuel rod reprocessing and high-level waste 

44 generation and handling.

45

46 [091-01, Arthur Kull] I have followed the debate and arguments from both sides of the 

47 spectrum and came to the conclusion that the NRC should grant AREVA the permit to build and 
I-100

1 operate the uranium enrichment facility planned for the Idaho Falls area. It is an important step 

2 for us in the US that spent fuel rods be reprocessed to 

3

4 • Increase the utilization factor of the material that is now stored at the many power plants.

5

6 • Reduce the amount of high level waste generated that needs a permanent storage facility like 

7 Yucca Mountain. 

8

9 Response: The construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed EREF does not 

10 involve the reprocessing of spent fuel rods or the generation or handling of high-level waste. 

11 Therefore, the subject of the above comment is not within the scope of the EIS.

12

13

14 Comment: The following comments question the pursuit of technology that appears to have a 

15 limited lifetime.

16

17 [183-04, James Vincent] My other issue is about estimates of uranium throughout the world. 

18 The research I have done shows that there’s somewhere between 50 years at the low end, and 

19 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of 

20 dollars to implement, with public tax dollars for a loan guarantee, and I realize that it is a 

21 guarantee, and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology? Even 100 years is not very 

22 long, as far as reserves.

23

24 [183-11, James Vincent] My research has found known estimates world wide of uranium 

25 somewhere between 50 years on the low end and 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would 

26 we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of dollars to implement with public tax dollars 

27 for a loan guarantee and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology, Even 100 years is 

28 not very long as far as reserves.

29

30 Response: The pursuit of the gas centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment, which has a 

31 limited lifetime, is a national energy policy issue that is not within the scope of this EIS (which is

32 for the proposed EREF). As discussed in Section 1.3 of the EIS, the proposed action is 

33 intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and economical domestic source of 

34 uranium enrichment services. The above comments are directed at the choice of nuclear power 

35 as an energy source. These comments are not within the scope of the EIS.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comments raise various U.S. government issues that are not directly 

39 related to the scope of the EIS.

40

41 [110-02, John and Susan Medlin] In the US today, government oversight of corporate 

42 behavior is laughable, regardless of the riskiness of corporate operations. And the quaint 

43 concept of “corporate social responsibility” has been completely replaced with single-minded 

44 pursuit of profitability regardless of consequences to human, economic, and environmental 

45 health. Ergo, corporations operate with neither external nor internal restraint, however vile the 

46 consequences might turn out to be. 

47
I-101

1 Now in Idaho we have the perfect combination: tough times, high joblessness, hungry 

2 contractors, no government oversight at any level, and corporate greed. This is the recipe for

3 ruination of our environment, and subsequently our health and long term economic development 

4 potential. 

5

6 Add our unequivocal “NO” to the responses you have received regarding approval of this 

7 proposal. 

8

9 [180-12, Kaye Turner] And finally, I wonder if Iran was proposing a plant like this would the 

10 United States have an objection to it?

11

12 Response: U.S. government policies, including national energy policy issues, are not within the 

13 scope of this EIS, which is for the proposed EREF. The proposed action is intended to satisfy 

14 the need for an additional reliable and economical domestic source of uranium enrichment 

15 services. The issues raised in the above comments are national policy issues that are outside

16 the scope of this EIS.

17

18

19 Comment: The following comments relate to parts of the nuclear fuel cycle other than uranium 

20 enrichment.

21

22 [131-08, Morty Prisament] Source and Implications of Uranium Proposed to be Used: The 

23 source of uranium to be used and environmental implications related to extraction and transport 

24 needs to be evaluated, including environmental justice and socioeconomic considerations. 

25 National security considerations related to using proposed sources versus alternative sources 

26 should also be discussed.

27

28 [191-06, Liz Woodruff] Radioactive material is inherently dangerous. Just the activities directly 

29 connected with uranium enrichment pose risks, as do all other parts of the fuel chain. The NRC 

30 should perform a complete analysis of the risks of uranium mining and milling, mixing yellow 

31 cake with hexafluoride (itself a dangerous material), enriching UF6 in gas centrifuge plants, 

32 storing and deconverting depleted UF6, disposing of depleted uranium and low level waste, 

33 fabricating fuel from enriched uranium, and all intermediate transportation steps.

34

35 [193-02, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] But when we talk about the 

36 waste, it’s really important that everybody here understand what is being proposed. The 

37 proposal is for a uranium enrichment factory, but that’s only one part of the nuclear fuel chain. 

38 The entire nuclear fuel chain is dirty, dangerous, and promotes the transportation of radioactive 

39 materials on interstates, railways, and highways, which presents an enormous risk.

40

41 First, uranium is mined, which produces a waste stream, then it’s transported, and it’s milled 

42 and refined, which produces a waste stream. Then it’s transported and it’s converted, which 

43 produces a waste stream. And then it is transported to a uranium enrichment factory. That is 

44 what is being proposed in Idaho. It’s very important that we understand that this is in the middle 

45 of the fuel chain. This not a nuclear power reactor. This is not a reprocessing facility. It’s an 

46 enrichment factory.

47
I-102

1 Response: The proposed action is intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and 

2 economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services. The comments are directed at 

3 evaluating impacts related to the origin of the uranium to be enriched and impacts of other parts 

4 of the nuclear fuel cycle, which are not part of the proposed action. Therefore, these comments

5 are not within the scope of the EIS.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comments suggest that other energy options be pursued.

9

10 [008-03, Carol Bachelder] But the decommission process and the construction process, and 

11 the transportation, and on and on and on -- how can we possibly expect any sort of economic 

12 feasibility for the price of this energy that we’re paying for with all these extensive expenses? It 

13 boggles the mind. I don’t see how we could possibly get, you know, the amount out of -- the 

14 amount of energy out of this thing that we’re going to put into it, you know, in the terms of 

15 money. Energy is really kind of behind the whole argument here, and I’m interested in 

16 alternative forms of energy, so I would have to support the not action alternative for the nuclear 

17 plant. But solar has great potential because of economic warming. A month ago, the entire 

18 United states, on the weather map, was red. If we could only figure out storage for this energy 

19 from the sun, we could get through the whole winter. My neighbor has a big solar panel, and 

20 she put drapes over it because, I mean, you don’t want to warm your house in the summer time,

21 do you? But if you could store the energy from the heat of the sun during this summer, you 

22 could get through the winter, and I don’t think that the cost could possibly compare to the 

23 amount of money that you’re proposing to spend on this thing. 

24

25 [025-03, Hon. Sue Chew] You know, when we look at our energy needs, you know, I really am 

26 the “big picture” person. And not only should we look at nuclear as a source of energy, but, you 

27 know, we’ve got a lot of other things that we really should be looking at in the state and in this 

28 nation. 

29

30 And I would like as much effort being put forth, and as much support, being put forth with our 

31 other sources of energy. When we look at solar, we look at geo, when we look at wind, I’d like to 

32 see that develop, especially in this state. And, you know, we’ve heard that the energy that would 

33 be developed through this particular mechanism doesn’t benefit our state. I’d like for us to reflect 

34 on that. 

35

36 And I’d like for, you know, the ingenuity of Idahoans here, our researchers are regular people 

37 that have good ideas, really, to be supported in our state with regard to these other sources. 

38 Conservation goes a long way, and I think that all these things need to be at the table, not just 

39 nuclear, and, you know, I really have a caveat with regard to this, because of potential dangers. 

40

41 [032-06, Cindy Cottrell] The jobs that this plant will produce will be few in comparison to the 

42 cost of allowing it here. Maybe 300 people will get jobs that will not last forever, but only for the 

43 lifetime of the plant. Right now it will cost tax payers would have to loan Areva $2 billion. Other 

44 types of energy would be much more worth the taxpayer’s money. That’s a lot of money for 

45 300 jobs and waste to manage forever. Other kinds of energy that is less risky would be better 

46 to invest in.

47
I-103

1 [040-03, Collin Day] We need to look at things like – I’ve been reading about the “smart grid.” I 

2 think we have got plenty of energy in this country. We just need to use it smarter, or we need to 

3 be smarter about how we use it. 

4

5 [044-01, Dennis Donnelly] I would point out that this section of considering alternatives 

6 assumes that it has to supply enriched uranium for national energy security; that is, they 

7 assume that this plant is going to be built, and it neglects the alternative of not building these 

8 plants. 

9

10 I would point out that if you build this facility, it commits America, this is the unstated thing, it 

11 commits America essentially to a future that includes nuclear power, and all the nightmares 

12 associated with it. I would like to point out that there are other options that some of the 

13 nightmares would be a police state in our communities, where the Soviet Russians and the 

14 Germans that we already have that police state. These things are so dangerous that we’re 

15 considering bombing Iran and the Israelis are considering bombing Iran for exactly the same 

16 facility. It’s so dangerous. The reason is, of course, that you build this facility, and then you build 

17 the reactors, the reactors breed plutonium, plutonium can make weapons. You can’t take that 

18 away once you’ve done it.

19

20 The police state is a terrible thing. The rest of it has to do with the threat of military attack on 

21 these facilities, on the plants. Nobody seems to address that all these atomic power plants are 

22 built above ground. Any kind of terrorist or military attack on any one of them can take out two 

23 states, that much area. We’ve seen Chernobyl. We know it can happen, and it has happened. 

24 Even accidents can take out a large area. Right now we have major problems still from 

25 Chernobyl, and everyone knows it.

26

27 I would like to point out there are alternatives that have not been considered, that I’d like to 

28 mention. A couple of weeks ago, there was an announcement in the “New York Times”, and I 

29 followed it up, and yes, it’s true, there was a study in North Carolina that concluded for the first 

30 time that new power plants in North Carolina were cheaper to build with solar power than with 

31 nuclear power. This is a major crossover point that should be considered. And you see there are 

32 none of the problems, there are no activation products, there are no fission products, there are 

33 no actinides, there is no pluming of unmanageable wastes that we’re casting into the future for 

34 all of geologic time that require management and armies to manage them. None of the 

35 problems if you go with solar power, and with -- instead of nuclear power. And I would urge 

36 everyone to consider personally their own career options right now. 

37

38 If we go ahead with this plant, we’re committing to a future that dumps unmanageable problems, 

39 and a police state on the future of this country, and every country. Whereas, if we do the 

40 unspoken thing, let all our aging and outdated nuclear plants expire, and then use clean energy, 

41 non-carbon energy for the future, and not this totally toxic nuclear energy.

42

43 [050-06, Joanie Fauci] The money being spent on these EIS documents, the hearings, the pre44 building, and the rest should instead be spent on research and production of alternative energy 

45 sources. Alternative energy research and production also brings jobs.

46

47 [071-01, David Hensel] I’m not a proponent of nuclear power, and I may be a wacko, but the 

48 reason I’m not a proponent of nuclear power, one of the reasons is don’t think it’s a very 

49 cost-effective or a very good energy source as far as being competitive on the energy market.

50
I-104

1 [083-03, Diane Jones] As far as need, I know some speakers have attempted to make a case 

2 for need in terms of jobs and tax base, and any project can be justified in terms of jobs and tax 

3 base, including cleaning toxic waste. That’s no really what we want in Idaho. There are plenty of 

4 alternatives. I know that’s not covered by the EIS, but in the “big picture,” jobs could be created 

5 with energy systems that might be based on wind and solar, that would have less adverse 

6 environmental effects. 

7

8 [095-10, Linda Leeuwrik] In both Idaho and the entire United States, we need to focus our 

9 resources on developing clean and renewable sources of energy, rather than investing more 

10 money into “dirty” sources and technologies that will leave us with waste that we have no good 

11 solutions for dealing with. Thus, I cannot state adamantly enough, how opposed I am to Areva’s 

12 proposed enrichment facility in South East Idaho.

13

14 [113-02, Ken Miller] There’s been talk about nuclear as a baseload power source, and as a 

15 clean alternative to coal, and also gas to a degree, I suppose. It is true that nuclear power has a 

16 capacity factor, as we heard earlier tonight, that does qualify it as baseload, but it’s not the only 

17 resource that can fill that bill. The U.S. Department of Energy does not put all of the nation’s 

18 future energy eggs in the nuclear basket. Far from it, it envisions a much more diverse energy 

19 portfolio that is more reliant than ever on energy efficiency, and conservation, and other truly 

20 renewable baseload energy resources. 

21

22 In Idaho, we have other baseload energy resources, such as hydropower and geothermal, and 

23 our utilities are working hand and glove with DOE at the INL, and at the National Renewable 

24 Energy Laboratory, to more efficiently integrate wind and solar into our increasingly smart grid. 

25 Our region’s six power plan, which was adopted by the Northwest Power and Conservation 

26 Council, projects that our region can meet 85 percent of our new load growth over the next 20 

27 years through energy efficiency, and to a degree, renewable energy. The plan does not envision 

28 the development of any large-scale regeneration for the next 20 years, and that would include 

29 nuclear. 

30

31 [103-06, Karen McCall] Areva wants US Federal loan guarantees in the amount of $2 billion 

32 dollars. US taxpayers would get far more energy for that money spent on renewables. An 

33 analysis by Idaho Power shows that nuclear power would cost significantly more per megawatt 

34 hour than wind, geothermal and biomass.

35

36 [106-04, Ted McConaughey] I also think that the – maybe the most interesting issue in favor 

37 of this project is the idea that we need a stable baseload, and a carbon-free stable baseload. 

38 And I feel like this – that there are alternatives for the baseload. I mean, certainly, hydro is one, 

39 and we have other ways of storing energy.

40

41 For example, for instance, any of these – any electricity generator can produce hydrogen, and 

42 we could store hydrogen, and I don’t know the economics of these various things, but what I do 

43 know is there are many possible ways of storing energy with efficient retrieval possible.

44

45 And so to think that we require immediate access to baseload power, at all times, I think ignores 

46 the possibility that we have other storage options that might be – that might work in conjunction 

47 with ephemeral power sources like wind and solar, in order to give us the essential benefits of 

48 baseload power.

49
I-105

1 [120-02, Frank Nicholson] Thorium is a viable alternative making this type of enrichment 

2 obsolete.

3

4 [120-05, Frank Nicholson] There are less dangerous methods of nuclear power being 

5 developed. i.e., thorium. Wait until these methods are practical and then relook at a modified 

6 proposal. 

7

8 [132-01, Margo and Dennis Proksa] However, there are many who know the truth about 

9 nuclear power - from mining to uranium enrichment and all the steps between - it’s dirty, 

10 dangerous, and expensive, And we think there’s no need for a renaissance at all because there 

11 are wiser alternatives to renewable sources.

12

13 We propose the following energy efficient strategies to be paid for with the $2 billion loan from 

14 the feds, and whatever Idaho is throwing in. Buy and install energy efficient appliances for every 

15 Idahoan who needs them: hot water heaters, refrigerators, washers, and dryers, insulate Idaho 

16 homes and commercial buildings that are inadequately protected, more cash for clunkers, 

17 expand renewable energy resource development, wind, solar, geothermal, and the grid, build 

18 bike paths throughout Idaho communities for everyone to use for commuting to work, and to 

19 schools, and for recreation, encourage bike travel by making it safe and enjoyable, get young 

20 people involved in energy issues and problem solving by developing an education program that 

21 encourages imagination, ingenuity, and self-sufficiency that are carbon-free and nuclear-free. 

22 Why not?

23

24 This would be an economic stimulus package that would diversify the population that needs 

25 help the most, the unemployed and the middle class. This could have a positive and profound 

26 effect locally and globally. It would create jobs for Americans, the appliance manufacturers who 

27 buy raw materials like steel, and delivery and installation jobs, and jobs to extract recyclable 

28 materials from old appliances. Jobs where they make insulation, and jobs to install the 

29 insulation, jobs in manufacturing fuel efficient cars, trucks, and buses, jobs in city planning to 

30 route bike paths throughout their communities, and jobs for road and path construction, as well 

31 as the materials for that expansion, jobs in bike manufacturing, jobs in renewable energy 

32 technologies.

33

34 There are abundant health benefits and energy savings with this plan. A healthier population, 

35 because of the option to pedal around town, a broader cross section of Americans who will find 

36 work in their communities, and the cost of energy at home and fuel for their vehicles will be 

37 reined in, stress levels will drop improving everyone’s attitude and outlook. Other states and 

38 countries would admire Idaho for its truly progressive focus on the short and long-term goals. 

39 Idaho could become a model for sustainable living. Tourism would increase just because people 

40 would want to see progress to believe it, especially in such a scenic state.

41

42 In addition to these straightforward suggestions for energy savings, job creation, health benefits, 

43 and collective attitude adjustment, there are a wealth of other positive side effects for Idaho if 

44 AREVA does not build a uranium enriching plant here.

45

46 We would not have to loan a foreign company/country billions of dollars we can put to better use 

47 ourselves. And we don’t have to give them any more money if they underestimate costs, or 

48 have technical problems they don’t expect during construction, or pay for cleanup after they take 

49 their profits and return to France. Idaho would not be responsible for the safety and cost of 
I-106

1 storing tons of depleted uranium waiting patiently until the day comes when someone figures 

2 out what to do with it, and where to put it. Idahoans would not have to share the roads with 

3 thousands of loads of toxic and dangerous materials. Idahoans won’t have to worry about living 

4 downwind of smoke or emissions should there be a fire, or terrorist attack at the facility. We 

5 don’t have to endanger any wildlife because of habitat destruction, or lose productive farmland. 

6 We can rest assured radioactive materials will not be lost in the system and used for making 

7 bombs, since enrichment is a proliferable technology. The Snake River Aquifer would be 

8 protected from further contamination.

9

10 The advantages of not financing AREVA are huge. U.S. energy policy must shift its attention 

11 and resources to the development of carbon-free and nuclear-free alternatives that are faster, 

12 cheaper, and less risky. We can think outside the dirty, dangerous, and expensive nuclear 

13 power box.

14

15 [147-19, Joey Schueler] 15. Many things can be done to align our energy needs with the other 

16 options available to power our grids in America and with far less reliance on foreign trade:

17

18 a. Renewable energy sources are available and new technologies can be developed

19 through U.S. ingenuity, providing a global demand for American jobs and products.

20

21 b. The American grid is old and outdated. The restructuring of our grid will effectively 

22 limit waste, save the environment and provide an economic growth engine based on 

23 America’s “needs” not it’s consumerist wants.

24

25 c. Perhaps we should limit our energy use... I know most Americans don’t want to hear 

26 that, but if it’s that or sunbathing next to a depleted Uranium cesspool, which would you 

27 choose?

28

29 [168-09, Lon Stewart] The United States could invest the DOE $2 billion loan in American 

30 companies that would apply towards carbon free renewable energy such as geothermal, wind 

31 and solar power systems along with energy efficiency and conservation programs that would be 

32 on line sooner than any nuclear facility. The money would be distributed over many multiple 

33 companies rather than one facility. Even if a portion of the loan(s) defaulted, at least the money 

34 was spent in the United States, on our projects, employing our people, and we saved some 

35 energy in the process. The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone. The nuclear age 

36 should not end because we used up all the uranium. The US can become energy independent if 

37 we utilize our renewable energy sources and concentrate on conservation and efficiency 

38 measures. This sounds much better to me.

39

40 [175-03, Ellen Thomas] There is no need for a new US plant to enrich uranium for electricity 

41 production. Current supplies are clearly adequate, and as we develop healthy solar, wind, tidal 

42 and other truly clean energy systems, there is no need for new nuclear power plants. 

43

44 [181-10, Roger Turner] The following conditions, in combination, eliminate the need for this 

45 project: (a) recent finds of large amounts of natural gas in the U.S. is reducing interest in nuclear 

46 power and rendering nuclear power uneconomical in comparison. (b) the cost of solar and wind 

47 power are coming down resulting in a larger role for these power sources and; (c) with the 

48 reduction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. domestic uranium enrichment plants will be able to 
I-107

1 supply the nuclear power industry with ample supplies of U-235, without the need for this 

2 proposed, expensive, AREVA plant. The aforementioned points are detailed below:

3

4 (A) Recent finds of large amounts of natural gas fields in the U.S. reducing the interest and 

5 momentum by power companies in developing nuclear power. New finds of domestic natural 

6 gas has resulted in a switch in interest from coal and nuclear to gas for power supplies. A recent 

7 MIT study, that is more up-to-date than the study referenced in the draft EIS, reveals a likely 

8 economically realistic switch to natural gas for the United States power supplies. This study, by 

9 a group of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers and graduate students reflects the more 

10 accurate conditions for power plant construction in the United States for the next 40 years. The 

11 study shows a baseline global estimate of recoverable gas resources reaching some 16,200 

12 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), enough to last over 160 years at current global consumption rates. (The 

13 Future of Natural Gas -- Study finds significant potential to displace coal, reducing greenhouse 

14 gas emissions, MIT, June 2010) In addition the study reports the following trend:

15

16 “Natural-gas consumption will increase dramatically and will largely displace coal in the power 

17 generation sector by 2050 (the time horizon of the study) under a modeling scenario where, 

18 through carbon emissions pricing, industrialized nations reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 

19 2050, and large emerging economies, e.g. China, India and Brazil reduce CO2 emissions by 

20 50 percent by 2070. This assumes incremental reductions in the current price structures of the 

21 alternatives, including renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration.”

22

23 According to U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2010, domestic 

24 and Canadian gas supply will increase, at least to 2035.

25

26 Shale gas provides largest source of growth in U.S. natural gas supply

27

28 The increase in U.S. natural gas production from 2008 to 2035 in the AEO-2010 Reference 

29 case results primarily from continued growth in production of shale gas, recent discoveries in 

30 deep waters offshore, and, to a lesser extent, stranded natural gas brought to market after 

31 construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline is completed in 2023. Shale gas and coalbed 

32 methane make up 34 percent of total U.S. production in 2035, doubling their 17-percent share in 

33 2008. Shale gas is the largest contributor to the growth in production, while production from 

34 coalbed methane deposits remains relatively stable from 2008 to 2035.

35

36 (B) The cost of solar power is lower than nuclear power, resulting in a larger role for these 

37 power sources. The New York Times reports the following article:

38

39 Solar power costs have been declining, the costs of nuclear power have been rising inexorably 

40 over the past eight years, said Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont 

41 Law School’s Institute for Energy and Environment. Estimates of construction costs — about 

42 $3 billion per reactor in 2002 — have been regularly revised upward to an average of about 

43 $10 billion per reactor, and the estimates are likely to keep rising, said Mr. Cooper, an analyst 

44 specializing in tracking nuclear power costs. (New York Times; Special Report: Energy and 

45 Environment, Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage, July 26, 2010)

46

47 (C) Switch to other power sources means no need for Areva. Given the above two examples of 

48 a switch to other power sources than nuclear, the existing plans for enrichment will be adequate 

49 to supply the U.S. nuclear industry. The Les Urenco company has plans to produce up to 

50
I-108

1 6 million SWU; while the USEC produces 10.5 Million SWUs. Also, in 2008, an amended 

2 agreement allows Russia to export increasing amounts LEU available to nuclear power 

3 companies to the United States, starting with 442,000 pounds in 2011 and up to 13.7 Million 

4 pounds in 2020.

5

6 While it is true that some nuclear plants may expand their existing power plant, such as Watts 

7 Bar 2 (TVA), there will be nowhere near the number of new units predicted by the NRC’s Energy 

8 Assessment Administration Report (EIA 2009a) and nowhere near the need for SWUs 

9 referenced in the draft EIS for AREVA; and because of many nuclear plants are 

10 decommissioning -- there will be less and less need for enriched uranium. Many of the firms that 

11 initially consider nuclear construction are bound by State requirements that they be ‘prudent 

12 investors’. Therefore, many initial applicants to NRC are dropping out completely, or keeping 

13 them on hold.

14

15 Consequently, the EIS should carefully review current studies and assessments that show a 

16 general swing to natural gas, solar and wind. Unfortunately the NRC fails to take a hard look at 

17 this purported need. A nuclear power plant hasn’t been built in the United States in two 

18 decades. The EIS needs to provide economic comparisons of nuclear vs. Solar and Natural 

19 Gas. More and more companies are dropping their nuclear power applications to NRC, and 

20 therefore the need for this plant is not justified, given the existing and soon to open facilities in 

21 the U.S. to provide sources of enriched uranium. 

22

23 [193-12, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] This is from a study by 

24 Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School in June of 2009, and he argues that the cost projections 

25 for new reactors are four times as high as the initial nuclear renaissance projections. So there’s 

26 an economic obstacle, significant economic obstacle that has to be overcome for this supposed 

27 renaissance to occur. 

28

29 He argues that nuclear reactors are, in fact, the worst option from the point of view of the 

30 consumer in society. 

31

32 He talks about the ways in which efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, other 

33 renewables, are less costly and more viable forms of energy production, leaving us with six 

34 cents per kilowatt hour versus 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, to pursue the nuclear option.

35

36 And I would argue, in fact, that this third point should have been an alternative pursued in the 

37 EIS. You heard them say that they looked at the “no alternative,” or the “no action alternative.”

38 Why didn’t they look at the efficiency and renewable energy alternative?

39

40 And finally, the additional cost of building a hundred new nuclear reactors could be 1.9 to 

41 4.4 trillion dollars. Now I know that “billion” has lost its shock value lately, but we should kind of 

42 be shocked by the trillion number, and this economic obstacle is certainly one that calls into 

43 question the hypothesis posed by the NRC, that there’ll be a need for new enriched uranium.

44

45 And just to underscore this, this is a chart that was just released in a Duke University study in 

46 July of this year, and it shows, with the yellow line, the cost of nuclear going up and the cost of 

47 solar coming down. 

48
I-109

1 So this economic obstacle presented by the nuclear -- you know, before the nuclear industry, is 

2 one that renewables are not facing. As a matter of fact, the costs are coming down. 

3

4 And again, this obstacle is one that we believe will stop the supposed nuclear renaissance, and 

5 actually lead to a nuclear collapse, therefore nullifying the claim that’s the premise of the NRC, 

6 that there’s a need for new enriched uranium.

7

8 Response: The issues raised in the above comments are national energy policy issues that are 

9 not within the scope of this EIS, which is for the proposed EREF. The proposed action is 

10 intended to satisfy the need for an additional reliable and economical domestic source of 

11 uranium enrichment services. The alternatives in the comments raise national policy issues 

12 (e.g., finding other sources of energy) that would not satisfy the need of the proposed action,

13 and therefore such alternatives are not within the scope of the EIS.

14

15

16 Comment: The following comments raise objections to the preconstruction exemption granted 

17 to AES by the NRC and suggest that the impacts of preconstruction were not evaluated in the 

18 Draft EIS.

19

20 [015-18, Beatrice Brailsford] Because of an exemption granted in March 2010, Areva will be 

21 allowed to start “preconstruction” activities as early as October 2010. This preconstruction 

22 exemption shows a bias towards licensing. It appears the NRC has already made the decision 

23 to allow the project to move forward even before the necessary impact assessments and public 

24 comment periods have been completed. Preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal 

25 action. 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires that information be available before an agency makes 

26 decisions or takes any action. It is impossible for the NRC to produce a final EIS and ROD 

27 before preconstruction starts in October. The NRC must either revise the current draft to include 

28 the impacts of preconstruction or must write an additional EIS that specifically addresses 

29 preconstruction activities. The NRC must not allow preconstruction to commence until after a 

30 ROD is issued.

31

32 [015-20, Beatrice Brailsford] The transmission lines compound the negative impact the will 

33 accrue to pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks, which will all likely 

34 abandon the Areva site and surrounding areas. Sage grouse is a candidate species for federal 

35 protection. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game reaffirmed the threats transmission lines 

36 would pose to wildlife, challenged the methodology of sage grouse and lek analysis in the draft 

37 EIS, recommended burying transmission lines, and suggested Areva submit to plans to mitigate 

38 for the expected wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed in this 

39 EIS and must be addressed before any preconstruction activities are allowed or before this EIS 

40 review continues.

41

42 [018-02, Deb Brown; 035-01, Stephen Crowley; 055-02, Claudia Galaviz; 056-01, Mark 

43 Galaviz; 063-02, Martha Haga; 101-02, Jody May-Chang; 117-02, Richard Morgan; 188-02, 

44 Lana Weber-Wells] In particular, I am concerned that the NRC will allow Areva to start “pre45 construction” activities in October of 2010 — which would be before the Record of Decision on 

46 this license is released. Moreover, preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal action 

47 and 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires that information be available before an agency makes decisions 

48 or takes any action. The impacts of preconstruction must be evaluated in the draft EIS, or 

49 another EIS should be initiated to assess preconstruction impacts.

50
I-110

1 [025-05, Hon. Sue Chew] Trained as clinical pharmacist, I am taught to make sure of the facts 

2 and additionally to cut corners ultimately costs lives or causes morbidity. I am thus particularly 

3 concerned that the NRC start of the “preconstruction” activities in October of 2010 - which would 

4 be before the Record of Decision is released. 

5

6 In addition, preconstruction comprises one part of a major federal action in which 40 CFR 

7 1500.1(b) requires that information be available before an agency makes decisions or takes any 

8 action. The impacts of preconstruction must be evaluated in the draft EIS before preconstruction 

9 begins. Alternatively, I would strongly recommend that an additional EIS should be initiated to 

10 assess preconstruction impacts. 

11

12 [027-02, Sara Cohn] Preconstruction has been mentioned by other folks, and I will mention it 

13 also. It is unclear under what authority NRC can offer the exemption for preconstruction 

14 activities when such impacts extend outside of NRC jurisdiction. For example, preconstruction 

15 activities will impact species protected under the Endangered Species Act, such as sage 

16 grouse, and others, and waters protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act, specifically the 

17 sole source aquifer, the eastern Snake River plain. The project must consult with agencies like 

18 EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in order to analyze and release for public comment 

19 the environmental and public health impacts of preconstruction activities, including clearing, 

20 blasting, and grading, prior to conducting such activities. 

21

22 [027-12, Sara Cohn] Preconstruction Exemption: It is unclear under what authority NRC may 

23 offer exemptions for preconstruction activities when such impacts extend outside of NRC 

24 jurisdiction. For example preconstruction activities may impact waters protected under the Safe 

25 Drinking Water Act – the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. The project must consult with EPA 

26 in order to ensure the preconstruction activities will not impact the Eastern Snake River Plain 

27 aquifer, a sole source aquifer for eastern Idaho.

28

29 [027-21, Sara Cohn] Preconstruction Exemption: It is unclear under what authority NRC may 

30 offer exemptions for preconstruction activities when such impacts extend outside of NRC 

31 jurisdiction. For example preconstruction activities will impact sensitive and candidate species. 

32 Project impacts would normally require NRC to coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish 

33 and Game in order to analyze and release for public comment the environmental and public 

34 health impacts of preconstruction clearing, blasting, and grading prior to conducting such 

35 activities. According to the draft EIS, such preconstruction activities are expected to take place 

36 prior to the licensing of the proposed facility. These efforts undermine the purpose of the EIS 

37 process. A mitigation plan must be created to avoid, minimize, and plan for mitigation of affected 

38 habitat.

39

40 [030-01, Kerry Cooke] There is nothing in the EIS to suggest there is any reason for haste. 

41 There’s no emergency facing this country, or any other country, that this facility must be built as 

42 soon as possible. There’s -- I guess I’m just going to say, that I think that there’s -- there must 

43 be some proof laid out here, that there’s any reason to say work needs to start in October, when 

44 so many questions are left to be answered, so much is still -- we’re here talking to you tonight 

45 about effects on the environment, many questions we have about the road into it, transmission, 

46 and yet, you’re going to allow preconstruction. It’s totally puzzling to me, and I think really needs 

47 much more explanation, and I actually believe shouldn’t happen.

48
I-111

1 [030-06, Kerry Cooke] Haste: What’s the hurry? Why is the NRC allowing Areva to start a 

2 “preconstruction” phase this fall? During so-called preconstruction, the environment will be 

3 greatly disturbed. I appear before you today in good faith that a decision has not been rendered 

4 on this proposal, that all Verbal Comment will be considered, and that the EIS will be properly 

5 completed and vetted before a decision is reached. There is no emergency that demands that 

6 this project be fast-tracked, no national crisis dictating that rules be bent to allow early work. 

7 The haste shown by Idaho lawmakers in pushing through funding for a road to the Areva site, 

8 while not part of NRC domain, raises even higher my concern that decisions are being make by 

9 greed rather than science and sound energy and fiscal policy. There is no reason to start 

10 preconstruction before the EIS is released in final form.

11

12 [035-02, Steve Crowley] In particular, I am concerned that the NRC will allow Areva to start 

13 preconstruction” activities in October of 2010 - which would be before the Record of Decision is 

14 released. Moreover, preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal action and 40 CFR 

15 1500.1(b) requires that information be available before an agency makes decisions or takes any 

16 action. The impacts of preconstruction must be evaluated in the draft EIS, or another EIS should 

17 be initiated to assess preconstruction impacts.

18

19 [048-04, Genevieve Emerson] I am appalled that pre-construction would even remotely be 

20 considered as a viable option, as sage brush steppe can take a very long time to recover after it 

21 has been razed. I strongly feel that the citizens of Idaho need more time to consider the 

22 implications of such a facility, and pre-construction is extremely short-sighted and hasty.

23

24 [078-03, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] 3. I thought the exemptions were excessive.

25

26 [086-01, Paula Jull] The NRC has shown bias in allowing Areva to begin preconstruction 

27 activities before the decision has been made.

28

29 [087-01, Dennis Kasnicki] Comment 1: At the subject meeting some attendees commented 

30 that the NRC giving AREVA a “preconstruction exemption” constituted a bias toward ultimate 

31 license approval. I totally agree. As paranoid as the NRC was regarding “appearances” (as I 

32 saw it when I was with Region II) I can’t believe you guys got away with that one.

33

34 [088-07, Stan Kidwell; 095-07, Linda Leeuwrik; 122-06, Kathy O’Brien; 175-02, Ellen 

35 Thomas] The NRC has demonstrated a clear bias toward licensing by granting Areva 

36 permission to begin “preconstruction” activities in October, long before any final decision has 

37 been made. The NRC must withdraw its permission to begin.

38

39 [105-02, Eve McConaughey] Why were exemptions for pre-construction activities given prior 

40 to licensing? 

41

42 [113-03, Ken Miller] On the transmission issue, the NRC’s exemption that authorizes AREVA 

43 to undertake preconstruction activities as not part of the proposed action should not include 

44 exempting utilities’ installations including transmission lines and associated substations, and 

45 other utility infrastructure. 

46

47 [113-14, Ken Miller] As mentioned above, NRC erred in permitting AES to undertake myriad 

48 preconstruction activities as beyond the purview of the EIS. This is only one indication that the 
I-112

1 NRC appears biased toward approval of the EREF application even as it is soliciting public 

2 comment and review of the Draft EIS. It is not too late for the NRC to remedy this egregious 

3 oversight – deliberate or otherwise – and to subject this project to a complete environmental 

4 review before any further preconstruction activities are allowed to take place.

5

6 [118-02, Caroline Morris] The possibility of NRC’s allowing the contractor Areva to begin 

7 “preconstruction” activity in October 2010 troubles me, because it would predate release of this 

8 license’s Record of Decision. Clearly, preconstruction is one part of this major federal action. 

9 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires agencies to release available information before making the 

10 pertinent decisions or taking relevant actions. This draft EIS must evaluate the preconstruction 

11 impact factors, since there is no time to initiate another EIS to consider preconstruction.

12

13 [144-02, Sara Rodgers] Given that nuclear energy and the extraction of nuclear material 

14 create multi generational risk to human and environmental health, it is important to ensure all 

15 necessary precautions are taken seriously and that the preventative principle is the dominant 

16 paradigm when considering or planning their use. I am concerned that the NRC may allow 

17 preconstruction activities prior the adoption of the EIS. This is a poor use of wise decision 

18 making and resources. To demonstrate good faith efforts in preserving the health of Idaho and 

19 Idahoans, I request that no activities are undertaken until the EIS includes preconstruction 

20 activities and the entire EIS is adopted. 

21

22 Given that Areva corporation which desires this license and access to Idaho’s resources is an 

23 international firm with a poor environmental record, it is important to ensure no risk to domestic 

24 communities in case a environmental hazard occurs in the near or very long future. Since the 

25 risk of nuclear waste may occur for thousands of years, a prolonged planning process with 

26 thoughtful regulations to ensure no risk to domestic populations seems a small sacrifice than to 

27 start preconstruction without a well thought out and enforceable plan.

28

29 [148-01, Eric Schuler] Taken as a whole, the EIS suggests that this facility will have a 

30 relatively low impact on the environment. Of course several aspects of this, of the — have been 

31 overlooked in making this conclusion. For instance, as others have already noted, it does not 

32 consider the impact of the exempted preconstruction activities, the high risk of wildfires in the 

33 area, or the lack of an appropriate disposal pathway for depleted uranium. Accordingly, the true 

34 impact of this facility is certainly larger than the DEIS suggests. 

35

36 [153-11, Andrea Shipley] Because of an exemption granted in March 2010, Areva will be 

37 allowed to start “preconstruction” activities as early as October 2010. This preconstruction 

38 exemption shows a bias towards licensing. It appears the NRC has already made the decision 

39 to allow the project to move forward even before the necessary impact assessments and public 

40 comment periods have been completed. (draft EIS, xxviii). 

41

42 Preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal action. 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires that 

43 information be available before an agency makes decisions or takes any action. Considering 

44 that public comment is open until September 13, 2010. It is impossible for the NRC to produce a 

45 final EIS and ROD before preconstruction starts in October. 

46
I-113

1 [197-11, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Because of an exemption 

2 in March 2010, AREVA will be allowed to start preconstruction activities as early as October 

3 2010. This preconstruction exemption shows a bias toward the licensee.

4

5 [169-04, Margaret Stewart] And it has been spoken about before that preconstruction activities 

6 by AREVA are a travesty to the public process of honest democracy. Allowing preconstruction 

7 activities to proceed without an analysis of the ensuing environmental and human effects shows 

8 a clear intention by the NRC to license this facility. And, to me, that appears to make a total 

9 sham of the impact assessments, and also of these public comments and hearings. 

10

11 [181-23, Roger Turner] NRC erred by approving pre-construction of AREVA before an EIS 

12 was provided to the public. The timing of an EIS is critical. CEQ regulations instruct agencies to 

13 “integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that 

14 planning and decisions reflect environmental values.” 40 CFR §1501.2 (1987). An EIS must be 

15 prepared “early enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the 

16 decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.”

17 Andrus, 442 U. S., at 351–352, n. 3 (quoting 40 CFR §1502.5 (1979)). 

18

19 BY NRC already approving pre-construction designs, they have showed that they are using the 

20 EIS to rationalize or justify decisions already made. Federal funds have already been spent on 

21 this project, before the EIS was available to the public. This is in violation of NEPA. 

22

23 [184-16, Kitty Vincent] Because of an unwarranted exemption granted in March 2010, Areva 

24 will be allowed to start “preconstruction” activities as early as October 2010. This 

25 preconstruction exemption shows a bias toward licensing. It appears the NRC has already 

26 decided to allow the project to move forward even before the necessary impact assessments 

27 and public comment periods have been completed. (draft EIS, xxviii). Preconstruction 

28 constitutes one part of a major federal action. 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires that information be 

29 available before an agency makes decisions or takes any action. Considering that public 

30 comment is open until September 13, 2010. It is impossible for the NRC to produce a final EIS 

31 and ROD before preconstruction starts in October.

32

33 [184-21, Kitty Vincent] The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in a response to NRC dated 

34 April 14, reaffirmed the threats transmission lines would pose to wildlife (draft EIS B-26) and 

35 challenges the methodology of sage grouse and leak analysis in the EIS (B-27), recommends 

36 burying transmission lines, and suggests Areva submit to plans to mitigate for the expected 

37 wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed in this EIS and must be 

38 addressed before any preconstruction activities are allowed or before this EIS review continues. 

39

40 [191-01, Liz Woodruff] Most importantly, preconstruction cannot begin in October 2010. That 

41 would be a completely unacceptable outcome of these proceedings.

42

43 [191-05, Liz Woodruff] Moreover, preconstruction plans must be halted and no 

44 preconstruction activities should be allowed until an evaluation of the environmental impacts of 

45 those activities has been integrated into an EIS. To allow preconstruction in October of 2010 is 

46 unacceptable, and I believe such action will be adamantly opposed by residents of the state....

47

48 • Because of an exemption granted in March 2010, Areva will be allowed to start 

49 “preconstruction” activities as early as October 2010. This preconstruction exemption shows a 
I-114

1 bias towards licensing. It appears the NRC has already made the decision to allow the project to 

2 move forward even before the necessary impact assessments and public comment periods 

3 have been completed. draft EIS, xxviii) 

4

5 • Preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal action. 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires that 

6 information be available before an agency makes decisions or takes any action. Considering 

7 that public comment is open until September 13, 2010. It is impossible for the NRC to produce a 

8 final EIS and ROD before preconstruction starts in October. The NRC must either revise the 

9 current draft to include the impacts of preconstruction or must write an additional EIS that 

10 specifically addresses preconstruction activities. The NRC should not allow preconstruction to 

11 commence until after a ROD is filed.... 

12

13 • The draft EIS (draft 4-5) notes that “The greatest potential for impacts on historic and cultural 

14 resources would occur during ground disturbance during preconstruction.” Yet these 

15 preconstruction activities are specifically removed from review in this study. Again, the impacts 

16 of preconstruction must be integrated into this draft EIS.

17

18 [193-15, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] AREVA was given an 

19 unwarranted exemption, granted in March of 2010, to start preconstruction activities as early as 

20 October of this year, two months away. This preconstruction exemption shows a bias towards 

21 licensing, without hearing public comment first. 

22

23 But preconstruction constitutes one part of a major federal action. 40 CFR 1500.1(b) requires 

24 that information be available before an agency makes decisions or takes any action. 

25

26 The NRC cannot simply grant an exemption for activities with excessive environmental impacts. 

27

28 If you look at the EIS, all the environmental impacts happen in preconstruction, and then they 

29 aren’t being taken into consideration, in the EIS, as an area of impact because we granted an 

30 exemption for those impacts. 

31

32 And they must either include preconstruction in the EIS, or write an additional EIS to evaluate 

33 preconstruction impacts. Preconstruction activities cannot occur until the impacts are analyzed, 

34 and the record of decision is signed, and your comments getting in on September 13th will 

35 certainly not give them adequate time before preconstruction starts to issue a record of 

36 decision, and this is unacceptable. 

37

38 [193-19, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Now this is something that’s 

39 considered as a preconstruction impact in EIS, so this isn’t given the weight and the technical 

40 impact review, the small, moderate, and large that you saw.

41

42 But more specifically, in the EIS, in Appendix B, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game affirms 

43 that the threat to transmission lines would be great for wildlife, and they recommend barring 

44 transmission lines and suggest AREVA submit to plans to mitigate for the expected wildlife 

45 impacts. These concerns must be addressed in the EIS, before any preconstruction activities 

46 are allowed. 

47
I-115

1 [193-20, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And all of the issues 

2 associated with the construction of this facility -- accidents, fire, air and water quality 

3 degradation, the development of this land will impact several species, including raptors and 

4 sagebrush obligate species. This includes the sage grouse. The sage grouse is a candidate 

5 species for federal protection, and the only reason it’s not listed yet is because of bureaucratic 

6 process of listing. There’s a delay. But the treatment of this issue is inadequate in the draft EIS. 

7

8 The impacts to sage grouse from transmission and preconstruction warrant integration into this 

9 EIS, or separate EISs, specifically around preconstruction and transmission issues. 

10

11 [192-14, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope to see preconstruction activities prohibited until a further 

12 analysis of the environmental impacts of these activities can be fully evaluated, and until the 

13 facility is actually licensed (a rather logical notion, I think).

14

15 Response: On March 17, 2010, the NRC granted AES an exemption from the requirements of 

16 the regulations under 10 CFR 30.4, 30.33(a)(5), 40.4, 40.32(e), 70.4, and 70.23(a)(7), which 

17 govern the commencement of construction (NRC, 2010c). This action was in response to AES’s

18 request dated June 17, 2009 (AES, 2009b), as supplemented by letter dated October 15, 2009

19 (AES, 2009c), that requested an exemption from specific requirements of 10 CFR Parts 30, 40,

20 and 70 to allow AES to commence certain construction activities associated with the proposed 

21 EREF before completion of the NRC’s environmental review under 10 CFR Part 51. The 

22 exemption authorizes AES to conduct the specified preconstruction activities, provided that 

23 none of the facilities or activities subject to the exemption would be components of AES’s 

24 Physical Security Plan or its Standard Practice Procedures Plan for the Protection of Classified 

25 Matter, or otherwise be subject to NRC review or approval.

26

27 As discussed in the March 17, 2010, exemption approval, the NRC staff determined that 

28 granting AES’s exemption request is authorized by law; and has reasonable assurance that 

29 granting the exemption request would not endanger life or property or the common defense and 

30 security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Also, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 

31 Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect 

32 on the quality of the human environment.

33

34 Approval of the exemption request does not indicate that a licensing decision has been made by 

35 the NRC. Preconstruction activities would be completed by AES with the risk that a license may 

36 not be issued. Some of the preconstruction activities may be deferred by AES until, or continue 

37 after, the commencement of construction, if a license is issued. Before a license would be 

38 granted, the Final EIS must be issued, and the ASLBP must review the NRC staff’s SER

39 (NRC, 2010b) and Final EIS, conduct mandatory hearings on the staff’s safety and 

40 environmental reviews, and issue adjudicatory decision(s), which are subject to Commission 

41 review. 

42

43 Although the exemption allows AES to proceed with certain activities that are considered 

44 outside of NRC regulatory purview (they are not related to radiological health and safety or the 

45 common defense and security) before obtaining an NRC license to construct and operate the 

46 proposed EREF, the potential impacts of preconstruction were fully and accurately analyzed in 

47 detail, in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIS. In addition, other Federal agencies, the Shoshone48 Bannock Tribes, and State and local government agencies have been consulted or otherwise 

49 contacted regarding these impacts and the other impacts of the proposed project, as required. 
I-116

1 The Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction over, or other interest in, the 

2 preconstruction activities, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, have reviewed the Draft EIS and 

3 have raised no objections to the preconstruction exemption. By law, AES is required to obtain 

4 all other required Federal, State, and local permits and approvals in order to conduct 

5 preconstruction activities.

6

7

8 I.5.6 Nuclear Proliferation 

9

10 Comment: The following comments relate to issues and concerns about proliferation and 

11 nuclear weapons development related to the uranium enrichment technology and enriched 

12 uranium product of the proposed EREF.

13

14 [015-17, Beatrice Brailsford; 191-24, Liz Woodruff] The NRC should produce an unclassified 

15 non-proliferation assessment for the Areva enrichment plant. To refuse to do so based on the 

16 fact that Areva intends to enrich uranium to no more than 5% misses an important point. Gas 

17 centrifuge uranium enrichment is a proliferable technology. A comparable case occurred in 

18 Idaho during the environmental evaluation of pyroprocessing. In that instance, no one was 

19 arguing that the DOE intended to recover pure plutonium. But, because pyroprocessing is a 

20 proliferable technology, the DOE produced a non-proliferation assessment as part of the final 

21 EIS on the facility.

22

23 [029-02, Richard Conner; 063-04, Martha Haga; 099-02, Brent Mathieu; 100-07, Wendy 

24 Matson; 112-02, Mark Menlove; 161-04, Marisa Smith; 199-02, Dina Bond; 200-02, Sean 

25 Campbell; 201-02, Giovanna Campos; 203-02, Danielle Dugge; 204-02, Susan Filkins; 

26 207-02, Drew Harris; 208-02, Emily Harvey; 213-02, Darvel Jones; 214-02, Jacob King; 

27 216-02, Beau Lee; 218-02, David Minick; 219-02, Neil Miyaoka; 220-02, Tim Naftzger; 

28 221-02, Mike Perrington; 223-02, Mason Richens; 226-02, Jessica Toinga; 227-02, 

29 Joseph Voss] The draft EIS is inadequate and fails to address the fact that uranium enrichment 

30 is a technology used for proliferation. The NRC should produce an unclassified non-proliferation 

31 assessment for the EREF. To refuse to do so based on the fact that Areva intends to enrich 

32 uranium to no more than 5% misses an important point: Gas centrifuge uranium enrichment is a 

33 proliferable technology and precedents exist for nonproliferation assessments of proliferable 

34 technology whether the license allows for proliferation or not.

35

36 [044-01, Dennis Donnelly] I would point out that this section of considering alternatives 

37 assumes that it has to supply enriched uranium for national energy security; that is, they 

38 assume that this plant is going to be built, and it neglects the alternative of not building these 

39 plants. 

40

41 I would point out that if you build this facility, it commits America, this is the unstated thing, it 

42 commits America essentially to a future that includes nuclear power, and all the nightmares 

43 associated with it. I would like to point out that there are other options that some of the 

44 nightmares would be a police state in our communities, where the Soviet Russians and the 

45 Germans that we already have that police state. These things are so dangerous that we’re 

46 considering bombing Iran and the Israelis are considering bombing Iran for exactly the same 

47 facility. It’s so dangerous. The reason is, of course, that you build this facility, and then you build 

48 the reactors, the reactors breed plutonium, plutonium can make weapons. You can’t take that 

49 away once you’ve done it.

50
I-117

1 The police state is a terrible thing. The rest of it has to do with the threat of military attack on 

2 these facilities, on the plants. Nobody seems to address that all these atomic power plants are 

3 built above ground. Any kind of terrorist or military attack on any one of them can take out two 

4 states, that much area. We’ve seen Chernobyl. We know it can happen, and it has happened. 

5 Even accidents can take out a large area. Right now we have major problems still from 

6 Chernobyl, and everyone knows it.

7

8 I would like to point out there are alternatives that have not been considered, that I’d like to 

9 mention. A couple of weeks ago, there was an announcement in the “New York Times”, and I 

10 followed it up, and yes, it’s true, there was a study in North Carolina that concluded for the first 

11 time that new power plants in North Carolina were cheaper to build with solar power than with 

12 nuclear power. This is a major crossover point that should be considered. And you see there are 

13 none of the problems, there are no activation products, there are no fission products, there are 

14 no actinides, there is no pluming of unmanageable wastes that we’re casting into the future for 

15 all of geologic time that require management and armies to manage them. None of the 

16 problems if you go with solar power, and with -- instead of nuclear power. And I would urge 

17 everyone to consider personally their own career options right now. 

18

19 If we go ahead with this plant, we’re committing to a future that dumps unmanageable problems, 

20 and a police state on the future of this country, and every country. Whereas, if we do the 

21 unspoken thing, let all our aging and outdated nuclear plants expire, and then use clean energy, 

22 non-carbon energy for the future, and not this totally toxic nuclear energy.

23

24 [050-14, Joanie Fauci] The last point I wish to have addressed in the EIS concerns the 

25 enriched uranium product. As this material has the potential to be used in nuclear weapons, I 

26 ask that the NRC make it a requirement of the license that the enriched uranium is not to leave 

27 US soil.

28

29 [061-01, Nancy Greco] I am very concerned about the possibility that Areva, a French owned 

30 company, can quite possibly put our country in danger by opening the way to nuclear weapon 

31 development.

32

33 [067-07, Mike Hart] With respect to proliferation, I am a member, or I was a member, of the 

34 Global Freeze Movement. I’m a member of Global Zero. I don’t like nuclear weapons. I have 

35 concerns about proliferation, but not for this project. Uranium enrichment is going to occur 

36 throughout the world because there will be nuclear energy throughout the world. I would like to 

37 see that enrichment occur in the United States, and I think if there’s any place the bad guys 

38 won’t find enrichment technology, and proliferate nuclear technology to weapons it would be 

39 right here in Idaho Falls. I just don’t see that technology escaping our backyard. So, I think with 

40 respect to proliferation, the NRC probably should give credit to this facility, because it will be 

41 contained, and by having proliferation -- by having enrichment here, there would be far fewer 

42 proliferation concerns for my part. I’d much rather have the global nuclear fuel cycle provided by 

43 the United States, even if we do export the fuel. 

44

45 [071-02, David Hensel] A big concern I have with nuclear power is the risk of weapons 

46 proliferation. And I don’t think the EIS does a very good job of addressing that. The Federation 

47 of American Scientists call, and I’m going to quote here, “Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment 

48 an open road to a nuclear weapon.” It is what they consider breakout technology, meaning that 

49 a plant that enriches uranium for nuclear power production can also be used to convert uranium 
I-118

1 to a level rich enough to be used in a weapon. Once the feedstock has been raised to what you 

2 guys call a low-level of enrichment, you’re more than halfway to the point of being able to 

3 produce weapons-grade uranium. 

4

5 The gas centrifuge plants like AREVA is talking about using are definitely more efficient than the 

6 old methods, but they’re also smaller, easier to hide. They do use less electricity and less water, 

7 which is a great thing, but it also means that it’s more difficult to detect where they’re being 

8 used, and where they’re being used in a manner that’s not appropriate. And I think Iran has 

9 come up several times, and it’s going to be one of the flashpoints in the world, and it’s all about 

10 this technology that we’re discussing here. And I’m not worried about what’s going to happen 

11 over here as far as producing nuclear-grade uranium. We have other ways of doing that, but I 

12 think we need to pay attention to our perception with the rest of the world. The United States, for 

13 better or worse is no longer the only big guy on the block. And if you look at the people that 

14 have nuclear weapons now, nuclear power generation was the path, whether they did it

15 dangerously or not, to get to their nuclear weapons capabilities....

16

17 One thing I would specifically like to ask you to do, I think you, the NRC, should produce an 

18 unclassified non-proliferation assessment for this plant. And I know that the talk has been well, 

19 the uranium is only going to be enriched to 5 percent, so it’s not a proliferation risk, but that 

20 does miss the point. It’s a proliferable technology. And a few years ago, a decade ago, or 

21 whatever, there was the pyroprocessing plant that the Department of Energy was going to build 

22 here. No one was saying that they were going to make weapons grade plutonium, but they did 

23 this assessment because the process that they were doing was a proliferable technology. And I 

24 really think that you should do this, and provide it in a non-classified manner, and provide that to 

25 the public. 

26

27 [088-06, Stan Kidwell; 095-06, Linda Leeuwrik; 175-05, Ellen Thomas] Gas centrifuge 

28 uranium enrichment is a technology the Federation of American Scientists calls “an open road 

29 to a nuclear weapon.” At the very least, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must produce an 

30 unclassified proliferation assessment of Areva’s plant.

31

32 [096-03, Arjun Makhijani] Finally, I would just remind you that there needs to be a non33 proliferation section in this. The non-proliferation is dismissed by saying 5% uranium cannot be 

34 used to make weapons. This is completely correct, of course. But it has been the foreign policy 

35 of this country with respect to Iran that a commercial enrichment plant has a proliferation risk, 

36 even though they say, rightly or wrongly, which is a separate issue, that they’re building a 

37 commercial plant for commercial purposes. It’s different to build a commercial enrichment plant 

38 in a weapon state that’s got surplus highly enriched uranium, completely different, but it has to 

39 be part of your analysis. You can’t say -- you can’t undermine US-Foreign policy by saying 

40 5 percent enrichment plant is not a proliferation issue, because you can’t make weapons with 

41 5 percent enrichment. You change the valving arrangement in the enrichment plant, you can 

42 make 90 percent enriched uranium. And you know that, and I know that. You can’t ignore 

43 this very critical problem in your haste to give a license, and undermine non-standing 

44 U.S. non-proliferation policy.

45

46 [098-05, Linda Martin; 098-14, Linda Martin] In addition, there is no evidence of any danger 

47 or threat of nuclear proliferation from the design, construction, or operation of the proposed 

48 facility.

49
I-119

1 [103-07, Karen McCall] A uranium enrichment plant can easily be converted into to making 

2 bombs. This is an unacceptable possibility for nuclear proliferation.

3

4 [108-01, John McMahon] • The USA spent $5+TRILLION on Nuclear Weapons and related 

5 technology since 1945. This is an astounding waste of our Nations’ engineering skill and 

6 industrial capability! 

7

8 The Obama administration apparently has already decided to enrich Uranium, something we 

9 may even go to war over (again!!) to prevent the Iranians from doing! This can only mean the 

10 US Congress will give its “blessing”(?) [The same “blessing” they gave to Custer and Generals 

11 Crook and Miles]. Only this time it will be to make new Nuclear Weapons.

12

13 • This is unacceptable in light of our having just recently re-negotiated the Strategic Arms 

14 Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, et al.

15

16 • If the United States continues to enrich Uranium it does not need (or use) for Power 

17 production and nuclear weapons retrofits, or God forbid, “New” N-Weapons, then this is 

18 the height of fear mongering stupidity.

19

20 • This is not about our National Defense or our Energy Policy!

21

22 • It is irresponsible fiscal treachery! Taxpayers will revolt once they learn the true motives 

23 for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility!

24

25 Here in Idaho we can and will mount a campaign to unseat some or all of the Four Horsemen of 

26 the Apocalypse we send to the US Congress, especially since they are receiving heaps of filthy 

27 lucre from the special interests promoting the Areva boondoggle!

28

29 [131-05, Morty Prisament] Proliferation and Terrorism: The draft EIS fails to adequately 

30 address the fact that uranium enrichment is a technology used for proliferation. The NRC should 

31 produce an unclassified non-proliferation assessment for the EREF. To refuse to do so, based 

32 on the fact that Areva intends to enrich uranium to no more than 5%, misses an important point: 

33 Gas centrifuge uranium enrichment is a proliferable technology and precedents exist for non34 proliferation assessments of proliferable technology, whether the license allows for proliferation

35 or not. NRC is aware that enriching uranium from commercial to weapons-grade is hardly a 

36 formidable obstacle. In fact, the enrichment process becomes exponentially easier as levels of 

37 enrichment increase. Moreover, the new centrifuge technology essentially doubles this nuclear 

38 enrichment capability. These are the very issues that the U.S. is concerned about in the case of 

39 Iran’s nuclear program. Absent a thorough analysis of proliferation and terrorism issues, the 

40 DEIS would be clearly inadequate.

41

42 [147-12, Joey Schueler] 8. Enriched Uranium is one of the critical components required for 

43 nuclear weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium. Bringing this component to 

44 Idaho means an increased risk of terrorist threat and/or at least the assistance in nuclear 

45 proliferation.

46

47 16. This one’s more personal, but my mom taught me to be a “lover not a fighter” and the 

48 product of this plant can be used to devastate entire civilizations (I say this on the 65th 
I-120

1 anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). We only just now sent a representative 

2 from the U.S. to stand with the Japanese people in remembrance to those hundreds of 

3 thousands of innocent civilians killed by this action. This is an important step in the United 

4 States diplomatic stance with the world. Why do we insist on undermining it by not practicing 

5 what we preach in regards to nuclear non‐proliferation? In the words of a beautiful woman who 

6 made public comment at the EIS hearing who had been notified of her potential exposure to 

7 radiation by the government near the Hanford Nuclear Plant, “Such Hubris”. Can’t we find a 

8 better path? Is the money too good?

9

10 [168-05, Lon Stewart] If this is a similar type of enrichment plant that Iran has built, and the US 

11 is contemplating war over this issue, why would the US allow such a plant to be built on their 

12 shores? We are having enough problems world wide, why create more problems for ourselves. 

13 There are no huge benefits for the US in this venture. This does not sound good to me. 

14

15 [175-06, Ellen Thomas] Areva’s plant would not increase US energy security or 

16 nonproliferation by providing a “domestic” source of enriched uranium. Areva is owned by the 

17 French government. The raw material for the plant would be imported. Some portion of its 

18 product would be exported.

19

20 [181-12, Roger Turner] The Draft EIS States that nuclear proliferation was dropped from the 

21 scope of this EIS:

22

23 In the case of nonproliferation, the intent of constructing and operating the EREF is to produce 

24 uranium enriched in uranium-235 up to approximately 5 weight percent for use in commercial 

25 nuclear reactors, as mentioned in Section 1.2. This level of enrichment is not sufficient to 

26 produce nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation is therefore out of scope.

27

28 The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Signed by the U.S. and 188 other countries, provides, 

29 among other thing, that members will: Provide assurance through the application of international 

30 safeguards that peaceful nuclear energy in NNWS will not be diverted to nuclear weapons or 

31 other nuclear explosive devices. The centrifuge technology violates this agreement. The NPT is 

32 an indispensable legal and political instrument in preventing further proliferation of nuclear 

33 weapons. In the absence of the NPT, many other countries might well acquire nuclear weapons. 

34 Without the NPT safeguards requirements, monitoring and inspections of nuclear materials and 

35 facilities in non-nuclear weapon states would be significantly weakened.

36

37 Although the 5% level of enrichment is not sufficient to produce nuclear weapons, the simple 

38 addition of more centrifuge units, or a re-arrangement of the cascade system, may render such 

39 a facility capable of producing weapons-grade Uranium. Consequently, the draft EIS erred in not 

40 addressing the proliferation potential of this project. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 

41 Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the 

42 spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force in1970, and currently there 

43 are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the 

44 United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four nonparties to the treaty 

45 are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons.

46

47 Monitoring and verification is very important under the Treaty and it would be improbable that 

48 the U.S. or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could count the centrifuge units or 
I-121

1 the analyze the way that a facility would carry out repeating cycles through the centrifuge units 

2 to achieve weapons grade Uranium.

3

4 Consequently, the issue of enrichment through the centrifuge method, must be reviewed and 

5 added to the EIS review. The NRC is obligated through NEPA to review the proliferation risks of 

6 this technology, and it violates the principles of the Treaty, be dropped from the alternatives. If 

7 the project is approved at all, the EIS should review other technologies that eliminate the 

8 proliferation threat that this one poses.

9

10 [184-09, Kitty Vincent] Given this information, the Alliance believes the NRC should produce 

11 an unclassified non-proliferation assessment for EREF. To refuse to do so based on the fact 

12 that Areva intends to enrich uranium to no more than 5% misses an important point: Gas 

13 centrifuge uranium enrichment is a proliferable technology. A comparable case occurred in 

14 Idaho during the environmental evaluation of pyroprocessing. In that instance, no one was 

15 arguing that the DOE intended to recover pure plutonium. But because pyroprocessing is a 

16 proliferable technology, the DOE produced a non-proliferation assessment as part of the final 

17 EIS on the facility.

18

19 [192-15, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope to see a nonproliferation assessment devised to address 

20 the fact that this plant will have the technology and the capability to enrich the uranium 

21 hexafluoride to beyond the indicated 5%, posing an unacceptable proliferation risk (this is not at 

22 all assuming that AREVA or America or any other party would assuredly proceed with this 

23 process, but is merely recognizing the fact that this risk exists and because the consequences 

24 of such a risk are so extremely significant, the least that needs to be done is a formal 

25 assessment of the situation).

26

27 [193-16, Liz Woodruff] But the NRC should produce an unclassified nonproliferation 

28 assessment for the EREF, because gas centrifuge uranium enrichment is a proliferation 

29 technology. A comparable case occurred in Idaho during the environmental evaluation of 

30 pyroprocessing. 

31

32 In that instance, no one was arguing that the DOE intended to recover pure plutonium, but 

33 because pyroprocessing is a proliferable technology, the DOE produced a nonproliferation 

34 assessment as part of the final EIS on the facility. And we are asking that the NRC include a 

35 nonproliferation assessment on this facility as well. Why? This is a demonstration of the rapidity 

36 with which you can move from the generation of fuel for power reactors to fuel for weapons, a 

37 key ingredient in weapons. 

38

39 Each one of these rows is a cascade. Each one of these bars is a centrifuge, those big things 

40 they use to enrich the uranium; right?

41

42 So you need 24 cascades to enrich uranium to fuel grade, and you can see as we go in a linear 

43 fashion toward, you need two cascades to get it to weapons grade.

44

45 In other words, it’s incredibly efficient technology for producing material that’s a key ingredient in 

46 nuclear weapons, and this underscores the point of why a nonproliferation assessment must be 

47 included in the EIS, and is currently lacking.

48
I-122

1 Response: In response to the above comments, the NRC staff provides the excerpt below from 

2 an August 25, 2010, letter from Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko of the NRC to the Honorable John 

3 M. Spratt, Jr., Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives (NRC, 2010d). This letter was in 

4 response to Congressman Spratt’s June 30, 2010, letter (Spratt et al., 2010) in which he 

5 requested that the NRC conduct a nuclear nonproliferation assessment as part of the review of 

6 license applications for new nuclear technologies.

7

8 “The NRC has adopted a comprehensive regulatory infrastructure and implements an 

9 integrated set of activities directed against the unauthorized disclosure of information 

10 and technology considered important to common defense and security and the diversion 

11 of nuclear materials inimical to public health and safety and the common defense and 

12 security. The NRC’s key regulations in this area (10 CFR Parts 73, 74, and 95) provide 

13 comprehensive requirements governing the control of, and access to, information, 

14 physical security of materials and facilities, and material control and accounting. Other 

15 NRC regulatory requirements are directed at preventing unauthorized disclosure of 

16 classified information, safeguards information (SGI), and sensitive unclassified 

17 nonsafeguards information. As appropriate, the NRC may supplement these 

18 requirements by order consistent with its statutory obligation to protect the common 

19 defense and security and public health and safety.

20

21 “Beyond the NRC’s regulations, uranium enrichment facility licensees have voluntarily 

22 committed to implement additional measures to protect information associated with 

23 classified enrichment technologies. The Nuclear Energy Institute developed a guidance 

24 document for the enrichment facility licensees and certificate holders which the NRC 

25 staff has endorsed. Licensees are now implementing these additional measures and 

26 incorporating their commitments in their site security plans. These additional measures 

27 and commitments become part of their licensing basis. In addition, the staff is working 

28 with other agencies to provide additional Federal involvement in protecting uranium 

29 enrichment technologies and establishing information protection measures.

30

31 “Given the NRC’s comprehensive regulatory framework, ongoing oversight, and active 

32 interagency cooperation, it is the NRC’s current view that a formal nuclear 

33 nonproliferation assessment would not provide any additional benefit to protection of the 

34 common defense and security....

35

36 “I want to assure you that the NRC takes your concerns very seriously and that we will 

37 continue to regulate nuclear materials and sensitive technology to ensure protection of 

38 public health and safety and the environment, promotion of the common defense and 

39 security, and fulfillment of U.S. obligations for nonproliferation and international 

40 agreements.”

41

42

43 I.5.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

44

45 Comment: The following comments suggest that the proposed action is unnecessary because 

46 the current U.S. program to purchase and downblend Russian highly enriched uranium could be 

47 extended.

48
I-123

1 [096-04, Arjun Makhijani] Alternatives are not considered. This is also not in conformity with 

2 the National Environmental Policy Act. You’ve eliminated alternative by fiat, saying we’re not 

3 going to have down blending of surplus HEU ...

4

5 [147-18, Joey Schueler] 14. The United States currently purchases enriched Uranium from 

6 Russia for use in the few facilities it does have. While this may sound negative at the outset, we 

7 are actually aiding Russia in downsizing its nuclear arsenal, which only further secures the 

8 United States due to the instability of such a vast arsenal of weapons that could be sold on the 

9 black market to terrorists or foreign Para-military groups. Enriching our own Uranium devalues 

10 this peace seeking process and results in excessive storage of a highly toxic chemical on our 

11 soil.

12

13 [131-03, Morty Prisament] Need for Action: The DEIS has not established a “need” for this 

14 action, as required under NEPA. Need is required to be discussed in specific, quantitative, 

15 terms and within the scope of global production and markets. there exists a competitive global 

16 market to provide enriched uranium. Russia (CIS) has been one of the leading suppliers of 

17 enriched U2. If there is a national security rationale for building such facilities in the U.S., the 

18 EIS needs to discuss and document such an assertion. Moreover, the document needs to 

19 explore the reasons why the supply of enriched U2 from nuclear weapons decommissioning 

20 could not meet projected demand for enriched U2.

21

22 [148-02, Eric Schuler] But there’s a bigger issue here. Before we can ask whether the impact 

23 will be small or devastating, we need to ask why we’re making an impact at all. This question is 

24 paramount, but the draft EIS failed to provide a convincing answer. The EIS claims that the 

25 EREF needs to be build to improve national security. For this to be a legitimate need, however, 

26 the U.S.’s supply of enriched uranium would have to be unreliable currently. This is not the 

27 case.

28

29 The U.S.’s enriched uranium sources are reliable partners and the U.S. even seems to tacitly 

30 acknowledge this fact, when it states that some of the enriched uranium will be exported to 

31 foreign countries. Even so, it is useful to evaluate the sources more fully, just to understand just 

32 how unnecessary this facility is.

33

34 Now we’ve heard earlier that 90 percent of our enriched uranium is imported, and about half of 

35 that is from Russia, and we’ve also heard that uranium enrichment is a necessary technology 

36 because we need nuclear power to deal with global warming.

37

38 However, strictly speaking, that’s not true, as a great example of that is the megatons to 

39 megawatts program that we operate with Russia. This is an agreement between Russia and the 

40 U.S. where by Russian nuclear warheads are downblended to make fuel grade uranium, and 

41 thus, since we have an abundant supply of warheads, is a very bountiful source of this 

42 enrichment – or of enriched uranium. Moreover, this program diminishes the threat of 

43 proliferation and prevents the environmental degradation associated with continued mining.

44

45 In other words, it’s beneficial in many ways, and it’s been existing for several years and there is 

46 no reason to expect that it would not be renewed in the future.

47
I-124

1 The other enriched uranium sources are also reliable. Although much of the enriched uranium 

2 is, indeed, imported, this fact alone does not indicate instability. We live in an age of 

3 globalization and there is no international market for enriched uranium. Credit counseling with a 

4 comparative advantage in the production of enriched uranium, whether because they have 

5 highly-accessible reserves, low-cost labor in Africa, or other factors, will specialize in producing 

6 enriched uranium while the U.S. focuses its resources in other areas, like agriculture.

7

8 Our reliance on this market is not a sign of weakness or vulnerability, but a sign of efficiency. 

9 Energy independence is an outdated idea, is one that is not based on security or patriotism, but 

10 of ignorance. 

11

12 The current system works, and has worked for several years. The entire project that we are 

13 discussing here tonight is predicated on the assertion that it will provide national energy security

14 with respect to enriched uranium.

15

16 The fact of the matter is that this security already exists and the EREF facility is not necessary, 

17 and if the benefits stated in this proposal do not exist, no amount of environmental impact is 

18 tolerable, and this facility cannot be licensed. 

19

20 [181-13, Roger Turner] Add Alternative to extend the Megatons to Megawatts Program in 

21 order to supply the U.S. with enriched Uranium. The EIS should re-evaluate interest by the U.S. 

22 to extending the Megatons to Megawatts program in order to obtain enriched uranium. The EIS 

23 should re-evaluate the possibility of receiving other Foreign supplies of enriched uranium to 

24 supply the U.S. needs.

25

26 Response: Downblending of Russian highly enriched uranium under the Megatons to 

27 Megawatts Program is an issue of national energy policy and is set to expire in 2013, as 

28 discussed in Sections 1.3.1, 2.2, and 2.3.2.2 of the EIS. As such, this alternative does not fulfill

29 the need for the proposed action because it does not meet the objective of developing a reliable 

30 domestic source of low enriched uranium to fulfill electricity generation requirements.

31 Therefore, it is not considered a viable alternative to enriched uranium from the proposed EREF

32 and, therefore, was eliminated from further consideration in the EIS.

33

34

35 I.5.8 Land Use

36

37 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that farm land would be lost if the 

38 proposed EREF project goes forward.

39

40 [036-07, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Also the loss of farm 

41 land needs to be addressed. Loss of farm is and will continue to be an issue in this country, we 

42 need to address the impact that loss has and how AREVA plans to mitigate the loss.

43

44 Response: As stated in Section 4.2.1.1, approximately 202 hectares (500 acres) of farm land 

45 would be lost due to construction and operation of the proposed EREF. The impacts of this loss 

46 would be SMALL because that area constitutes approximately 0.25 percent of the land currently 

47 cultivated in Bonneville County. In addition, the current zoning for the area is compatible with 

48 the use for which the proposed EREF is intended. 

49
I-125

1 Comment: The following comment expresses concern about the likely, permanent loss of BLM2 managed public land to wildlife and to wildlife-related recreation access due to the construction 

3 and operation of the proposed project

4

5 [089-06, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Loss of 

6 Public Lands to Public Access - The Department remains concerned about the likely, permanent 

7 loss of public land to wildlife and to wildlife-related recreation access due to the construction and 

8 operation of the proposed project. There is a BLM owned and managed parcel of land entirely 

9 within the property boundary. Concerns regarding the loss of this parcel from wildlife-related 

10 recreation and BLM management could be mitigated by the project proponent exchanging a 

11 similar acreage outside the project area to be managed by BLM for multiple uses including 

12 wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreation. We are willing to work with AES and other parties 

13 to pursue a solution but do not believe delay of the DEIS process and facility consideration is 

14 necessary to address this issue.

15

16 Response: Development of the proposed EREF would not alter the current situation on the 

17 BLM-owned parcel of land, and BLM’s access to this land will be unaltered (AES, 2010a). No 

18 licensed activities will occur on the parcel. 

19

20

21 Comment: The following comment adds clarity to the nature of recreational impacts to the 

22 Hell’s Half Acre Wilderness Study Area (WSA).

23

24 [140-02, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

25 Field Office] 2) While the BLM has commented on the reduction of the visual quality of the area 

26 as a result of the construction and operation of the facility (Boggs, 2010), the BLM would like to 

27 add clarity to the nature of recreational impacts as it concerns the Hell’s Half Acre WSA. First, 

28 the camping area described in the DEIS is not within the WSA itself. The proposed facility would 

29 be seen from this area (particularly at night), however, so from a recreational standpoint a more 

30 appropriate impact analysis might read, for example, “The construction and operation of the 

31 proposed facility would reduce the quality of the recreational experience for campers at the 

32 Hell’s Half Acre trailhead.”

33

34 Response: The NRC appreciates the clarification and has modified the text accordingly in 

35 Section 4.2.3.2 of the EIS.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comment relates to Bonneville County’s appraisal of the quality of the 

39 farmland at the proposed EREF site and vicinity.

40

41 [152-05, Steven Serr] Issues were brought up, which I don’t remember in particular were 

42 addressed, as to the viability of the area out there as being a prime agricultural area. It is a 

43 desert that we’re irrigating and farming. A good portion of this site is not farmed.

44

45 Some of the facility will be on irrigated acreage. We have farms out on the west side that are 

46 shutting down, and reverting back to natural habitat. Issues of suitability for that agricultural use 

47 because of high-life pumping and that. So we don’t consider it to be an extreme prime 

48 agricultural area that far out. Closer in, lower depths, it would be more prime. 

49
I-126

1 Response: It is acknowledged in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS that some prime farmland is found on 

2 the proposed EREF property. However, the proposed EREF is sited in an area with county 

3 zoning consistent with AES’s intended operations. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, and as noted

4 in the comment, this area is not considered a prime agricultural area. 

5

6

7 Comment: The following comments note the suitability of the location of the proposed EREF 

8 site, including with respect to Bonneville County’s comprehensive plan and zoning rules and 

9 regulations.

10

11 [133-05, Richard Provencher] The land where the facility is being located is baron with virtually 

12 no other viable use other than farming, however, there are thousands of acres in this area that 

13 are also not being used for farming.

14

15 [135-04, Hon. Dave Radford] Being a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Bonneville 

16 County adopted a comprehensive plan that included located nuclear growth west of -- on the 

17 western side of -- Bonneville County, so we think that will help expedite the process. We, as the 

18 commission, agree with the Environmental Impact Statement’s conclusion.

19

20 [152-03, Steven Serr] As far as compliance with zoning rules and regulations, that area was 

21 designed specifically for this type of facility. It’s not designed to have other uses out there that 

22 could be impacted by those uses.

23

24 [152-09, Steven Serr] I wanted to address the issue as to the suitability of this property for 

25 development of that site. Again, as the Commissioner mentioned earlier, this area has been 

26 zoned and designated for this type of use. It’s been planned that it could accommodate this type 

27 of operation since 1960. So, it’s been a long-designated piece of property, tract of land out there 

28 for this type of use.

29

30 I approach this as an enforcement site for any facility that’s built in the county. Our concern in 

31 the county is making sure that things are built to code, built complaint, built safe, protect public 

32 health, safety, and welfare. My office, we are responsible for enforcement of the building code, 

33 the fire code, mechanical code, flood plain rules and regulations, and we have addressed most 

34 of these issues with AREVA. We’ve made modifications for some of their design issues on what 

35 they contemplate doing to try to mitigate, and make sure that the operation that they’re 

36 proposing out there will be a safe compliant operation.

37

38 Response: The NRC appreciates the confirmation of the information presented in Section 3.2.1 

39 that the zoning of the area where the proposed EREF is to be located is compatible with the 

40 intended use of the site.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comments suggest that the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act

44 (FPPA) applies to this EIS and to the proposed EREF project.

45

46 [013-02, Kit Blackburn; 063-03, Martha Haga; 093-02, Louis Landry; 109-02, Eugene 

47 McVey; 120-07, Frank Nicholson; 121-02, Jennifer Nordstrom] Additionally, the draft EIS 

48 may not be in compliance with the Federal Farmland Protection Act. The EIS claims that the 
I-127

1 licensing of this facility is exempt from the Farmland Protection Act since the site is on private 

2 property (EIS, 3-3). But because Areva has accepted a $2 billion federal loan guarantee from 

3 the Department of Energy, the Federal Farmland Protection Act applies to this license and the 

4 required procedures under the Act must be completed prior to licensing.

5

6 [015-21, Beatrice Brailsford; 088-09, Stan Kidwell; 122-05, Kathy O’Brien; 175-07, 

7 Ellen Thomas] The NRC should address both Areva’s failure to comply with the Federal 

8 Farmland Protection Act and its own failure to fully analyze the environmental effects of a large 

9 range fire at the Areva site.

10

11 [095-09, Linda Leeuwrik] The NRC should address both Areva’s failure to comply with the 

12 Federal Farmland Protection Act and its own failure to fully analyze the environmental effects of 

13 a large range fire at the Areva site.

14

15 [118-03, Caroline Morris] The draft EIS also may not comply with the Federal Farmland 

16 Protection Act (Act), which applies because Areva has a $2 billion federal loan guarantee from 

17 the Department of Energy. The EIS claim of being exempt from the Act because the EREF site 

18 is on private property is wrong. Areva’s licensing must comply with the Act and its procedural 

19 requirements before licensing.

20

21 [127-02, Sheila Plowman] Also, The NRC should address both Areva’s failure to comply with 

22 the Federal Farmland Protection Act and its own failure to fully analyze the environmental 

23 effects of a large range fire at the Areva site.

24

25 [153-01, Andrea Shipley; 197-01, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

26 Areva’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will...utilize farmland that is potentially protected 

27 by the Federal government. 

28

29 [153-12, Andrea Shipley; 184-17, Kitty Vincent] Further, The EIS may not be in compliance 

30 with the Federal Farmland Protection Act. The EIS claims that the licensing of this facility is 

31 exempt from the Farmland Protection Act since the site is on private property (EIS, 3-3). But 

32 because Areva has accepted a $2 billion federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, 

33 the Federal Farmland Protection Act applies to this license and the required procedures under 

34 the Act must be completed prior to licensing.

35

36 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) 

37 will...obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. 

38

39 [191-02, Liz Woodruff] But I did want to provide further details on one aspect of the testimony 

40 that I gave in Idaho, and that has to do with the fact that the DEIS may not be in compliance 

41 with the Federal Farmland Protection Act. The EIS claims that the licensing of this facility is 

42 exempt from the Farmland Protection Act, since the site is on private property. To quote the 

43 Draft EIS, “Some of the land located within the proposed property was designated as prime 

44 farmland by the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service. This is a federal designation. 

45 Prime farmland is protected by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. The intent of this act 

46 is to protect prime farmland from other uses as the result of federal actions.” I’m still quoting 

47 from the EIS. “The act does not apply to federally permitted or licensed actions of private lands, 
I-128

1 therefore, the act and its designation as prime farmland do not restrict land use on the proposed 

2 EREF property.” And this is from EIS 3-3.

3

4 So, from information the Alliance gathered from the Idaho State USDS we confirmed that 

5 because AREVA has accepted a $2 billion federal loan guarantee, and this is a form of financial 

6 insurance from the federal government with your taxpayer dollars, AREVA has even been 

7 quoted as saying without access to this cheap capital, they would not build this facility in the 

8 U.S., so this is clearly a form of financing. That the Federal Farmland Protection Act absolutely 

9 applies to this license, and when the NRC consulted with the USDA in Idaho, they did not share 

10 the information with that agency that there would be a loan guarantee. Perhaps it was not 

11 known at that time, but it is known now.

12

13 Specifically, from 7 CFR, Section 258.2, “Federal program means those activities are 

14 responsibilities of a federal agency that involve undertaking financing or assisting construction, 

15 or improvements projects, or acquiring, managing, or disposing of the federal lands and 

16 facilities.” So, simply put, this loan guarantee changes the game. And this isn’t a claim that you 

17 can’t license the facility, this is a claim that you absolutely must go through the processes that 

18 fall under the Federal Farmland Protection Act. It would be unacceptable to do otherwise. 

19

20 [191-20, Liz Woodruff] • The EIS may not be in compliance with the Federal Farmland 

21 Protection Act. The EIS claims that the licensing of this facility is exempt from the Farmland 

22 Protection Act since the site is on private property. To quote the draft EIS:

23

24 “Some of the land located within the proposed property was designated as prime farmland by 

25 the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Prime farmland is protected by the 

26 Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (see Title 7of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 

27 (7 CFR 658.2). Per 7 CFR 658.2 (c)(1)(i), the intent of this Act is to protect prime farmland from 

28 other uses as the result of Federal actions. The Act does not apply to Federally permitted or 

29 licensed actions on private lands. Therefore, the Act and its designation as prime farmland do 

30 not restrict land use on the proposed EREF property” (EIS, 3-3).

31

32 From information gathered from the Idaho State USDA, I’ve confirmed that because Areva has 

33 accepted a $2 billion federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, the Federal 

34 Farmland Protection Act likely applies to this license and the required procedures under the Act 

35 must be completed prior to licensing. From 7 CFR Section 258.2 (c): 

36

37 “Federal program means those activities or responsibilities of a Federal agency that involve 

38 undertaking, financing, or assisting construction or improvement projects or acquiring, 

39 managing, or disposing of Federal lands and facilities.”

40

41 [193-21, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] My next point is that this 

42 Environmental Impact Statement and the proposed licensing is potentially in violation of the 

43 Farmland Protection Act. The EIS claims that this facility is exempt from the Farmland 

44 Protection Act since the site is on private property. 

45

46 So a red flag went off for me when I read this in the EIS, and so I called the relevant agencies, 

47 federally, and in the state, and I was told that because AREVA accepted a $2 billion federal loan 
I-129

1 guarantee from the Department of Energy, the Farmland Protection Act applies, because it’s a 

2 federally-funded project. 

3

4 The NRC must go back, review this section of the EIS, talk to the relevant agencies, discuss the 

5 issues around this huge Department of Energy loan, and go through the process and 

6 procedures necessary to determine that you’re in compliance with the Farmland Protection Act. 

7 This is on Prime A age farmland that they’re proposing for this facility. 

8

9 [197-12, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Further, the EIS may not 

10 be in compliance with the Federal Farmland Protection Act.

11

12 Response: The FPPA is discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. As stated in the Draft EIS, it is 

13 correct that the FPPA does not apply to Federally permitted or licensed actions on private lands 

14 (including the potential licensing by the NRC of the proposed EREF) (7 CFR 658.2 (c)(1)(i)). 

15 However, the text of Section 3.2.1 has been modified to acknowledge that the DOE, in issuing a 

16 Federal loan guarantee to AES, is required by the FPPA to assess the project’s effect on the 

17 prime farmland that would be converted on the proposed EREF site. 

18

19

20 I.5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 

21

22 Comment: The following comment asks the NRC to incorporate design features in the 

23 proposed EREF project to minimize impacts to cultural resources and to prepare a plan to 

24 mitigate for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

25

26 [027-22, Sara Cohn] Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate: In terms of priorities, the NRC should first site 

27 facilities and infrastructure to avoid impacts to wildlife and cultural resources. If impacts cannot 

28 be entirely avoided, the NRC should incorporate design features to minimize impacts. Lastly, a 

29 plan should be prepared to mitigate for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

30

31 Response: The siting of a uranium enrichment facility involves a number of requirements, as 

32 discussed in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS. Environmental protection and land use/demography were 

33 two of the criteria categories used. Mitigation measures identified by AES to minimize impacts 

34 to cultural resources during preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF 

35 are presented in Section 4.2.2.3 and Chapter 5. Further, procedures to address unexpected 

36 discoveries in the case of cultural resources have been put in place, as mentioned in 

37 Section 4.2.2.3.

38

39 The NRC’s action with regard to the proposed EREF project is limited to granting a license, if 

40 found to be warranted, for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

41 facility. NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, NRC 

42 generally limits its analysis to the alternatives and actions reasonably available to the applicant.

43

44 When NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and 

45 environmental mitigation and monitoring measures beyond those proposed as part of the 

46 license application is limited to those with a reasonable nexus to providing protection for 

47 radiological health and safety and common defense and security. The NRC can, however, 

48 require that the proposed facility be built in accordance with the submitted application, including 

49 mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by the applicant that are not specifically required 
I-130

1 by or directly related to NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have the ability to hold 

2 licensees to key mitigation and monitoring measures committed to in their applications and 

3 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference. 

4

5

6 Comment: The following comment states that mitigation of impacts to aboriginal and ceded 

7 areas, and to water, soil, plants, animals and air, need to be addressed in the EIS. 

8

9 [036-06, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Mitigation of impacts 

10 to aboriginal and ceded areas needs to be addressed. Mitigation issues regarding 

11 environmental impacts to water, soil, plants, animals and air. 

12

13 Response: Mitigation measures identified by AES to minimize impacts during preconstruction, 

14 construction, and operation of the proposed EREF are presented in Section 4.2 and Chapter 5 

15 of the EIS for all resource areas as applicable. Further, procedures to address unexpected 

16 discoveries in the case of cultural resources have been put in place, as mentioned in 

17 Section 4.2.2.3.

18

19 Comment: The following comment suggests that mitigation for all culturally sensitive items 

20 needs to be done.

21

22 [036-08, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Mitigation for all 

23 culturally sensitive items needs to be done. It is my understanding that since AREVA is required 

24 to follow the NEPA process we can request mitigation for all of our concerns.

25

26 Response: All known impacts on historic and cultural resources, as discussed in Section 4.2 of 

27 the EIS, will be mitigated by AES. 

28

29

30 Comment: The following comment relates to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Idaho 

31 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the NRC to resolve the effects on site MW004.

32

33 [126-01, Susan Pengilly, on behalf of the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office] Our 

34 only recommendation is to add a statement saying that effects on site MW004 will be resolved 

35 through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NRC and the Idaho SHPO 

36 (assuming that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation does not want to be a signatory). 

37 This statement should be added somewhere in Section 4.2.2, perhaps in the paragraphs 

38 bounded by lines 13-24.

39

40 Also, please be aware that the MOA needs to be signed before the ROD is issued to ensure 

41 compliance with Section 106. This has been a problem in the past with other Federal projects, 

42 and the Advisory Council has made it very clear that the MOA needs to be finalized before 

43 issuance of the ROD.

44

45 Response: The most recent information of the consultations between the NRC, SHPO, and 

46 Federally recognized Shoshone-Bannock Tribes concerning impacts on historic and cultural 

47 resources has been added to Section 4.2.2.1 of the EIS. 

48

49
I-131

1 Comment: The following comment requests notification of the Heritage Tribal Officer of the 

2 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of any inadvertent cultural or archaeological discoveries, and training 

3 of EREF site workers in cultural resources regulations and laws.

4

5 [129-03, Willie Preacher, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Regarding cultural 

6 issues the tribes would like to have the Heritage Tribal Office (HeTO) to be a part of the cultural 

7 surveys of this proposed site and to be notified of any inadvertent cultural or archaeological 

8 discoveries. Also inform the contractors who may be utilized for the construction of the facility 

9 and for the permanent employees of the cultural regulations and federal laws concerning 

10 artifacts, retrieving and removing historic items, The INL who is a neighbor to this proposed site 

11 has experienced decades of this type of behavior.

12

13 Response: An inadvertent (unanticipated) discovery plan has been developed by AES for the 

14 proposed EREF project and is discussed in Section 4.2.2.1 of the EIS. Pre-project training of 

15 workers in cultural resources legislation and rules is identified as a mitigation measure in 

16 Section 4.2.2.3 and Chapter 5 of the EIS.

17

18

19 Comment: The following comment states that the Final EIS should discuss both (1) how issues 

20 raised by tribes would be addressed by the project and (2) the outcomes of ongoing work with 

21 the Idaho SHPO and affected tribes on potential effects requiring Section 106 review of the 

22 National Historic Preservation Act. 

23

24 [138-08, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

25 Region 10] Consultation with Tribal Governments - The draft EIS indicates that there have 

26 been contacts with Tribes that may be affected by the proposed project. This is especially 

27 important because the DEIS states that the project would result in up to large impacts to 

28 resources important to tribes (p. 4-4), including historical and cultural, visual, and ecological 

29 resources. Construction activities, for example, would destroy historic and cultural resources at 

30 MW004 site, while increased traffic and construction activities and the presence of an industrial 

31 complex would significantly alter the visual landscape. Because of these and other impacts that 

32 may be discovered during the project operations, we recommend that the final EIS include a 

33 discussion of how issues raised by Tribes would be addressed by the project and outcomes of 

34 the ongoing work with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and affected Tribes on 

35 potential effects requiring Section 106 review of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

36

37 Response: Consultation with the SHPO and the affected Federally recognized Shoshone38 Bannock Tribes has been ongoing throughout the EIS process. The information on the status of 

39 these consultations in Sections 1.5.4.2 and 4.2.2 of the EIS has been updated. An updated

40 discussion of the impacts on specific cultural resources is also presented in Section 4.2.2.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comments were expressed over the destruction of the John Leopard 

44 Homestead (site MW004).

45

46 [135-04, Hon. Dave Radford] Historically, I serve on the Heritage Commission. I think history is 

47 important, that homestead, I think, could be mitigated out there. Historically, Bonneville County, 

48 my predecessors at the County Commission, took very limited resources in terms of property 
I-132

1 tax dollars and invested them in improved roads to get out to the site 60 years ago. So, 

2 historically, we’ve been a nuclear-friendly county, and I believe that it will continue. And we 

3 applaud your work, we respect your work, and we hope for a great outcome for an expedited 

4 license for AREVA.

5

6 [147-15, Joey Schueler] 11. A historical landmark and a vast expanse of Idaho native habitat 

7 will be destroyed to build this plant.

8

9 [153-01, Andrea Shipley; 197-01, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance; 

10 184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will...support destruction 

11 of the John Leopard homestead which has been recommended for the National Register of 

12 Historic Places

13

14 [191-23, Liz Woodruff] Construction of the facility would lead to the destruction of a site that 

15 has been recommended for the National Register of Historic Places. The John Leopard 

16 homestead (MW004), would be destroyed in preconstruction activity. A Memorandum of 

17 Understanding must be signed with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office before any 

18 activity is initiated that would affect this historic site.

19

20 [193-24, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock 

21 enrichment facility will...impair a national monument in Idaho, and support destruction of a 

22 historic site....

23

24 Response: Impacts on historic and cultural resources are discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the EIS.

25 The NRC has been in involved in consultation with the Idaho SHPO concerning the impacts on

26 the John Leopard Homestead (site MW004) throughout the EIS process. The discussion of the 

27 consultation and mitigation efforts in Section 4.2.2 has been updated.

28

29 AES archaeological consultant, Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. (WCRM), 

30 conducted professional excavation and data recovery as mitigation site MW004 in October–

31 November 2010 following the process identified in a Treatment Plan previously reviewed by the 

32 Idaho SHPO (Idaho SHPO, 2010). WCRM submitted a summary report on these data recovery 

33 efforts to the Idaho SHPO on November 17, 2010 (WCRM, 2010). In a letter dated 

34 November 26, 2010, the SHPO stated that the data recovery report had been reviewed and 

35 accepted (Idaho SHPO, 2010). A detailed report on the site MW004 mitigation is being 

36 prepared by AES.

37

38

39 I.5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources

40

41 Comment: The following comment states that the Final EIS should include a discussion of how 

42 issues such as visual impacts raised by tribes would be addressed by the project.

43

44 [138-08, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

45 Region 10] Consultation with Tribal Governments - The draft EIS indicates that there have 

46 been contacts with Tribes that may be affected by the proposed project. This is especially 

47 important because the DEIS states that the project would result in up to large impacts to 

48 resources important to tribes (p. 4-4), including historical and cultural, visual, and ecological 
I-133

1 resources. Construction activities, for example, would destroy historic and cultural resources at 

2 MW004 site, while increased traffic and construction activities and the presence of an industrial 

3 complex would significantly alter the visual landscape. Because of these and other impacts that 

4 may be discovered during the project operations, we recommend that the final EIS include a 

5 discussion of how issues raised by Tribes would be addressed by the project and outcomes of 

6 the ongoing work with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and affected Tribes on 

7 potential effects requiring Section 106 review of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

8

9 Response: Consultation with the SHPO and the affected Federally recognized Shoshone10 Bannock Tribes has been ongoing throughout the EIS process. The visual impacts associated 

11 with the project are discussed in Section 4.2.3 of the EIS.

12

13

14 Comment: The following comment relates to mitigation measures for visual impacts from the 

15 proposed EREF.

16

17 [152-13, Steven Serr] There was discussion as far as potential moderate impact on the facility 

18 that it could create a visual impact on site. One of the very early things we discussed with 

19 AREVA when they looked at the site was the potential for location on the site to keep it back 

20 from visual appearances to the public, and also discussing what landscaping features might be 

21 incorporated into it to even buffer it, to mitigate any visual impacts. We discussed lighting 

22 issues, treescape, approach roads, and we feel that before this project would fully be built, that 

23 we would have some approved mitigation plans to help eliminate any of those visual impacts, so 

24 we could take that down from a moderate impact to a slight impact.

25

26 Response: The NRC recognizes the ongoing consultations between AES and Bonneville 

27 County regarding the construction and operation of the proposed EREF. Visual impact 

28 mitigation measures that AES has identified are presented in Section 4.2.3.3 and Chapter 5 of 

29 the EIS.

30

31

32 Comment: The following comment relates to impacts on the wilderness values of Hell’s Half 

33 Acre WSA due to construction and operation of the proposed EREF.

34

35 [140-03, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

36 Field Office] Second, Mr. Boggs indicates that the proposed facilities would be seen from 

37 certain areas of the Hell’s Half Acre WSA (particularly from the northern end of the hiking trail). 

38 Because these areas are within the WSA itself, there would be adverse impact on wilderness 

39 values associated with the implementation of the proposed action. The analysis in this case 

40 could read, for instance, “The construction and operation of the proposed facility would have an 

41 adverse impact on wilderness values because opportunities for solitude would be reduced due 

42 to the facility being within sight of users of certain areas of the WSA. The impact would be 

43 greatest at night when artificial lighting is in use”. The BLM agrees with the characterization of 

44 these impacts as MODERATE.

45

46 Response: The NRC appreciates the clarification and has modified the text of Section 4.2.3.2

47 of the EIS accordingly.

48

49
I-134

1 Comment: The following comments relate to the impacts of light pollution on Hell’s Half Acre

2 WSA.

3

4 [067-01, Mike Hart] With respect to what I view as the public’s best interest, first, I thank you 

5 for the analysis. Looking through the EIS, Section 4.2.3, you analyze visual impacts which 

6 include light pollution. As an astronomer, we use the area, Hell’s Half Acre, for astronomy 

7 parties. We use that because it’s a good dark sky location that’s relatively convenient. The EIS 

8 doesn’t specifically mention that, but in mitigation, it does identify that there will be low – or the 

9 lights will be pointed downwards, and I would appreciate further mitigations to acknowledge that 

10 the sky should be kept as dark as possible. Possibly for security, if you could use infrared 

11 technology or something that doesn’t require high light levels that would very much be 

12 appreciated. 

13

14 [067-08, Mike Hart] With respect to environmental impacts, I’d like to thank the NRC for 

15 listening to my scoping comments about light pollution. This facility is located near 20 Mile Rock, 

16 as we call it, or the lava hiking trail. We use that for star parties. If you go out tonight, it’s the 

17 Perseid Meteor Shower peak. This would be a great time to visit a dark sky 20 miles from town. 

18 You can get away from the city lights. I hope this facility continues to be pursued, but with the 

19 idea of keeping those lights to a minimum and keep that dark sky, preserve that resource.

20

21 Response: AES has stated that light noise will be minimized to the extent practicable and that 

22 all perimeter lights would be downfacing (AES, 2010a), as discussed in Section 4.2.3.3 and 

23 Chapter 5 of the EIS.

24

25

26 Comment: The following comments noted that the proposed EREF could have impacts to Hell’s 

27 Half Acre WSA.

28

29 [153-01, Andrea Shipley] Areva’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will...impact the Hell’s 

30 Half Acre National Monument

31

32 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will...impair 

33 the Hell’s Half Acre National Monument

34

35 [191-32, Liz Woodruff] Visual and scenic resources. The proposed facility will have a visual 

36 impact on the Hell’s Half Acre National Monument.

37

38 [193-24, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] AREVA’s proposed Eagle 

39 Rock enrichment facility will...impair a national monument in Idaho....

40

41 Response: Visual impacts on Hell’s Half Acre WSA from the construction and operation of the 

42 proposed EREF are discussed in Section 4.2.3 of the EIS. AES has identified a number of 

43 measures to mitigate these impacts, as presented in Section 4.2.3.2 and Chapter 5 of the EIS.

44

45
I-135

1 I.5.11 Air Quality 

2

3 Comment: The following comment expresses concern about the potential release from the 

4 proposed EREF of radioactive, hazardous, and toxic materials into the air.

5

6 [027-13, Sara Cohn] The ICL is very concerned about the potential release of radioactive, 

7 hazardous and toxic materials into the air. Potential air releases associated with operation of 

8 this facility should be further analyzed, reported, and permitted though Idaho’s Department of 

9 Environmental Quality.

10

11 Response: Potential emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants during facility 

12 operation are analyzed in Section 4.2.4.2 of the EIS. Potential radiological releases during 

13 facility operation are analyzed in Section 4.2.10.2. The license that would be issued to AES by 

14 NRC, if granted, would not exempt AES from its obligation to comply with other applicable 

15 Federal, State, and local regulations or requirements, as noted in Section 1.5 of the EIS. Under 

16 Idaho State regulations, AES would have to satisfy all air quality regulatory and permitting 

17 requirements that may be enforced by the IDEQ.

18

19

20 Comment: The following comment deals with mitigation of air pollution resulting from 

21 construction of the proposed EREF.

22

23 [027-17, Sara Cohn] Air pollution resulting from construction of the proposed facility should be 

24 avoided or reduced using the best available management practices and control technology. To 

25 preserve Idaho’s clean air during construction operations, the NRC should include mitigation 

26 measures for these pollutants. For example, fugitive dust emissions can be controlled through 

27 the use of water trucks, provided the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) 

28 ensures no discharge of sediment from the site. Additionally, diesel emissions should be 

29 reduced using best management practices for construction including limited idling of diesel 

30 equipment and the use of low-emitting fuels and low-emitting technology for construction 

31 equipment. 

32

33 Response: Mitigation measures for control of air pollutants during preconstruction and 

34 construction of the proposed EREF have been identified by AES, and are presented in 

35 Section 4.2.4.3 and Chapter 5 in the EIS. Further, IDEQ has the authority to require AES to 

36 control fugitive dust emissions throughout the preconstruction and construction phases.

37

38

39 Comment: The following comment requests that AES/NRC re-evaluate the need for an air 

40 permit to construct using uncontrolled emission rates of toxic air pollutants.

41

42 [066-24, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 22. 

43 Chapter 1: pp 1-17, Table 1-2. This table summarizes that an air quality permit to construct is 

44 not required for this project because the exemption criteria of IDAPA are satisfied. Toxic air 

45 pollutant emissions are discussed on pages 4-24 through 4-27. In these pages it is concluded 

46 that emissions of fluoride, ethanol, methylene chloride, and uranium from normal operations 

47 meet the exemption criteria for toxic air pollutants in IDAPA 58.01.01 Section 223. In order to 

48 meet the Section 223 exemption criteria for toxic air pollutants, uncontrolled emissions must 
I-136

1 meet the exemption criteria as opposed to emissions from “normal” operations as discussed in 

2 the Draft EIS.

3

4 In accordance with IDAPA 58.01.01 Section 210 an uncontrolled emissions rate of a toxic air 

5 pollutant from a source or modification is calculated using the maximum capacity of the source 

6 or modification under its physical and operational design without the effect of any physical or 

7 operational limitations. Examples of physical and operational design include but are not limited 

8 to: the amount of time equipment operates during batch operations and the quantity of raw 

9 materials utilized in a batch process. Examples of physical or operational limitations include but 

10 are not limited to: shortened hours of operation, use of control equipment, and restrictions on 

11 production which are less than design capacity. It is not clear from the information provided in 

12 the draft EIS whether uncontrolled emissions of fluoride, ethanol, methylene chloride, and 

13 uranium were compared to the exemption thresholds, but the use of the term “normal 

14 emissions” on page 4-27, line 37 does imply that air pollution mitigation measures were 

15 inappropriately considered in the toxic air pollutant exemption determination. DEQ requests that 

16 AES/NRC reevaluate the need for an air permit using uncontrolled emission rates of toxic air 

17 pollutants.

18

19 Response: The NRC staff based its analysis of air releases on operational data and 

20 experiences provided by AES for other AES facilities using similar enrichment technology and 

21 controls. This information from AES was reviewed and independently verified by the NRC staff 

22 before using it in the EIS. To ensure the most conservative estimate possible, the NRC staff 

23 constrained the releases of the subject materials to the shortest reasonable time frame, given 

24 the nature of the activity resulting in a release. For example, methylene chloride is used for 

25 equipment refurbishment, but that activity takes place only during the first shift. Consequently, 

26 that time frame is reflected in the NRC’s estimate of the rate of methylene chloride release. In 

27 the case of methylene chloride release, the NRC understands that this does represent an 

28 uncontrolled release because it is the result of evaporative losses from benchtop operations 

29 where methylene chloride vapors are subsequently vented to the atmosphere without passing 

30 through any control devices. Although the NRC believes that its application of the IDEQ 

31 regulations in the EIS is reasonable and conservative, the determination of whether the scenario 

32 described meets the permit exemptions contained in IDEQ rules is solely the province of IDEQ; 

33 and AES will be dealing directly, and the NRC will not be involved, with IDEQ with regard to air 

34 permitting for construction and operation of the proposed facility. 

35

36 The NRC’s use of the term “normal emissions” is meant to describe a condition where all 

37 systems are operating as designed (i.e., no upset or off-normal conditions exist) and pollution 

38 control devices are operating in accordance with their performance guarantees. 

39

40

41 Comment: The following comment asserts that there is a contradiction in statements in the EIS 

42 regarding exceedances of ambient air quality standards for particulate matter during 

43 preconstruction and construction of the proposed EREF. 

44

45 [066-25, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 23. 

46 Chapter 4: pp 4-20, Table 4-5. This table shows that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

47 will be exceeded for particulate matter during preconstruction and construction. Mitigation 

48 measures are discussed in Section 4.2.4.3, pp-4-28. The opening paragraph of this section 
I-137

1 states, “Impacts from the release of criteria pollutants from the operation of vehicles and 

2 equipment during preconstruction, construction, and operation are not expected to result in 

3 exceedances of ambient air quality standards....” This statement contradicts with the estimated 

4 ambient impacts presented in Table 4-5 (which shows violations of the particulate matter 

5 standards). It appears that the predicted ambient impacts shown in Table 4-5 should be updated 

6 to reflect the ambient impacts that would occur when operating using the listed mitigation 

7 measures which are expected to result in lower emissions that do not cause an exceedance.

8

9 Response: To clarify, the EIS language quoted in the comment was included to emphasize that 

10 exceedance of the particulate standard would result primarily from fugitive dust generation and 

11 not from operation of reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). The estimated ambient 

12 air impacts in Table 4-5 in the EIS include contributions from all sources of criteria pollutants. 

13 The opening paragraph in Section 4.2.4.3 was revised to make that distinction. In this case, 

14 mitigations of fugitive dust would be more valuable than efforts to minimize emissions from 

15 RICE. 

16

17 Data in Table 4-5 resulted from application of the appropriate U.S. Environmental Protection 

18 Agency (EPA) AERMOD dispersion models. The mitigation measures identified by AES and 

19 presented in the EIS can be expected to result in reduced emissions of criteria pollutants. 

20 However, since a final mitigation strategy is not available, the suggested updated emission 

21 reduction calculation cannot be completed at this time. 

22

23

24 Comment: The following comment expresses agreement with the Draft EIS that any potential 

25 negative impacts on the air and water resources would be SMALL.

26

27 [102-02, R.D. Maynard] After reviewing the summary of the environmental consequences and 

28 mitigation section of the draft EIS, I’m confident that any potential negative impact on the air and 

29 water resources would be small.

30

31 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment and appreciates the participation.

32

33

34 Comment: The following comment recommends that the NRC maximize implementation of the 

35 air pollution mitigation measures described in the EIS and coordinate with the IDEQ throughout 

36 the project lifespan to assure that federal and state air quality standards will be met by the 

37 proposed project.

38

39 [138-02, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

40 Region 10] For better protection of public health from air pollution exposure, EPA has set 

41 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants or criteria pollutants 

42 (see http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html) that should be used to determine if emissions from a 

43 project would exceed daily and annual standards. Any projects that would generate emissions 

44 exceeding the standards would have to include measures to demonstrate that, if implemented, 

45 the project would comply with both state and federal air quality regulations. Even though 

46 background concentrations of criteria pollutants within the project area and environs are 

47 currently below the standards, it is likely that emissions within the project area could exceed the 

48 standards because of the proposed project. As the DEIS noted, particulate matter (PM) 
I-138

1 concentrations during construction activities would be moderate to large (p. 4-1 1) due to 

2 fugitive dust releases to the air during ground disturbing activities even after application of 

3 mitigation measures, although they would be temporary and brief in duration. The DEIS 

4 indicates that air emissions associated with the ERF preconstruction and construction activities 

5 alone would be 271.5% and 105% higher than NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 

6 concentrations, respectively (p. 4-20). Because of these anticipated exceedances of ambient air 

7 quality standards, we recommend that NRC maximize implementation of the mitigation 

8 measures described in the DEIS and coordinate with the Idaho Department of Environmental 

9 Quality (IDEQ) throughout the project lifespan to assure that federal and state air quality 

10 standards will be met by the project.

11

12 Response: The NRC staff concurs with EPA’s assessment that a properly designed and 

13 executed mitigation plan will be essential for preserving ambient air quality during certain 

14 phases of facility construction and agrees that collaboration with IDEQ is the best way to ensure 

15 that adequate controls will be included in IDEQ permits.

16

17 The NRC’s purpose and need statements in its environmental review documents reflect that 

18 NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, when the 

19 NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and mitigative 

20 measures beyond those proposed as part of the application is limited to those with a reasonable 

21 nexus to providing protection for radiological health and safety and common defense and 

22 security. The NRC can, however, require that the facility be built in accordance with the 

23 submitted application, including mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that are not 

24 specifically required by or directly related to the NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have 

25 the ability to hold licensees to key mitigation measures committed to in their applications and 

26 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

27

28

29 Comment: The following comments express the belief that fugitive dust generation during 

30 construction would not be a LARGE impact.

31

32 [094-02, Michael Lange] There are very few disagreements I would have. Only, I guess the 

33 one I could say would be the dust mitigation issue more than likely can be mitigated down to a 

34 moderate level. And I believe that we do that out at IWTU everyday now, so I think that’s pretty 

35 accurate. The rest of it looks very professionally done. 

36

37 [098-08, Linda Martin] In the NRC assessment, the only topic which was described as small to 

38 large concerns the subject of Air Quality. In this geographic region local, state, and regional 

39 governments, agricultural interests, and private landowners frequently encounter dust or 

40 “fugitive” dust when working on projects concerning the land. Therefore, these impacts would be 

41 and should be considered to be normal, temporary, and brief in duration.

42

43 [152-14, Steven Serr] The dust issue was one of the other issues in the EIS that was mentioned, 

44 that it would be a potential moderate impact. We do have a fairly aggressive plan for onsite 

45 maintenance of water application to construction sites to mitigate any dust out from it. I feel that 

46 given what we have encouraged developers to do on site during construction, that that could also 

47 be minimized down to a small impact, as opposed to a moderate impact.

48
I-139

1 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments and appreciates the participation.

2 However, the NRC staff stands by its determination that fugitive dust generation would result in a 

3 LARGE impact, for reasons discussed in Section 4.2.4.1 of the EIS.

4

5 I.5.12 Geology, Minerals, and Soil

6

7 Comment: The following comments are related to the seismic hazards to the proposed EREF.

8

9 [014-01, William Blair] Idaho does not need more radioactive waste placed over the Snake 

10 Plain Aquifer in an active earthquake area. Until a safe method of handling and storing 

11 radioactive wastes for thousands of years is devised, NO new facilities should be approved. 

12

13 [016-01, Manley Briggs] I think that the seismic activity in the area around the plant needs to 

14 be considered. I understand that that was addressed and it was felt to not be significant. But 

15 Idaho is very seismically active. It has the fifth largest number of earthquakes in the country. 

16 The most recent earthquake was August 1st, 2010. It has had the two largest earthquake in the 

17 lower United States in the last 50 years. The Hebo Lake earthquake on the Idaho-Montana 

18 border was a 7.5 magnitude, and the Borah Peak earthquake, in 1983, was a 7.3 magnitude. 

19 And if this material is being stored in an area close to those potential earthquakes, I feel that 

20 that has to be addressed. There are fault lines that essentially completely surround the INL, 

21 comes down from the Lost River, comes down from the north, and I think that certainly needs to 

22 be addressed from the health point of view, because an earthquake could certain disrupt 

23 storage. 

24

25 [0163-03, Manley Briggs] Accordingly, I am concerned about the development of Areva’s 

26 Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, where depleted uranium hexafluoride will be stored over the 

27 aquifer. One of my concerns is that the INL is located in a seismically active area, and in 

28 addition of numerous other natural and manmade accidents that could compromise the safety of 

29 the stored material, an earthquake could pose a serious hazard.

30

31 As you are probably aware, Idaho is very active seismically, and has the fifth highest 

32 earthquake activity in the nation. In addition, Idaho has experienced the two largest earthquakes 

33 in the contiguous United States in the last fifty years – the 1959 Hebgen Lake Earthquake 

34 (M7.5) and the Borah Peak earthquake (M7.3) in 1983. Both of these quakes occurred in 

35 locations close to EREF. I have enclosed maps showing the close proximity of fault lines to the 

36 INL. The Areva EIS needs to address this danger.

37

38 [100-03, Wendy Matson] Due to the indefinite storage of depleted uranium hexafluoride on 

39 site, seismic activity in the area of the proposed facility poses a major safety hazard that could 

40 lead to a critical level accident. And I wish that the NRC could clarify why a complete analysis of 

41 this risk is delayed until the safety evaluation report. 

42

43 [150-04, Katie Seevers] NRC should clarify why a complete analysis of seismic risk is delayed 

44 until the safety evaluation report.

45

46 [152-06, Steven Serr] The issues they had, that were addressed, as to seismic protection, life, 

47 safety, protection from earthquake damage. This area is in a seismic zone C on the building code 

48 map, cause it’s not an extreme risk area for seismic activity. The INL is in the same seismic zone 
I-140

1 designation. We have multiple nuclear facilities that have been constructed, nuclear reactors that 

2 have been built there have been safely functional during the seismic events we have experienced 

3 in the past, with no negative impacts on it. We have discussed the seismic issues with AREVA, and 

4 NRC staff, it was in my office, and felt that with compliance with the building code requirements that 

5 we have, that we fully intend to implement, that we don’t see that there would be an issue with--

6 issues of seismic, inappropriateness for this site to be built. 

7

8 [152-11, Steven Serr] Discussion regarding the seismic area out there, we have talked about 

9 seismic conditions, what the facility will need to be doing to meet safety issues as far as seismic 

10 design criteria. The safety issue of long-term storage was addressed, also, as to the containers 

11 that will be stored on site. The containers that they have on site, just to check and see, they’re 

12 designed for transportation containers. They’re able to survive an auto wreck, impact damage in 

13 an auto accident. Seismic conditions on site, worst case we’d have where there are outside 

14 storage, if something would fall over, be a low impact on it. We determined that that would not be a 

15 problem, as far as damage creating an issue in a seismic event that there could be any potential 

16 leakage.

17

18 [169-05, Margaret Stewart] And, finally, I need to know why a complete analysis of the seismic 

19 risks of this facility is being delayed until the safety evaluation report. As you all know, this area has 

20 always been seismically active, and the production, transportation, and storage of such 

21 dangerously radioactive materials in such a volatile region seems irresponsible, at best.

22

23 Now, I’ve used these signs before at hearings, and I use them again because geology doesn’t 

24 change that much. Back in -- before 1982, the U.S. Building Code upon which all buildings in 

25 the U.S. must adhere to, and follow their codes, shows that this is the State of Idaho. Here’s 

26 INEL, as it was called back then, and this is a zone three potential for major damage. Just after 

27 this date, INEL was looking to get approval from the U.S. Congress to build a nuclear facility, a 

28 very, very -- I won’t go into that -- but a very specific nuclear facility with lots of inherent 

29 dangers, and it needed approval from Congress. And, uniquely, after 1992, the potential for 

30 major damage changed. And INEL is here completely outside of the danger zone. And now we 

31 go to 1989, and here is the potential for major damage with the yellow, and the proximity for 

32 major fault system damage practically inevitable is here, and here is INEL, this little island that 

33 there’s no problem. So, I think that we really need to look at experts and science to give us this 

34 kind of information that, in my book, appears to be based on politics, not on science.

35

36 [171-01, John Tanner] The entire Snake River Plain has been known as an area of very low 

37 seismic activity, in spite of the high seismic activity in the surrounding hills and mountains. I was 

38 working at the chemical processing plant when the Mt. Borah earthquake, a giant earthquake 

39 struck, which caused a fault displacement of about, I think over 10 feet there, but we just barely felt 

40 a tremor at the chemical processing plant, at the INL. And I point out how well the reactors in Japan 

41 and Armenia have stood up to earthquakes that have happened there. I think it was Armenia, not 

42 Azerbaijan, which is next door.

43

44 [184-05, Kitty Vincent] Who in their right mind would come to a city that has a nuclear facility 

45 eighteen miles to the West at the foot of one of the most active seismic areas in the country? 

46 Especially a facility that is owned and managed by a company that has a history of problems? 

47

48 [191-21, Liz Woodruff] Geology and Soils. Due to the indefinite storage of depleted uranium 

49 hexafluoride on site, seismic activity in the area of the proposed facility poses a major safety 
I-141

1 hazard that could lead to a critical level accident. The NRC should clarify why a complete analysis 

2 of seismic risk is delayed until the Safety Evaluation Report.

3

4 Response: As noted in Section 3.6 of the EIS and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71(c) and 

5 NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

6 Programs” (NRC, 2003), a seismic hazards analysis is outside the scope of the EIS. The seismic 

7 hazards analysis is addressed in Section 1.3.3.4.1 of the SER, NUREG-1951 (NRC, 2010b). As 

8 discussed in Section 1.4 of the EIS, the development of the SER was closely coordinated with the 

9 EIS analysis. Section 3.6.1.1 of the EIS describes the seismic setting and earthquakes in the 

10 vicinity of the proposed EREF site as part of the regional geology discussion and summarizes the 

11 results of the probabilistic seismic hazard study conducted as part of the safety review of AES’s 

12 license application and documented in the SER. Section 4.2.5.1 considers this information along 

13 with local soil and groundwater conditions to conclude that the liquefaction potential of soils near 

14 the proposed EREF is also low. 

15

16 Section 3.6.1.1 of the EIS provides a map (Figure 3-15) showing the locations of Quaternary faults 

17 and earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 3.0. This figure illustrates the low seismic activity 

18 within the Snake River Plain. A new map (Figure 3-17), based on information from the 

19 U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program, has been added to Section 3.6.1.1 to 

20 illustrate the low level of ground shaking in the vicinity of the proposed EREF associated with 

21 earthquakes in the region.

22

23 Note that there is no risk of a criticality accident involving depleted uranium in the storage yard as a 

24 result of seismic activity (or any other catastrophic event) as suggested in some of the comments.

25

26 I.5.13 Water Resources

27

28 Comment: The following comment talks about injection wells through which waste was 

29 introduced into the aquifer.

30

31 [008-06, Carol Bachelder] I would like to speak about water. I’m not a nuclear engineer. I’m 

32 not an expert in the field of water, but I’ve lived in Idaho most of my life, and I’ve educated 

33 myself a little bit. I watch the news, and I read, and I remember the aquifer from years ago when 

34 they had injection wells. Now, these injections wells were developed by nuclear scientists, and 

35 engineers, and professional people. And you know what they did? They put waste down into the 

36 aquifer, because at the time we thought that a little bit of waste wouldn’t hurt anything. You 

37 know, just sort of diffuses into the aquifer, and won’t hurt anybody. I like to compare it to just a 

38 little bit of Drano, you know, you put just a little Drano in your cereal, and it won’t hurt you, 

39 because it’s just a little bit. So, they invented the injection wells, and another reason that they 

40 thought this was safe was because they thought that there was very little movement of the water 

41 down there. And the scientists, they figured that out, there’s no movement. But when they put 

42 microphones down into the injection wells, what did you get? You had gurgling.

43

44 Now, still water doesn’t gurgle, so they concluded that there was movement of the water. And 

45 the water was carrying the waste, and this was all done in the name of science.

46

47 Response: No injection wells are associated with the proposed EREF project. Also there would 

48 be no wastewater discharges associated with the operation of the proposed EREF (see 
I-142

1 Section 4.2.6.2 of the EIS). Therefore, contamination of the underlying aquifer would not be 

2 expected.

3

4

5 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns over the various potential avenues for 

6 water quality impacts and urges that updated information on the National Pollutant Discharge

7 Elimination System (NPDES) permit process and water protection measures be presented in 

8 the Final EIS.

9

10 [138-05, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

11 Region 10] The DEIS indicates that water quality may be adversely affected if the project 

12 construction activities (blasting, surface grading, excavation, and surface pavement, building 

13 roofs) alter the hydrology of springs and surface runoff such that erosion carries sediment and 

14 pollutants to local drainages (p. 4-32), accelerating infiltration and migrating through soils to the 

15 underlying aquifer. Also, groundwater extraction, land disturbance, material storage, waste 

16 disposal, inadvertent chemical or hazardous liquid spills, and compaction produced by vehicular 

17 traffic can all affect recharge to the local aquifer and groundwater quality. Because of such 

18 potential impacts to water quality, we recommend that this aspect of the project be monitored to 

19 assure that water quality is protected. The NRC should continue to coordinate with IDEQ and 

20 Tribes that may be affected by the project to assure that the state and tribal water resources 

21 (quantity and quality) are protected and used judiciously.

22

23 Since the project anticipates obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

24 (NPDES,) permit for planned preconstruction and construction activities likely to disturb up to 

25 nearly 600 acres, the final EIS should include updated information on the permit application 

26 process and measures to protect water quality. 

27

28 Response: As stated in Table 1.2, and Sections 4.2.5.3 and 4.2.6.3 of the EIS, AES must

29 obtain an NPDES Construction General Permit for its site preparation and construction 

30 activities. The NPDES permit sets standards and limits pertaining to the facility’s industrial 

31 wastewater, sewage, and stormwater discharges. Updates on the NPDES permitting process 

32 can be viewed on the EPA’s website at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/noi/

33 noidetail_new.cfm?ApplId=IDR10CI01. This has also been added as a footnote to Table 1-2 in 

34 Section 1.5.2 and a footnote in Section 4.2.6 of the FEIS. Water protection (i.e., mitigation) 

35 measures to be implemented by AES are discussed in Section 4.2.6.3 and Chapter 5.

36

37 The NRC’s purpose and need statements in its environmental review documents reflect that the 

38 NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, when the 

39 NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and mitigation and 

40 monitoring measures beyond those proposed as part of the application is limited to those with a 

41 reasonable nexus to providing protection for radiological health and safety and common 

42 defense and security. The NRC can, however, require that the facility be built in accordance 

43 with the submitted application, including mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that are 

44 not specifically required by or directly related to the NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does 

45 have the ability to hold licensees to key mitigation measures committed to in their applications 

46 and subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

47

48
I-143

1 Comment: The following comment encourages the use of low impact development techniques 

2 to reduce adverse water resource impacts.

3

4 [138-06, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

5 Region 10] In keeping with the use of sustainable practices, we encourage NRC to consider 

6 use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques during the proposed project activities because 

7 some of them have the potential to reduce stormwater volumes and thus mimic natural 

8 conditions as closely as possible. The techniques also lessen the impacts of stormwater runoff 

9 from impervious surfaces such as paved parking lots, roads and roofs, and can provide energy 

10 other utility savings. More information about LID practices can be found online at: 

11 http:/www.low/impactdevelopment.org/ and http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowht/stormwater.htm.

12

13 Response: The EPA’s “low impact development” practices have been added to the list of 

14 mitigation measures recommended by the NRC in Section 4.2.6.3 and in Chapter 5, Table 5-2.

15

16 The NRC’s purpose and need statements in its environmental review documents reflect that the 

17 NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, when the 

18 NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and mitigation

19 measures beyond those proposed as part of the application is limited to those with a reasonable 

20 nexus to providing protection for radiological health and safety and common defense and 

21 security. The NRC can, however, require that the facility be built in accordance with the 

22 submitted application, including mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that are not 

23 specifically required by or directly related to the NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have 

24 the ability to hold licensee’s to key mitigation measures committed to in their applications and 

25 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

26

27

28 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns regarding the amount of water that will 

29 be used in the enrichment process, and the safety of the filtration system that will be used for 

30 the evaporation process. 

31

32 [183-02 and 183-08, James Vincent] I also am particularly concerned with the amount of 

33 water that will be used in the enrichment process, and the safety of the filtration system that will 

34 be utilized for the evaporation process. 

35

36 Response: The amount of water expected to be used by the proposed EREF is less than the 

37 current appropriation for water use; therefore, the amount of water used would have a SMALL 

38 impact, as further explained in Sections 4.2.6.1 and 4.2.6.2 of the EIS. Solid waste from the 

39 filtration system is addressed in Section 4.2.11.2, with SMALL impacts expected.

40

41

42 Comment: The following comments are concerned with water quality permitting issues.

43

44 [027-12, Sara Cohn] It is unclear under what authority NRC may offer exemptions for 

45 preconstruction activities when such impacts extend outside of NRC jurisdiction. For example 

46 preconstruction activities may impact waters protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act – the 

47 Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. The project must consult with EPA in order to ensure the 
I-144

1 preconstruction activities will not impact the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, a sole source 

2 aquifer for eastern Idaho.

3

4 [066-20, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 18. 

5 The Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility potable water system will be classified as a non6 transient non-community public water system and subject to the requirements of the Idaho 

7 Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems (IDAPA 58.01.08). DEQ expects that AES will comply 

8 with all applicable regulations of the DEQ concerning the design, construction and operation of 

9 the water system (Refer to IDAPA 58.01.08 for official rule language).

10

11 [066-21, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 19. 

12 Clean Water Act/surface water issues and requirements

13 We expect that AES will comply with all applicable DEQ regulations concerning surface and 

14 ground water quality protection including but not limited to the requirements of IDAPA 58.01.02 

15 and IDAPA 58.01.1 1. In that regard, DEQ would identify the following issues that this EIS 

16 should consider and that AES in preconstruction, construction and operation should note:

17

18 • There are a number of intermittent or ephemeral streams on the property. AES will need 

19 to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 dredge and fill permit from the US Army Corps of 

20 Engineers (USACOE) if these are deemed waters of the U.S. and AES plans to place 

21 dredge or fill material in the streams. The USACOE and EPA make the determination if a 

22 stream is considered waters of the U.S. 

23

24 • Construction projects larger than 1 acre are required to get coverage under the 

25 construction storm water general permit from EPA if the storm water discharges to waters 

26 of the U.S.

27

28 • If storm water discharges to waters of the U.S., then AES should determine whether this 

29 facility is regulated under EPA’s Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) for storm water.

30

31 [036-03, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Question on what 

32 about the water permits, not only the permits to use water for processing but also potable water, 

33 as well the permits for disposal of water from the processing as well as septic water. They will 

34 also need to address plant protection runoff water issues.

35

36 Response: The approvals and permits pertaining to water use, water quality, and water runoff, 

37 required for preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF must be 

38 obtained by AES from other regulatory agencies. Tables 1-1 and 1-2 of the EIS list applicable 

39 requirements and the agencies to which AES must submit the appropriate applications.

40

41 The Safe Drinking Water Act and Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01 are listed 

42 in Table 1-2 as potentially applicable permitting and approval requirements for the proposed 

43 EREF’s drinking water system.

44

45 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a letter (Joyner 2008) stating that a Section 404 

46 permit (authorized by the Clean Water Act) is not required for the intermittent streams located 

47 on the proposed EREF property (see Table 1-2). A statement to this effect has also been 

48 added to Section 3.7.1.

49
I-145

1 Updates on the NPDES construction permitting process can be viewed on the EPA’s website at: 

2 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/noi/noidetail_new.cfm?ApplId=IDR10CI01. 

3

4

5 Comment: The following comments present observations on water use and threats to the 

6 Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) Aquifer.

7

8 [007-01, Arnold Ayers] For one, disposal wells don’t gurgle. For two, we put monitors around 

9 those wells which Jack Barraclough was well associated with, and instigated in the back history 

10 of his time to monitor those things. And those wells worked, and those wells were able to 

11 monitor what was coming out of the facilities directly under the facilities, as well as outside of 

12 the facilities. If AREVA is monitoring what’s going on, as they should do, there will be no 

13 discharges that I can see that could ever come undetected from those facilities, in my 

14 experience. 

15

16 [023-02, Rebecca Casper] I will tell you that at no time since April 2007 has there been one 

17 official conversation or unofficial conversation that I’m aware of, of the need for us, as a 

18 planning committee, to prepare to alter our plan for any threats that might be posed by AREVA. 

19 We were in existence before AREVA came on the scene. We still are, and it’s never been a 

20 problem. We’ve more talked about climate change than we have from threats of radioactivity, or 

21 anything like that. 

22

23 I will say that we’ve had no discussion, in my opinion, not because we’ve been remiss, but 

24 rather because there are no threats that meet the worry and action threshold. Again, we care 

25 about the safety and quality of the water. We would not -- we would be remiss in our duties if we 

26 didn’t explore every viable threat out there. And I am confident that my friend Jack would have --

27 he spoke earlier -- would have told you if there were some threats.

28

29 [102-02, R.D. Maynard] After reviewing the summary of the environmental consequences and 

30 mitigation section of the draft EIS, I’m confident that any potential negative impact on the air and 

31 water resources would be small.

32

33 [133-06, Richard Provencher] The facility does not require a large amount of water to operate. 

34 This is good from an aquifer conservation and a waste minimization standpoint.

35

36 [143-03, Hon. James Risch; 172-03, Amy Taylor, on behalf of Hon. James Risch] The 

37 process will use 50 times less electricity than a gaseous diffusion plant, and the amount of water 

38 used by the plant is less than the current irrigation appropriation. 

39

40 Response: The comments are consistent with the NRC’s finding that impacts on water 

41 resources from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF would be 

42 SMALL.

43

44

45 Comment: The following comments express concern about contamination of the ESRP Aquifer

46 as a result of the proposed EREF project.

47

48 [008-07, Carol Bachelder] Another thing about the water was the hearings I went to several 

49 months ago in Mountain Home, again, the scientists, the nuclear scientists were going to build a 
I-146

1 reactor, and they started in one county, and it was disproved, and they went to another county 

2 and it was disproved. The Snake River Alliance finally called this nuclear reactor Idaho’s 

3 “Nomadic Nuclear Reactor,” which wasn’t very scientific, but boy, it was funny. I mean, I liked 

4 that. The “Nomadic Nuclear Reactor,” because nobody wanted it. And the hearings from them 

5 were mainly from the farmers around there. It was an agricultural area, and they were scared, 

6 and they were mad, because they said this nuclear reactor is going to take our water. And this is 

7 the west. And a lot of fights, and hangings, and range wars happened in the early west over 

8 water. This is still the west, and these farmers were saying we don’t want this nuclear reactor 

9 here, and so it was disproved, and now it’s off down somewhere else trying to get approval. And 

10 that is stuff I’ve learned from the Snake River Alliance. They’re not -- maybe they’re not 

11 scientific, maybe they’re not totally educated, but they have a contribution to make.

12

13 [010-02, Jack Barraclough] When they say that this plant is going to ruin the aquifer, just read 

14 the EIS and find out they’re not going to discharge. And if they do, the monitor will pick it up and 

15 changes will be made. So. I don’t worry about this plant and what its effect on the aquifer is.

16

17 [014-01, William Blair] Idaho does not need more radioactive waste placed over the Snake 

18 Plain Aquifer in an active earthquake area. Until a safe method of handling and storing 

19 radioactive wastes for thousands of years is devised, NO new facilities should be approved.

20

21 [015-05, Beatrice Brailsford] The most domestic part of the proposal is that the waste will, in 

22 fact, stay here. The plant would produce 320,000 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride over its 

23 licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the license to be extended. That waste might 

24 be stored on outdoor concrete pads above the Snake River aquifer until the plant is 

25 decommissioned. 

26

27 It’s worth noting that New Mexico sharply limits how much, and how long waste can stay at the 

28 plant there. The waste has to be treated before it can be disposed of. Two government-owned 

29 treatment plants are under construction, over budget, and behind schedule. Waste the U.S. has 

30 already accumulated will take a combined 43 years to process.

31

32 [015-14, Beatrice Brailsford] The EREF will produce more than 350,000 tonnes of depleted 

33 uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) over its licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the 

34 license to be extended. That waste would be stored in 25,718 cylinders on outdoor concrete 

35 pads above the Snake River Aquifer as long as the plant operates. DUF6 is both radioactive 

36 and chemically toxic and has to be treated before it can be disposed of. The DOE has built two 

37 plants to treat depleted uranium hexafluoride waste the US has already accumulated. That 

38 treatment will take a combined 43 years to process. A private US corporation is seeking a 

39 license for its own treatment plant. The draft EIS cavalierly dismisses any potential bottlenecks 

40 by stating that the waste could simply be sent to the DOE treatment plants before they’re ready 

41 to process it and then their operating lives extended. But it is at least as likely that the DUF6 will 

42 be stored in Idaho for an uncertain length of time above the Snake River Aquifer, a sole source 

43 aquifer for nearly 300,000 people. Storage under these conditions must be fully evaluated under 

44 NEPA.

45

46 [017-03, Sally Briggs] At Stake is the very air we all breath and the water we receive from our 

47 amazing and priceless aquifer.

48
I-147

1 [019-01, George Buehler] As a long time resident of Southeast Idaho, I am very disturbed by 

2 the possibility of the Areva Uranium Enrichment being located in my neighborhood. This area is 

3 above a highly permeable aquifer which provides water for the most populous cities in the state.

4

5 [020-01, Tracey Busby] I do not support the idea of putting any type of nuclear plant / 

6 enrichment facility above the Snake River Aquifer for the obvious environmental risks.

7

8 [025-02, Hon. Sue Chew] So, you know, when I look at the fact that we have an aquifer, and 

9 we have potential waste that would be created upstream, I want to make sure that we have a 

10 good plan there when we look at transportation into Idaho and out, that those things are 

11 considered. 

12

13 [027-11, Sara Cohn] Water Resources: The ICL is very concerned that spillage or leakage of 

14 hazardous materials and waste from the proposed facility will further contaminate Idaho’s 

15 surface or groundwater. We are concerned that there will be large quantities of hazardous, 

16 toxic, and radioactive materials produced and stored onsite and that these materials may 

17 contribute to existing contamination of Idaho’s waters. The Snake River Plain Aquifer is 

18 southern Idaho’s primary source of drinking and irrigation water and is already contaminated 

19 with materials stored within the Idaho National Laboratory as well as nutrients associated with 

20 historical and existing agricultural practices. Should the facility operations result in further 

21 contamination of the aquifer, this pollution would have wide reaching affects on public health 

22 and Idaho’s agricultural economy. Toxic and radioactive materials from enrichment facilities 

23 have been shown to leak through detention basins and contaminate groundwater. We are very 

24 concerned the proposed facility may contaminate Idaho’s waters the way similar facilities have 

25 contaminated groundwater in Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH. 

26

27 Due to the amount of pollutants expected to be stored onsite, the extremely hazardous nature of 

28 waste products like depleted uranium, the possibility of waste spills, the possibility of leakage 

29 from proposed retention basins, and the importance of the Snake River Plain Aquifer, much 

30 more information is needed, in the final EIS, to ensure no endangerment of public health or 

31 contamination of precious water resources. We request more information with regard to the 

32 amount of waste and hazardous materials expected to be stored onsite, the types of 

33 preventative measures that will be in place to ensure no contamination of water, as well as 

34 plans outlining monitoring and reporting methods and responsible parties. The applicant should 

35 also prepare reports and plans that detail the roles and responsibilities of agencies and AREVA 

36 in the event of spillage or contamination from the site. These plans should outline remediation, 

37 public alerts, public safety measures, and clean up strategies, among all other necessary 

38 actions to protect environmental and public health.

39

40 Nitrate contamination of groundwater is also of concern. Recent findings indicate that long-term 

41 exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrate may contribute to the risk of developing bladder 

42 and ovarian cancers and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

43

44 [030-03, Kerry Cooke] One of the worst places anyone could think of for nuclear waste is 

45 above the Snake River Plain Aquifer. 

46

47 [032-02, Cindy Cottrell] Another reason Idaho should never be considered is because of the 

48 risk involved to main waterways and land. If any accident were to occur which exposes the 
I-148

1 environment to radiation or the storing of the waste to do so, it would contaminate much more 

2 area than if it were next to the ocean somewhere. It would first contaminate one of the largest 

3 underground aquifers, then continue down the beginning of the Snake River, passing all through 

4 Southern Idaho and then into the Columbia River, contaminating the length of Oregon and 

5 Washington before reaching the ocean. The contamination would ruin lands that grow needed 

6 crops and range land for wildlife and cattle. The fish would also suffer and eventually the ocean 

7 life would suffer. If it was near the ocean, it would reach the ocean which would be a disaster 

8 but at least the in land would be free of the radiation.

9

10 [040-01 and 040-04, Collin Day] But are we really willing to risk storing all this stuff right on top 

11 of an aquifer? It makes no sense to me. I mean, not only -- I mean, can you guarantee that 

12 30 years from now, there will be no accidents, and none of that’s going to leak into an 

13 aquifer?... But there’s just no need to take risks and gamble with things like the aquifer that, 

14 you know, supplies drinking water to some 300,000 people, because 500 people need jobs. 

15

16 [048-01, Genevieve Emerson] As a fifth generation steward of the land in Southern Idaho, as 

17 well as a biologist, I found that the EIS for the proposed Eagle Rock Facility fails to consider 

18 how such a facility, poised directly over the Snake River Aquifer, could have extremely serious 

19 health implications for both wildlife and human beings who rely on this sole source of precious 

20 water in a high mountain desert.

21

22 [050-04, Joanie Fauci] There is also the question, unknown scientific impact, of the interaction 

23 of the waste and water. There is risk of it getting into the aquifer as well as how it reacts with 

24 rain and excess moisture.

25

26 Safety should be given the highest risk factor in the EIS. 

27

28 [068-02, Anne Hausrath] I am very much opposed to the storage of radioactive [waste] above 

29 an important aquifer. This is a huge risk that I do not believe has been adequately addressed.

30

31 [074-01, Don Howard] I’ve been on the focus group at INEL forever, under Mark Marinet 

32 (phonetic). We’d go out and we’d look at the site and the projects, and when you say a leach to, 

33 on the water, well, they have a deal out there called Pit 9, that they dump this raw nuclear waste 

34 in, and it’s down, I thing, about 139 feet in the aquifer, Under it is down about 459 feet. And if we 

35 have leach, the gentleman said that they was putting a leach to rejuvenate the waters. 

36

37 [078-04, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] I could not get a feeling for the safety processes that would 

38 make me feel comfortable regarding our sole source aquifer. After the BP fiasco, I am now more 

39 concerned.

40

41 [087-02, Dennis Kasnicki] Comment 2a: Many attendees expressed concern regarding 

42 contamination, especially depleted uranium, getting into the Snake River Aquifer; that, by far, 

43 seemed to be the biggest concern, and rightfully so. Does AREVA’s Integrated Safety 

44 Assessment address ALL CREDIBLE accident scenarios whereby depleted uranium (or other 

45 contamination) could get into the Snake River Aquifer? Are the “probabilities” of all such 

46 scenarios deemed at least “highly unlikely”, or otherwise meet the requirements of 10 CFR 70? 

47 If so, or if not, this should be loudly and clearly “called out” in the Draft EIS.

48
I-149

1 [092-01, Ginna and Ken Lagergren] The Areva plant is a BAD idea anywhere, and even 

2 worse where they want to locate it over the Snake River Aquifer. Please listen to the testimony 

3 of the organization Snake River Alliance for all the scientific reasons why the Areva uranium 

4 factory should NEVER BE BUILT!!! 

5

6 [100-04, Wendy Matson] The facility will store radioactive waste above the sole-source aquifer 

7 for nearly 300,000 people. This scares me. This threat to a vital and unique resource outweighs 

8 any perceived benefit of the facility. 

9

10 [102-01, R.D. Maynard] I’m interested in any potential impacts to the environment, particularly 

11 the Snake River aquifer, that construction and operation of the Eagle Rock enrichment facility 

12 might cause.

13

14 Past waste disposal practices at the INL site, along with land application of fertilized and 

15 pesticides, and excessive irrigation, have already caused some contamination of the aquifer.

16

17 [103-03, Karen McCall] The radioactive risk to Idaho is significant as this plant is proposed to 

18 be built upstream of the Snake River Aquifer which is already contaminated by the activities at 

19 the INL. Further degradation of this enormous water source is unacceptable and a risk to 

20 agriculture in the state.

21

22 [105-05, Eve McConaughey] No mention was made of the potential contamination of the 

23 aquifer or mention made of the location near the Snake River.

24

25 [110-01, John and Susan Medlin] As the Snake River Alliance presentation pointed out, there 

26 is no current need for this facility, no compelling evidence that a nuclear renaissance is coming

27 (or inevitable), no rationale for a French company building a nuclear facility in Idaho that 

28 purports to promote US energy security while importing inputs and exporting outputs, no 

29 provision for the deteriorating and dangerous waste that will haunt us for decades or maybe 

30 forever, no concern for yet another threat to the Snake River aquifer, the lifeblood of Idaho 

31 agriculture.

32

33 So how can the NRC conclude that building this facility is vital, and that the most problematic 

34 outcome to be evaluated is construction dust?

35

36 [122-04, Kathy O’Brien] I am also concerned about the wildlife in the area as well as the 

37 Snake River Aquifer. This must be taken into account and given priority. 

38

39 [128-04, Bob Poyser] Second, during the design of this facility, AREVA has applied standards 

40 for environmental practices and protection above and beyond acceptable industry practices, 

41 wherever possible. At the Eagle Rock facility, even rainwater runoff from the site will be directed 

42 to a storm water retention basin. Similarly treated liquid waste from the domestic sanitary sewer 

43 treatment plant will be directed to a fully lined retention basin with no outlet.

44

45 The lined retention basins will use evaporation, thus precluding any interaction with the water in 

46 the aquifer. 

47

48 These additional features are a part of Areva's commitment to sustainable development, and 

49 the deployment of our best know-how to protect the environment.

50
I-150

1 [147-06, Joey Schueler] The site of this nuclear facility is located directly above the Snake 

2 River Aquifer, which supplies water to over 300,000 individuals in Idaho (including the entire 

3 Treasure Valley).

4

5 [150-01, Katie Seevers] The potential for a nuclear facility, which will site over a sole source 

6 aquifer for about 300,000 residents, is beyond disconcerting. The location of the facility above 

7 the Snake River aquifer causes further alarm when additional environmental effects are 

8 considered. 

9

10 [153-01, Andrea Shipley; 197-01, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

11 Areva’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will store radioactive waste above the sole source 

12 aquifer for nearly 300,000 people,

13

14 [168-03, Lon Stewart] What does Idaho get out of this? We get highly radioactive waste that 

15 increases in intensity over time, we get a chance to pollute the Eastern Snake River Aquifer, the 

16 main source for water for all of Southeast Idaho and then pollute the Snake River which flows 

17 through the Southwest portion of the state....

18

19 [181-06, Roger Turner] It would be opposed, because the waste is likely to remain in eastern 

20 Idaho, posing a risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. 

21

22 [183-01, James Vincent] Since the two US de-conversion facilities are not operational, and if 

23 they do become operational they will first process already existing depleted uranium waste for 

24 60 plus years of existing waste, from the 100 plus nuclear energy producing plants here in the 

25 US, the timeline for the removal of the on site storage of Uranium hexafluoride DUF6 from Idaho 

26 is in doubt. I have a problem with storing this waste above ground and possible leaching of 

27 contaminants into the aquifer for our state.

28

29 Their figures are that these are increasing to 2,000 metric tons per year. And, in addition, there’s 

30 like 12 million cubic feet of low-level waste from these plants. Supposedly, we have around 

31 60,000 metric tons of waste in this country that we have to get rid of one way or another.

32

33 [183-07, James Vincent] Since the two US de-conversion facilities are not operational, and if 

34 they do become operational they will first process already existing depleted uranium waste for 

35 60 plus years of existing waste, from the 100 plus nuclear energy producing plants here in the 

36 US, the timeline for the removal of the on site storage of Uranium hexafluoride DUF6 from Idaho 

37 is in doubt. I have a problem with storing this waste above ground and possible leaching of 

38 contaminants into the aquifer for our state.

39

40 [184-02, Kitty Vincent] What matters is Areva’s history of leaks and pollution overseas as well 

41 as the fact that this plant would sit atop this magnificent aquifer.

42

43 [184-01, Kitty Vincent] Water is a resource in scarce supply in the West. The Snake River 

44 aquifer is a huge water source for now and the future in not only the State of Idaho but also the 

45 entire West. While several scientists at the meeting denied the potential threat to this water 

46 source by the Areva project -- they are not employed by Areva so whatever expertise they have 

47 is a moot point.

48
I-151

1 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will store 

2 radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people;

3

4 [191-33, Liz Woodruff] The facility will store radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer 

5 for nearly 300,000 people. This threat to a vital and unique resource outweighs any perceived 

6 benefit of the facility.

7

8 [192-05 and 192-11, Lisa Young] Idaho will not allow for this kind of risk, especially over its 

9 precious aquifer, which could easily be contaminated after an accidental spill of depleted 

10 uranium hexafluoride waste. With a spill of this material, the radioactive material has a potential 

11 to enter the aquifer and poison our sole source of water. 

12

13 [192-11, Lisa Young] This risk is unacceptable anywhere with the storage of depleted uranium 

14 hexafluoride, and Idaho will certainly not allow for this kind of risk, especially over its precious 

15 aquifer, which could easily be contaminated after an accidental spill of depleted uranium 

16 hexafluoride waste...poisoning our sole water source. 

17

18 Response: As discussed in Section 4.2.6.2 of the EIS, there would be no wastewater 

19 discharges associated with the operation of the proposed EREF. Chemical spills or releases 

20 around vehicle maintenance and fueling locations, storage tanks, and painting operations are 

21 not expected to affect groundwater in the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer because it occurs 

22 at great depths (about 660 ft) below the ground surface (see Section 3.7.2.2) and contaminants 

23 would likely be cleaned up quickly and otherwise likely adsorbed by overlying soils long before 

24 reaching the aquifer. Compliance with the facility’s Spill Prevention Control and 

25 Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan would minimize the likelihood of inadvertent releases to the 

26 ground surface during all project phases. Therefore, contamination of the underlying aquifer 

27 would not be expected.

28

29 Section 4.2.6.2 has been modified to provide further information on the measures (e.g., system 

30 or basin design) that would be taken by AES to assure that contaminated effluents are 

31 contained within the Liquid Effluent Collection and Treatment System and potentially 

32 contaminated effluents from the cylinder storage area are retained in the Cylinder Storage Pads 

33 Stormwater Retention Basins and that inadvertent releases would be detected and corrected in 

34 a timely manner. Releases associated with an accident would be addressed as part of the 

35 facility’s emergency response planning with technical support and oversight from various 

36 Federal, State, and local agencies. Any ground contamination from depleted uranium material

37 released by a potential accident would be isolated and retrieved in a timely manner.

38

39

40 I.5.14 Ecological Resources

41

42 Comment: The following comment states that there is no discussion of impacts to the greater 

43 sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) from the operation of the plant, and that AES should 

44 place metal reflectors on the top wire of the fence to reduce the probability of sage-grouse 

45 colliding with the fence, thus reducing mortality.

46

47 [140-04, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

48 Field Office] 3) The BLM appreciates the lengthy and thorough discussion of the greater sage 
I-152

1 grouse, particularly in the affected environment section of the document. In terms of the 

2 analysis, however, there is no discussion of impacts to the greater sage grouse from the 

3 operation of the plant. Here too, as with the impacts from preconstruction and construction 

4 activities, the greater sage grouse would likely avoid the area due to human presence, noise, 

5 and the use of artificial lights resulting in habitat displacement over an area substantial larger 

6 than the footprint of the facility itself. Further, indirect impacts would occur once the boundary 

7 fence is in place. Greater sage grouse are known to collide with the top wire of fences like the 

8 fence proposed to encircle the AES property. Such collisions are known to be a source of 

9 mortality amongst local and regional sage grouse populations. In view of this fact, the BLM 

10 requests that AES place metal reflectors on the top wire of the fence. This mitigation measure 

11 has been shown in recent preliminary and, as of yet, unpublished studies to reduce the 

12 probability of sage grouse colliding with fence, thus reducing mortality.

13

14 Response: Wildlife avoidance of the areas around the proposed facility is acknowledged in 

15 Section 4.2.7.2 of the EIS, Facility Operation. Additional information has been included in 

16 Section 4.2.7.2 regarding effects on sage-grouse during operation of the proposed EREF. 

17 Information regarding the inclusion of markers on the boundary fence and metal reflectors on 

18 the top wire of the fence has been added to the NRC-recommended additional mitigation 

19 measures in Section 4.2.7.3 and Table 5-4, Section 5.2. 

20

21 When NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and 

22 environmental mitigation measures beyond those proposed as part of the license application is 

23 limited to those with a reasonable nexus to providing protection for radiological health and 

24 safety and common defense and security. The NRC can, however, require that the proposed 

25 facility be built in accordance with the submitted application, including mitigation and monitoring 

26 measures proposed by the applicant that are not specifically required by or directly related to 

27 NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have the ability to hold licensees to key mitigation 

28 measures committed to in their applications and subsequently incorporated in the NRC license 

29 directly or by reference.

30

31

32 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that the transmission lines compound 

33 the negative impact that will accrue to wildlife, and points to the Idaho Department of Fish and 

34 Game’s (IDFG’s) comments on this matter. 

35

36 [015-20, Beatrice Brailsford] The transmission lines compound the negative impact the will 

37 accrue to pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks, which will all likely 

38 abandon the Areva site and surrounding areas. Sage grouse is a candidate species for federal 

39 protection. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game reaffirmed the threats transmission lines 

40 would pose to wildlife, challenged the methodology of sage grouse and lek analysis in the draft 

41 EIS, recommended burying transmission lines, and suggested Areva submit to plans to mitigate 

42 for the expected wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed in this 

43 EIS and must be addressed before any preconstruction activities are allowed or before this EIS 

44 review continues.

45

46 Response: The concerns of IDFG are addressed in the EIS. A supplementary lek survey was 

47 conducted by AES (see Section 3.8.3), and AES is committed to coordinating with IDFG during 

48 monitoring (see Section 6.2.2). Measures for the protection of birds would be implemented in 
I-153

1 the construction of the transmission lines (see Section 4.3.7). Regarding transmission line 

2 burial, the cumulative impacts of a proposed, above-ground, 161-kV transmission line that 

3 would serve the proposed EREF are analyzed (see Section 4.3), and this analysis concludes 

4 that the line would have SMALL contributions to cumulative impacts in all resource areas. 

5 Information regarding monitoring of the transmission line right-of-way for avian mortality has 

6 been added to Section 6.2.2.

7

8

9 Comment: The following comment asks the NRC to incorporate design features in the 

10 proposed EREF project to minimize impacts to ecological resources and to prepare a plan to 

11 mitigate for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

12

13 [027-22, Sara Cohn] Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate: In terms of priorities, the NRC should first site 

14 facilities and infrastructure to avoid impacts to wildlife and cultural resources. If impacts cannot 

15 be entirely avoided, the NRC should incorporate design features to minimize impacts. Lastly, a 

16 plan should be prepared to mitigate for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

17

18 Response: The siting of a uranium enrichment facility involves a number of requirements, as 

19 discussed in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS. Environmental protection was one of the criteria 

20 categories used. Mitigation measures identified by AES to minimize impacts to wildlife during 

21 preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF are presented in 

22 Section 4.2.7.3 and Chapter 5.

23

24 The NRC’s action with regard to the proposed EREF project is limited to granting a license, if 

25 found to be warranted, for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

26 facility. NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, NRC 

27 generally limits its analysis to the alternatives and actions reasonably available to the applicant.

28

29 When NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and 

30 environmental mitigation and monitoring measures beyond those proposed as part of the 

31 license application is limited to those with a reasonable nexus to providing protection for 

32 radiological health and safety and common defense and security. The NRC can, however, 

33 require that the proposed facility be built in accordance with the submitted application, including 

34 mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by the applicant that are not specifically required 

35 by or directly related to NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have the ability to hold 

36 licensees to key mitigation and monitoring measures committed to in their applications and 

37 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference. 

38

39

40 Comment: The following comment expresses concern regarding impacts to sage-grouse.

41

42 [027-23, Sara Cohn] There is significant concern regarding the long-term viability of greater 

43 sage-grouse populations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that Greater sage-grouse 

44 are warranted for protections under the Endangered Species Act but this action is precluded by 

45 other priorities. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to reassess the status of sage46 grouse. If sage-grouse are listed, the protections could have far reaching effects on land 

47 management in Idaho and in the region.

48
I-154

1 Greater sage-grouse suffer from the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat throughout 

2 the west. It’s estimated that only 50-60% of the original sagebrush steppe habitat remains in the 

3 west (West 2000), and in 2007, the American Bird Conservancy listed sagebrush as the most 

4 threatened bird habitat in the continental United States. 4 As such, we cannot stress enough

5 how important it is for agencies to consider impacts to sage-grouse, conserve existing habitat, 

6 and actively restore altered sagebrush steppe habitats due to project-related impacts. 

7

8 Depending on location and design specifics, the construction of additional roads within sage9 grouse habitat could constitute “nonlinear infrastructure” under the Conservation Plan for the 

10 Greater Sage-grouse in Idaho (Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee 2006). Nonlinear 

11 infrastructure is defined as “human-made features on the landscape that provide or facilitate 

12 transportation, energy, and communications activities.” The Conservation Plan lists 

13 infrastructure such as this as the second greatest threat for sage grouse, with wildfires as the 

14 greatest risk. Road construction and use associated with the facility represents high risk for loss 

15 of lek areas, nesting locations, and brood-rearing habitats (Braun 1986, Connelly et al. 2004)

16

17 Coordination with local stakeholder groups: We believe that an integral part of conserving and 

18 recovering sage-grouse will be relying on the guidance from local stakeholder groups. As such, 

19 we recommend that the applicant coordinate further efforts more closely with the US Fish and 

20 Wildlife Service, local Sage-grouse Working Groups, the Idaho State Sage Grouse Advisory 

21 Council, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Governor’s Office of Species 

22 Conservation. Conservation groups to consult include the Audubon Society, the Idaho Chapter 

23 of the North American Grouse Partnership, the Idaho Falconer’s Association, the Nature 

24 Conservancy, the Western Watersheds Project as well as the Idaho Conservation League.

25

26 Response: Impacts on sage-grouse are discussed in Section 4.2.7 of the EIS, along with 

27 mitigation measures that include the planting of disturbed areas with sagebrush steppe species. 

28 As shown in Figure 4-4, the site access road avoids sagebrush steppe habitat, being located 

29 entirely within nonirrigated pasture. AES has committed to working with the U.S. Fish and 

30 Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and IDFG in the development of 

31 action levels and/or reporting levels for the ecological monitoring program for the proposed 

32 EREF (see Section 6.2.2.1). These agencies work with many conservation groups for the 

33 protection of sage-grouse and other species.

34

35 When considering the long-term viability of sage-grouse populations the proposed action is 

36 evaluated considering short term impacts during preconstruction and construction 

37 (Section 4.2.7.1) and cumulative impacts (Section 4.3.7) during the life of the facility. By 

38 necessity, the viability of an entire population has to be viewed at the ecosystem level. The 

39 ecosystem level used in this analysis was the Upper Snake sage-grouse planning area as 

40 described in the July 2006 Idaho sage-grouse conservation plan (ISAC, 2006). The evaluation 

41 takes into account past, present and reasonably foreseeable impacts. As part of the evaluation 

42 it was recognized that past actions have caused extensive habitat fragmentation at the 

43 proposed site and future actions were evaluated in terms of the incremental contribution to 

44 environmental impacts from an area already heavily impacted by prior activities (e.g., cultivation 

45 and cattle grazing). For example, the July 2006 plan describes the impact of roads as a linear 

46 infrastructure feature and contributor to habitat fragmentation. US 20 is considered to be a 

47 major highway in the project area and forms the southern boundary of the proposed EREF site. 
I-155

1 The July 2006 plan describes taking into account a 6.2 mile buffer on either side of a major road 

2 to account for its impact.

3

4

5 Comment: The following comment discusses the effects of operation of the proposed EREF on 

6 sage-grouse that are on public land.

7

8 [089-05, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Recent 

9 research on sage-grouse suggests that disturbance-related impacts from energy development 

10 on counts of displaying male sage-grouse at leks were apparent out to 6.4 km or approximately 

11 4 miles (Naugle et al. in press), and that most (79%) nests occur within 4 miles of leks (Doherty 

12 et al. in press citing Colorado Division of Wildlife 200S-Appendix B Page 7). As noted in the 

13 DEIS the property is adjacent to mapped key sage-grouse habitat with one sage-grouse lek 

14 approximately 3.5 miles away from the site. Presence of an industrial facility this distance from 

15 occupied sage-grouse habitat remains a consideration although we recognize the facility direct 

16 footprint excludes occupied habitat.

17

18 There are guidelines that should be considered to help steer significant construction activity that 

19 could benefit sage-grouse. The Upper Snake Sage-Grouse Local Working Group work plan 

20 includes the following recommendation that would be applicable: All land management agencies 

21 adjust timing of energy exploration, development, and construction activity to minimize 

22 disturbance of sage-grouse breeding activities. Energy-related facilities should be located 

23 >3.2 kilometers from active leks whenever possible. Human activities within view of or 

24 <0.5 kilometers from leks should be minimized during the early morning and late evening when 

25 birds are near or on leks. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/hunt/grouse/conserve_plan/upsnake_

26 workplan.pdf

27

28 Likewise, Idaho Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Seasonal Wildlife Restrictions and 

29 Procedures for Processing Requests for Exceptions On Public Lands in Idaho (Information 

30 Bulletins No. ID-2010-039) also includes recommendations for controlled surface and timing 

31 limitation use near sage-grouse leks and/or nesting/early brood rearing habitat: Potentially

32 disruptive larger-scale construction activities (e.g. , infrastructure/ energy development and 

33 similar projects), shall be avoided within 6.4 km (~4 miles) of occupied or undetermined status 

34 sage-grouse leks from March 1 to June 30 to reduce disturbance to lekking or nesting grouse 

35 (and/or hens with early broods).

36

37 If monitoring indicates sage-grouse do avoid public lands surrounding the facility due to post38 construction operational effects, such as lights and roads, we request AES to determine 

39 corrective action or to mitigate the offsite public lands lost to wildlife due to project effects.

40

41 Response: AES has committed to the consideration of all recommendations of the FWS and 

42 IDFG (see Section 4.2.7.3 of the EIS), and to working with the FWS, BLM, and IDFG in the 

43 development of action levels and/or reporting levels for the ecological monitoring program for 

44 the proposed EREF (Section 6.2.2.1). A measure recommending that AES coordinate with 

45 IDFG regarding corrective action or mitigation has been added to the NRC-recommended 

46 additional mitigation measures in Section 4.2.7.3 and Table 5-4, Section 5.2.

47
I-156

1 The NRC’s purpose and need statements in its environmental review documents reflect that the 

2 NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, when the 

3 NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and mitigative 

4 measures beyond those proposed as part of the application is limited to those with a reasonable

5 nexus to providing protection for radiological health and safety and common defense and 

6 security. The NRC can, however, require that the facility be built in accordance with the 

7 submitted application, including mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that are not 

8 specifically required by or directly related to the NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have 

9 the ability to hold licensees to key mitigation measures committed to in their applications and 

10 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

11

12

13 Comment: The following comment recommends that the NRC continue to work with the FWS

14 and IDFG as the project is implemented to monitor risks to individual species and identify 

15 effective measures to reduce risks and protect the species and their habitat; and to also 

16 coordinate with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and BLM due to their long term experiences 

17 monitoring impacts to the species and associated habitats in and around the proposed project 

18 area.

19

20 [138-07, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

21 Region 10] Sections 4.2.7 discuss the project’s impacts to ecological resources, including 

22 vegetation and wildlife species. The DEIS indicates that vegetation removal, habitat 

23 fragmentation, and ground disturbance would result in moderate impacts on plant communities 

24 and wildlife species (p. 4-44). Most impacts to these resources would occur primarily on almost 

25 592-acre area of the ERF footprint. About 185 acres of sagebrush steppe, 136 acres of non26 irrigated pastures, and 268 acres of irrigated cropland habitats would be lost. Such habitat loss 

27 and alterations would impact a number of species including sage grouse, which is a candidate 

28 species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, pygmy rabbits, and nesting migratory 

29 birds and other species of concern (p. 4-46). Noting that some of the impacts would be indirect, 

30 others would be direct, cumulative and unavoidable.

31

32 We appreciate measures to limit the project footprint impacts, including replanting almost 

33 133 acres of that footprint with native species after construction activities and eliminating 

34 grazing within the entire project area (4200 acres). Because of an arid environment at the 

35 project site, however, planted vegetation would take years to establish or restoration could fail, 

36 thus exacerbating loss of cover and habitat for the species. Given the usage of the project area 

37 by sage-grouse and other sensitive wildlife species, and limited survey data for the species, it is 

38 important that the NRC continue to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho 

39 Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) as the project is implemented to monitor risks to 

40 individual species and identify effective measures to reduce risks and protect the species and 

41 their habitat, particularly loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the sagebrush steppe habitat 

42 due to construction activities, wildfire, and agriculture. Also, we believe that it would be useful 

43 for the project to coordinate with the Idaho National Laboratory and Bureau of Land 

44 Management due to their long term experiences monitoring impacts to the species and 

45 associated habitats in and around the proposed project area.

46

47 Response: AES has committed to ongoing coordination with the FWS, IDFG, and BLM during

48 ecological monitoring program activities for the proposed EREF project (see Section 6.2.2.1 of 
I-157

1 the EIS). A recommended mitigation measure that AES should also coordinate with INL has 

2 been added to the NRC-recommended additional mitigation measures in Section 4.2.7.3 and 

3 Table 5-4 in Section 5.2. 

4

5 The NRC’s purpose and need statements in its environmental review documents reflect that the 

6 NRC is not the implementer or funding entity for the proposed activity. As a result, when the 

7 NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and mitigative 

8 measures beyond those proposed as part of the application is limited to those with a reasonable 

9 nexus to providing protection for radiological health and safety and common defense and 

10 security. The NRC can, however, require that the facility be built in accordance with the 

11 submitted application, including mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that are not 

12 specifically required by or directly related to the NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have 

13 the ability to hold licensee’s to key mitigation measures committed to in their applications and 

14 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

15

16

17 Comment: The following comment recommends that the Final EIS include a discussion of how 

18 issues such as ecological impacts raised by Tribes would be addressed by the project.

19

20 [138-08, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

21 Region 10] Consultation with Tribal Governments - The draft EIS indicates that there have 

22 been contacts with Tribes that may be affected by the proposed project. This is especially 

23 important because the DEIS states that the project would result in up to large impacts to 

24 resources important to tribes (p. 4-4), including historical and cultural, visual, and ecological 

25 resources. Construction activities, for example, would destroy historic and cultural resources at 

26 MW004 site, while increased traffic and construction activities and the presence of an industrial 

27 complex would significantly alter the visual landscape. Because of these and other impacts that 

28 may be discovered during the project operations, we recommend that the final EIS include a 

29 discussion of how issues raised by Tribes would be addressed by the project and outcomes of 

30 the ongoing work with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and affected Tribes on 

31 potential effects requiring Section 106 review of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

32

33 Response: Consultation with the affected Federally recognized Shoshone-Bannock Tribes has 

34 been ongoing throughout the EIS process. The ecological impacts associated with the project 

35 are discussed in Section 4.2.7.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns that an historical landmark and 

39 expanse of Idaho native habitat will be destroyed to build the proposed plant and that there 

40 would be no return to the area’s natural state after plant decommissioning

41

42 [147-15, Joey Schueler] 11. A historical landmark and a vast expanse of Idaho native habitat 

43 will be destroyed to build this plant. After plant decommission, there will be no return to this 

44 valuable area of Idaho’s beautiful wilderness.

45

46 Response: There is an estimated 9,013,000 acres of land identified as existing key sage47 grouse habitat in Idaho. Approximately 592 acres on the 4200-acre proposed EREF property 

48 would be disturbed by construction and operation of the proposed EREF, as discussed in 
I-158

1 Section 4.2.1 of the EIS. The remainder of the 4200-acre property would revert to a more 

2 natural state because cultivation and grazing activities on the site would cease, as noted in 

3 Section 4.2.1.3. Thus, the land use impacts are considered to be SMALL and the general 

4 character of the surrounding land is better preserved. Impacts on habitats are considered and 

5 described in Section 4.2.7. Impacts related to decommissioning are discussed in 

6 Section 4.2.16.7 and I.5.21. Impacts related to historic and cultural resources are described in 

7 Sections 4.2.2 and I.5.9.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comment asks for more serious consideration of the wildlife species 

11 that will be affected by construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed facility, 

12 including the sage-grouse.

13

14 [192-17, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope to see much more serious consideration of the wildlife 

15 species that will be affected by all three stages of construction, operation, and decommissioning 

16 of this facility, including the fact that the sage grouse, well-known to be a vulnerable species in 

17 need of federal protection, makes its home in this region.

18

19 Response: As discussed in comment responses above, additional NRC-recommended 

20 mitigation measures for the protection of wildlife have been added to the EIS, in Section 4.2.7.3

21 and Chapter 5, Table 5-4; and additional information regarding sage-grouse has been added in 

22 Section 4.2.7.2.

23

24

25 Comment: The following comments express concerns about the wildlife in the area.

26

27 [122-04, Kathy O’Brien] I am also concerned about the wildlife in the area as well as the 

28 Snake River Aquifer. This must be taken into account and given priority. 

29

30 [153-01, Andrea Shipley; 197-01, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

31 AREVA’s proposed uranium enrichment factory will...impact sensitive species 

32

33 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will store 

34 radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people; impact sensitive 

35 species; require the transport of radioactive materials; impair the Hell’s Half Acre National 

36 Monument; support destruction of the John Leopard homestead, which has been recommended 

37 for the National Register of Historic Places; devour billions of dollars in state and federal

38 largess; and obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. The 

39 Alliance is here to say it is not worth the risk.

40

41 Response: Impacts on wildlife have been assessed and are discussed in Section 4.2.7 of the 

42 EIS. Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Mitigation measures for the protection of 

43 wildlife are identified in Section 4.2.7 and Chapter 5.

44

45

46 Comment: The following comments suggest that beneficial ecological impacts could occur at 

47 the proposed EREF site outside of the disturbed area footprint.

48
I-159

1 [067-02, Mike Hart] In terms of ecological impacts of the site, one thing I noticed was again the 

2 analysis of the fact that you’ll not -- you’ll be ceasing grazing on that area, which for sage 

3 grouse, the reality is what really causes threatened and endangered species listing of sage 

4 grouse is not spoken -- but it’s cows. 

5

6 So, actually, getting cows off that range, and reseeding it with natural native plants, will actually 

7 probably improve sage grouse habitat significantly, and I think you list it as a light impact. 

8 Actually, I would go so far as to say it might actually be a benefit, of having an area. But when 

9 you do reseed, do go with natives rather than reseeding with crested wheat grass or other non10 native species that are invasive. 

11

12 [067-10, Mike Hart] With respect to ecological impacts, sage grass, I think having, and I 

13 apologize to the farmers here, but I think getting the cows off the land will help the sage grass, and 

14 let’s just leave it at that.

15

16 Response: The NRC acknowledges the potential for habitat improvement once grazing is not 

17 practiced on the proposed EREF property. This is discussed in Sections 4.2.7.1 and 4.2.7.2 of the 

18 EIS.

19

20

21 Comment: The following comments express concerns about minimizing impacts to affected 

22 habitat and wildlife during construction and operation of the proposed EREF. 

23

24 [027-20, Sara Cohn] Ecological Resources: The draft EIS does not adequately address 

25 impacts to ecological resources on site and the preconstruction exemption guarantees the loss 

26 of large areas of habitat to sensitive and candidate species such as greater sage-grouse and 

27 pygmy rabbit. The US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that greater sage-grouse warrant 

28 protection under the Endangered Species Act, but listing is currently precluded by the need to 

29 respond to other species at greater risk of extinction. As such, the greater sage-grouse is 

30 considered a candidate species for listing and the status will be reviewed annually by the US 

31 Fish and Wildlife Service. The BLM and Forest Service currently consider the greater sage32 grouse as a Sensitive Species.

33

34 The pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) is currently considered as a candidate species by 

35 the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a Sensitive Species by the Bureau of Land Management, a 

36 Species of Special Concern (Category C – Undetermined Status Species) on the Idaho State 

37 Sensitive Species List (Idaho Conservation Data Center, 1994), and is managed by the Idaho 

38 Department Idaho Fish and Game as protected, non-hunted species. As with greater sage39 grouse, loss of sagebrush steppe habitat has fragmented habitat and the US Fish and Wildlife 

40 Service is conducting a status review to determine whether to propose listing under the 

41 Endangered Species Act. 

42

43 Because listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a possibility for both species, we 

44 suggest the applicant design the project to avoid, minimize and mitigate for any impacts. 

45 Furthermore, these steps should be submitted for review in the environmental analysis.

46

47 Preconstruction Exemption: It is unclear under what authority NRC may offer exemptions for 

48 preconstruction activities when such impacts extend outside of NRC jurisdiction. For example 
I-160

1 preconstruction activities will impact sensitive and candidate species. Project impacts would 

2 normally require NRC to coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in order to 

3 analyze and release for public comment the environmental and public health impacts of 

4 preconstruction clearing, blasting, and grading prior to conducting such activities. According to 

5 the draft EIS, such preconstruction activities are expected to take place prior to the licensing of 

6 the proposed facility. These efforts undermine the purpose of the EIS process. A mitigation plan 

7 must be created to avoid, minimize, and plan for mitigation of affected habitat....

8

9 Habitat, habitat fragmentation, and migration corridors: Portions of the project area contain 

10 habitat that is crucial to the sagebrush steppe obligate species such as sage-grouse, pygmy 

11 rabbits, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and others. Such habitat has been severely fragmented 

12 and reduced through a variety of land management practices, including road construction and 

13 development of rights of way corridors. Although communities cannot be listed under the 

14 endangered species act, sagebrush steppe habitat is considered by federal agencies as 

15 “imperiled” and an area of primary concern. The project should avoiding areas of critical habitat 

16 for species of concern, minimize negative impacts by using seasonal restrictions and other 

17 recommendations in the Idaho State Sage-Grouse Plan, and mitigate for any potential impacts 

18 by working directly with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Local Sage-grouse 

19 Working Groups. In addition, the NRC should establish siting criteria to minimize soil 

20 disturbance and erosion on steep slopes, utilize visual resource management guidelines, and 

21 avoid significant historic and cultural resource sites....

22

23 Additional Wildlife: In addition to sage-grouse, other wildlife including pygmy rabbits, sage 

24 thrasher, sage sparrow, and birds of prey, are of concern. New construction and infrastructure 

25 will also change crucial habitat for these species and may inhibit the ability of these species to 

26 migrate. The project design should avoid construction in any designated areas or lands for 

27 special management of these species. There are also elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope in 

28 the proposed project area. The project should avoid and minimize all impact to big game winter 

29 habitat. The project site contains good to excellent antelope and sage-grouse habitat. We are 

30 concerned how the proposed project will impact this important habitat and the species that 

31 depend on it. We are also greatly concerned the project will impact nesting habitat for migratory 

32 birds.

33

34 Invasive Weeds: The most cost-effective way to deal with noxious weeds is to protect 

35 strongholds of native vegetation from activities that either spread noxious weeds directly or 

36 create suitable habitat by removing native vegetation and disturbing the soil. Project activities 

37 should limit road construction in areas that contain mineral soils where weeds may become 

38 established. Roads serve as a primary route for noxious weed species expansion. Special care 

39 should be taken to safeguard ecologically intact areas that are not currently infested. The EIS 

40 needs to analyze the effects of noxious weeds and describe management of weeds in the 

41 project area. For example, management strategies may include ensuring the tires and 

42 undercarriage of access vehicles are hosed down prior to site access to dislodge noxious 

43 weeds. Further documentation should analyze the effects of regular weed control activities in 

44 previously undisturbed areas. For example, weed treatments may affect non-target species and 

45 vehicle access may increase fire hazard and soil disturbance.

46

47 [036-05, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Endangered species 

48 may or may not be at the site at the time of survey; however it is known that there are 
I-161

1 endangered species and sensitive species in the immediate area. How is there habitat and 

2 survival going to be addressed, not just during operation of the facility but also and maybe most 

3 important during the construction phase.

4

5 Response: Mitigation measures for impacts to ecological resources during preconstruction, 

6 construction, and operation of the proposed EREF are included in Section 4.2.7.3 and 

7 Chapter 5 of the EIS. In response to other comments in this section, additional NRC 

8 recommended mitigation measures have been added to the EIS, in Section 4.2.7.3 and 

9 Chapter 5, for protection of sage-grouse, preventing the introduction of invasive plant species,

10 and minimizing indirect effects of weed control activities.

11

12 Impacts and mitigation should be understood in the context that the environment at the site has 

13 been degraded by past agricultural and cattle grazing activities and at the ecosystem level 

14 provides marginal habitat for sagebrush obligate species. In addition, the sage-grouse habitat 

15 in the Upper Snake sage-grouse planning area is about 2.5 million acres in size with 

16 approximately 83 percent of this habitat found on State or Federally owned and/or managed 

17 lands with associated protections.

18

19 As shown in Figure 4-4, much of the project footprint is located outside of the sagebrush steppe 

20 habitat, and the site access road avoids sagebrush steppe habitat, being located entirely within

21 nonirrigated pasture. In addition, grazing impacts would be removed from the remaining 

22 sagebrush steppe, and the remaining irrigated crop areas would be planted with native species. 

23 AES has committed to working with the FWS, IDFG, and BLM in the development of action 

24 levels and/or reporting levels for the EREF ecological monitoring program (Section 6.2.2.1).

25 These agencies work with many conservation groups for the protection of sage-grouse and 

26 other species. Section 4.2.7 discusses invasive plant species and control measures, 

27 acknowledging that nontarget species may be affected.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comments express a concern that the true scale of ecological impacts 

31 is larger than that presented in the EIS.

32

33 [083-06, Diane Jones] Finally, I’d just like to say the EIS found only small and moderated 

34 impacts from this project, this proposed project. One of the things that was looked at is removal 

35 of sagebrush steppe and that was regarded as a moderate. I would like to say that when 

36 sagebrush steppe is removed, it’s removed, and it does not come back for a long time. That’s 

37 not small or moderate. It’s a very large impact. 

38

39 [086-04, Paula Jull] Antelope, sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks all will likely abandon the 

40 Areva site and surrounding areas due to development and human activity. Sage grouse is a 

41 candidate species for federal protection. The problem is compounded by construction of the 

42 electric transmission line and poles proposed to support the facility, which sage-grouse are 

43 known to avoid because they serve as perches for raptors. 

44

45 [088-08, Stan Kidwell; 095-08, Linda Leeuwrik] Pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, 

46 and ferruginous hawks all will likely abandon the Areva site and surrounding areas due to 

47 development and human activity. Sage grouse is a candidate species for federal protection. The 

48 problem is compounded by construction of the electric transmission line and poles proposed to 
I-162

1 support the facility, which sage-grouse are known to avoid because they serve as perches for 

2 raptors.

3

4 [153-10, Andrea Shipley] Accidents, fire, air and water quality and the development of on this 

5 land will impact several species including raptors and sage-brush obligate species (draft 

6 EIS 4.2.7) Pronghorn antelope, greater sage-grouse, and ferruginous haws all will likely 

7 abandon the EREF site and area surrounding the EREF due to development and human 

8 activity. Sage-grouse is a candidate species for federal ESA protection. USFWS recently 

9 concluded that listing under the ESA is warranted, though formal listing is precluded by other 

10 agency priorities. The EIS is inaccurate based on the true scale of ecological effects and the 

11 problem is compounded by construction of the proposed electric transmission line and poles, 

12 which sage-grouse are known to avoid because they serve as perches for raptors.

13

14 [197-10, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Accidents, fire, air and 

15 water quality and the development of on this land will impact several species including raptors 

16 and sage-brush obligate species (draft EIS 4.2.7).

17

18 [175-08, Ellen Thomas] Pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks all 

19 will likely abandon the Areva site and surrounding areas due to development and human 

20 activity. Sage grouse is a candidate species for federal protection. The problem is compounded 

21 by construction of the electric transmission line and poles proposed to support the facility, which 

22 sage-grouse are known to avoid because they serve as perches for raptors. 

23

24 [183-13, James Vincent] I also believe that EIS does not fully take into account the impact on 

25 antelope, sage grouse, and birds of prey.

26

27 [184-15, Kitty Vincent] Accidents, fire, air and water quality degradation and the development 

28 of this land will impact several species including raptors and sage-brush obligate species (draft 

29 EIS 4.2.7) Pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks all will likely 

30 abandon the EREF site and surrounding areas due to development and human activity. Sage 

31 grouse is a candidate species for federal protection. The problem is compounded by 

32 construction of the proposed electric transmission line and poles, which sage-grouse are known 

33 to avoid because they serve as perches for raptors.

34

35 [191-15, Liz Woodruff] Ecology. • According to the NRC’s own definition of the significance of 

36 potential impacts, a large impact is one that “the environmental effects are clearly noticeable 

37 and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.” According to the draft EIS, 

38 the sage-brush steppe located within the proposed EREF would improve due to the elimination 

39 of grazing. The NRC must flesh out the connection between claims of potential improvements 

40 and the amount of habitat that will be compromised.

41

42 • Several species will be impacted by development on this land including sensitive species, 

43 raptors, and sage-brush obligate species (draft EIS 4.2.7). Pronghorn antelope, greater sage44 grouse, and ferruginous hawks all will likely abandon the EREF site and areas surrounding the 

45 EREF due to development and human activity. It is difficult to see how, when an ecosystem is 

46 considered as a whole, it be improved if the animals that depend on it can no longer use it. In 

47 other words, it is not a healthy sagebrush ecosystem if there are no antelope, grouse, and 
I-163

1 hawks. The conclusion of small to medium potential ecological/wildlife impacts contained in the 

2 draft EIS is inaccurate based on the true scale of ecological effects.

3

4 • This problem is compounded by construction of the proposed electric transmission line and 

5 poles, which sage-grouse are known to avoid because they serve as perches for raptors.

6

7 • Sage-grouse is a candidate species for federal ESA protections. USFWS recently concluded 

8 that listing under the ESA is warranted, though formal listing is precluded by other agency 

9 priorities. The treatment of the threats to sage grouse is inadequate in the draft EIS. 

10

11 [193-20, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And all of the issues 

12 associated with the construction of this facility--accidents, fire, air and water quality degradation, 

13 the development of this land will impact several species, including raptors and sagebrush 

14 obligate species. This includes the sage grouse. The sage grouse is a candidate species for 

15 federal protection, and the only reason it’s not listed yet is because of bureaucratic process of 

16 listing. There’s a delay. But the treatment of this issue is inadequate in the draft EIS. 

17

18 The impacts to sage grouse from transmission and preconstruction warrant integration into this 

19 EIS, or separate EISs, specifically around preconstruction and transmission issues. 

20

21 [197-14, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] The EIS in inaccurate 

22 based on the true scale of ecological effects, and the problem is compounded by construction of 

23 the proposed electric transmission line and poles, which sage grouse are known to avoid 

24 because they serve as perches for raptors.

25

26 Response: The EIS acknowledges that many wildlife species would likely avoid the area near 

27 the proposed facility during its construction and operation. The above comments do not present 

28 information to support the statement that wildlife would avoid the entire 4200-acre proposed

29 EREF property. Other areas of the proposed property would still be usable as habitat, and 

30 sagebrush steppe in those areas would be expected to improve over time. For the species that 

31 use the sagebrush steppe habitat (including that which is contiguous to and outside the 

32 proposed EREF property), such as pronghorn antelope, sage-grouse, and ferruginous hawk, 

33 construction of the proposed EREF would noticeably alter that habitat, with a loss of 185 acres 

34 plus an area of avoidance; however, this would neither destabilize the habitat used by these 

35 species nor the species’ populations because extensive sagebrush habitat is available outside 

36 the proposed EREF property, as described in Section 4.2.7.1 of the EIS. Text has been added 

37 in Section 4.2.7.2 to clarify impacts to sage-grouse during operations.

38

39 The impacts have taken into account that the sage-grouse habitat in the Upper Snake sage40 grouse planning area is about 2.5 million acres in size with approximately 83 percent of the 

41 habitat found on State or Federally owned and/or managed lands. It should be further noted 

42 many species adapt to disturbances and the fact that facilities such as this prohibit hunting as 

43 evidenced by extensive areas of surface coal mining and reclamation in similar types of habitats 

44 in Montana, Wyoming and Utah.

45

46
I-164

1 I.5.15 Noise 

2

3 No comments were received on the noise section of the Draft EIS.

4

5

6 I.5.16 Transportation 

7

8 Comment: The following comment acknowledges the adequate safeguards that are in place for

9 shipping containers for radioactive waste materials such as spent nuclear fuel.

10

11 [007-03, Arnold Ayers] I’ve been involved with such things as a first responder from the Three 

12 Mile Island reactor, and also was associated with the retrieval, but mostly with the arrival of that 

13 fuel here in INL. That puts me in the prospect of knowing what’s involved in transportation of 

14 spent nuclear fuel. And yes, it is complicated, and yes it is difficult, and yes it has been solved 

15 relatively well, quite well, in fact. The adequate safeguards that the NRC has put on materials 

16 on shipping containers for that waste material has shown itself, and has proven itself time, and 

17 time, and time again.

18

19 Response: No spent nuclear fuel (SNF) would be generated at, or shipped to or from, the 

20 proposed EREF. Transportation regulations for the shipment of the uranium materials used and 

21 produced at the EREF are discussed in Appendix D of the EIS and are protective of human 

22 health and the environment.

23

24

25 Comment: The following comment contends that the Draft EIS does not consider methods to 

26 minimize risks associated with alternative transport route options and transportation modes.

27

28 [027-09, Sara Cohn] The documents provided do not consider methods to minimize risks 

29 associated with transport routes options. Alternative transportation modes, such as rail, should 

30 be analyzed. Transportation routes and modes that present significant risk to public health and 

31 natural resources should be avoided.

32

33 Response: Transportation routes are determined by carriers in accordance with U.S. 

34 Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, which attempt to reduce potential hazards by 

35 avoiding populous areas and minimizing radiological risks. Route selection is described in 

36 Appendix D, Section D.3.1.1, of the EIS.

37

38 As noted in Sections 3.10.2 and 4.2.9.2, AES does not plan to perform any shipping operations

39 via rail because rail access is not readily available at or near the proposed EREF site. To use 

40 rail as a transportation mode, shipments to and from the proposed EREF would require truck 

41 transport to the nearest intermodal facility, which could incur additional risks to workers and 

42 potentially the public at such facilities.

43

44

45 Comment: The following comment emphasizes the opportunity for public comment in each and 

46 every community through which radioactive material would be transported, and that the Fort Hall 

47 Indian Reservation needs to be a part of this process.

48
I-165

1 [028-01, David Coney] One thing I’d like to emphasize is public comment in each and every 

2 community that any transportation of radioactive material goes through. Specifically because 

3 today is World Indigenous Day, I would say that the Fort Hall Indian Reservation needs to be a 

4 part of this process. That’s huge. And I just returned from an encampment down in New Mexico 

5 where I witnessed, firsthand, the desecration of community due to the nuclear military-industrial 

6 complex.

7

8 Response: Impacts from transportation of materials to and from the proposed EREF are 

9 discussed in Section 4.2.9 of the EIS. These impacts would be SMALL. Residents of the Fort 

10 Hall Indian Reservation have had the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. In addition, 

11 NRC staff met with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Council on August 11, 2010, to brief them on 

12 the Draft EIS and discuss their concerns.

13

14 Transportation routes are determined by carriers in accordance with DOT regulations, which

15 attempt to reduce potential hazards by avoiding populous areas and minimizing radiological 

16 risks. Those routes are also determined based on the origin and destination of shipments and 

17 are not presently known. Therefore, holding public comment meetings in every community 

18 through which transportation of radioactive material would occur would not be feasible.

19 However, all members of the public, regardless of their location, have had the opportunity to 

20 provide comments on the Draft EIS, either in person or by postal mail or email.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comment mentions that permanent impacts associated with the 

24 proposed project would include the construction of two access roads from US Highway 20 to the 

25 proposed project site.

26

27 [027-10, Sara Cohn] Permanent impacts associated with the project include the construction of 

28 two access roads from Highway 20 to the project site.

29

30 Response: Traffic impacts associated with construction of the two access roads from US 20 are

31 addressed in Section 4.2.9.1 of the EIS. The associated air quality and noise impacts are 

32 addressed in Sections 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.8.1, respectively. In addition, please note that as 

33 acknowledged in the response to Comment 142-01 below from Mr. Blake Rindlisbacher of the 

34 Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), plans for access to US 20 have not been finalized, and 

35 no decision has been made about whether to use two full-time operational connections.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comment requests that Highway Route Controlled Quantity (HRCQ)

39 routing be written into the AES license as a condition of transportation operations since it was 

40 used in the risk analysis.

41

42 [066-16, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 14. 

43 Appendix D: pp. D-9, Lines 6-14. Under input parameters and route selection, HRCQ routing 

44 was used. Again on pp. D-30, Lines 14-15, “the NRC staff used HRCQ routing for the 

45 transportation impact assessment in this EIS”. DEQ would like to see this requirement written 

46 into the license as a condition of transportation operations since it was used in the risk analysis.

47
I-166

1 Response: The IDEQ preference is noted. However, HRCQ routing is not required for any

2 radioactive material shipments that would take place to or from the proposed EREF, as the 

3 quantity of radioactive material within any package would not exceed the HRCQ threshold. 

4 HRCQ routing was assumed in the transportation risk analysis because it results in longer 

5 routes and a more conservative estimate of population risk.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment identifies an error in Appendix D of the Draft EIS regarding 

9 the definition of the transport index (TI).

10

11 [066-17, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 15. 

12 Appendix D: pp. D-21, Lines 15-16. The transport index (TI) is incorrectly defined as the dose 

13 rate at 1 meter from the lateral sides of the transport vehicle. The correct definition is the highest 

14 measured dose rate at 1 meter from any side of the package surface.

15

16 Response: The text of Section D.3.5 of the EIS has been corrected to state that the TI is 

17 measured from the side of the package surface, as opposed to the side of the transport vehicle. 

18 By using the TI of the package, without consideration of shielding by a transport vehicle, the 

19 most conservative dose rate values have been assumed in the transportation risk assessment.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment questions the source of the population density number used 

23 in Appendix D of the Draft EIS, and expresses disagreement with Table D-2. 

24

25 [066-18, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 16. 

26 Appendix D: pp. D-23, Line 11 states “... assumed population density of one person per square 

27 kilometer (2.6 persons per square mile).” DEQ is not sure where this density number comes 

28 from and it is not in agreement with Table D-2 on pp. D-11, where the rural density is listed as 

9.5 persons per km2 29 

30

31 Response: The emission risk factor is a unit risk factor (i.e., per unit area). As noted in 

32 Section D.3.6 of the EIS, this (unit) risk factor is multiplied by the average population density 

33 along the route and the route distance to obtain the one-way vehicle emission risk for the 

34 shipment. The text of Section D.3.6 has been clarified on this matter.

35

36 The average rural population density for the route between the proposed EREF site and the 

37 DOE depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion facility in Paducah, Kentucky, was 

38 determined using the WebTRAGIS routing model (as were all of the population densities in 

Table D-2). The value of 9.5 persons/km2 39 , which accounts for all rural transportation segments 

40 in each State between the origin and destination (not just Idaho), has been verified. Table D-2 

41 is correct.

42

43

44 Comment: The following comment addresses the number of truckloads of waste that would be 

45 transported over Idaho roads in need of repair.

46
I-167

1 [070-03, Virginia Hemingway] We will also have approximately 2,000 truckloads of incoming 

2 waste being transported over our potholed roads which need fixing, more than we need a 

3 $750,000 off-ramp to a spot where there is nothing currently, except sagebrush.

4

5 Response: Waste from operations of the proposed EREF would be transported from the 

6 proposed EREF site to licensed treatment, storage, and/or disposal facilities (TSDFs). No 

7 waste would be transported into Idaho from out-of-state locations as a result of preconstruction, 

8 construction, operation, or decommissioning of the proposed EREF. The only materials 

9 transported to the proposed EREF would be raw materials for preconstruction, construction, and 

10 operation, including UF6 feed material for the enrichment process.

11

12 Existing state and regional road conditions are not within the scope of the EIS. Road conditions 

13 will vary over the lifetime of the proposed facility. However, the text in Section 3.10 of the EIS 

14 has been modified to note that the 18-mile stretch of US 20 from Idaho Falls to the Bonneville15 Butte county line was resurfaced during the summer of 2010.

16

17

18 Comment: The following comment expresses the commenter’s difficulty understanding the 

19 transportation issues to and from the proposed EREF.

20

21 [078-02, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] 2. I couldn’t understand the transportation issues back and forth 

22 to the enrichment plant. It seemed to make more sense to co locate.

23

24 Response: All shipments to and from the proposed EREF would occur by truck. The proposed 

25 EREF requires natural UF6 feed material, which – as discussed in Section 4.2.9.2 of the EIS –

26 would be shipped to the proposed EREF site from facilities in Illinois and Ontario, Canada, that

27 convert uranium oxide to the fluoride form. The enriched UF6 product from the proposed EREF 

28 would be sent to fuel fabrication facilities, such as those located in the States of Washington, 

29 North Carolina, and South Carolina (see Section 4.2.9.2), which convert the enriched fluoride 

30 product back to an oxide form and incorporate this material into fuel rods for commercial nuclear 

31 reactors (i.e., nuclear power plants). Co-location of the proposed EREF with any of these 

32 facilities – or with a natural uranium supplier, enriched uranium customer, or waste disposal site

33 – could require significantly increased transport distances for the other materials because of the 

34 dispersed locations of these facilities. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the site selection process 

35 also had other requirements necessary for the safe and economic operation of the proposed 

36 EREF that would preclude siting it near some of these other facilities. 

37

38 Comment: The following comment identified improvements that have been made to US 20 to 

39 accommodate existing facilities and future development.

40

41 [098-01, Linda Martin] Several comments have been made for the transportation. Due to the 

42 potential localized increase in traffic density along Highway 20, we have tried to think ahead, 

43 and we have tried to encourage improvements to that highway. These increased road 

44 improvements will currently affect and advantageously speed future travelers through INL, Sun 

45 Valley, Boise, and other tourist locales. So we think that that’s a very important issue, that while 

46 it may not appear that anything is there now, there are people that go past those sections, and if 

47 you have several hundred people working, moving equipment and going through there, people 

48 are going to need increased transportation access.

49
I-168

1 Response: The NRC acknowledges this comment and recognizes that road improvements 

2 along US 20 have been advocated to support increased tourism and promote general 

3 development in the region.

4

5

6 Comment: The following comment asks if AES will provide the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes with 

7 information on shipment of materials to and from the proposed EREF, and if AES will provide 

8 the Tribes with emergency response training.

9

10 [129-02, Willie Preacher, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] The Tribes 

11 Emergency Management Department questioned the transportation route of product to and from 

12 the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility and will AREVA share information regarding the amount of 

13 shipments, hazards of the shipments, and will they provide training to the Tribes Emergency 

14 Management and Response staff to identify and respond to a transportation accident on the 

15 reservation. 

16

17 Response: As noted in Section 4.2.9.2 and Appendix D of the EIS, product destinations include

18 the States of Washington, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. As noted in 

19 Section 3.10.1, Interstate 15 (I-15) would serve as the primary route for all incoming and 

20 outgoing truck shipments. Information about the number and hazard of shipments is provided in 

21 Section 4.2.9. It is the NRC staff’s understanding, from discussions with the Shoshone22 Bannock Tribes and with AES, that AES has coordinated, and will continue to coordinate, with 

23 the tribes regarding various matters of interest to the tribes.

24

25

26 Comment: The following comment acknowledges that the Draft EIS is accurate with regard to 

27 the state highway system and the impacts the proposed project will have on it, and that the 

28 mitigation cited for those impacts is appropriate. Also, the comment cautions that it has not yet 

29 been decided whether access to US 20 will consist of two full-time, operational connections. 

30

31 [142-01 and 142-02, Blake Rindlisbacher, on behalf of the Idaho Transportation 

32 Department] Thank you for your early and close consultation with the Idaho Transportation 

33 Department in the development of this environmental impact statement. We believe the 

34 statement as expressed in this draft is accurate with regards to our state highway system and 

35 the impacts this project will have on it. The mitigation you cite for those impacts are indeed 

36 appropriate and we encourage the NRC to make ride sharing and shifts staggered from those of 

37 the Idaho National Laboratory a part of the operating license for AREVA Enrichment Services. 

38 We will continue to discuss with them the terms and conditions of their access to US-20, but 

39 specific operation behavior that may reduce risk is beyond our authority to require.

40

41 With regards to the operational baseline stated in your statement, we offer this caution. We are 

42 concerned over the description of their access to our highway as having two full-time, 

43 operational connections; one east (the primary) and one west. This has not been decided. If we 

44 concentrate resources at the east side of their facility by building a grade-separated 

45 interchange, the need for a second, at-grade, access is triggered by phasing and the 

46 management of incidents, not full-time operations. As you state, we are in negotiation with the 

47 owner over terms and conditions. If the impacts are sensitive to the number and placement of 

48 access, please consider this information when making your decision. 

49
I-169

1 Response: NRC acknowledges that plans for access to US 20 to/from the proposed EREF 

2 have not been finalized and that AES continues to consult with the ITD. The impacts described 

3 in the EIS are not believed to be sensitive to the number and placement of the access roads. 

4 However, the text of Section 4.2.9.1 of the EIS has been modified to clarify that plans for the 

5 access road(s) have not been finalized.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment calls attention to a number of minor matters in the text of 

9 Section 3.10.1 of the Draft EIS.

10

11 [142-03, Blake Rindlisbacher, on behalf of the Idaho Transportation Department] With 

12 regards to the facts in the draft, we would call your attention to the following minor matters. On 

13 page 3-75, line 24, the driving lanes on US-20 is given as 12.5 meter (41-feet): this appears to 

14 be a unit conversion error, as the driving lanes are generally 12 to 12.5 feet wide. On page 3-78, 

15 line 6, the speed limit is states as 55 mph: it is 65 mph. And finally, on page 7-78, lines 34-37, 

16 we are quoted as stating that the intersection of US 20 and I-15 “...may need to be upgraded to 

17 handle increased traffic from the proposed EREF....” While this grade-separated intersection is 

18 reaching the end of its useful life and presents a number of challenges for our maintenance 

19 team, neither the character nor the count of the traffic predicted off this facility will trigger its 

20 “need to be upgraded” in and of themselves. Rather, the increased loading (in terms of vehicles 

21 and weight of vehicles) will bring sooner the day when the interchange will need to be rebuilt. A 

22 secondary and cumulative impact (rather than a primary impact) in our opinion, and we have no 

23 funded plans for that construction.

24

25 Response: The following text changes have been made in Section 3.10.1 of the EIS in 

26 response to this comment:

27

28 • The reference to the lane width has been omitted.

29 • The text has been corrected to reflect the 65 mph speed limit.

30 • The text has been modified to clarify that the need for upgrade of the junction of US 20 

31 and I-15 may be accelerated by, but would not be the direct result of, additional traffic to 

32 and from the proposed EREF. 

33 • Text has been added to note that there are no funded plans for this construction.

34

35

36 Comment: The following comment addresses the adequate capacity of the road (US 20) to 

37 handle the flow of traffic during construction and operation of the proposed EREF.

38

39 [152-12, Steven Serr] There were three items in the EIS that I’d like to address. They noted in 

40 here, a small to moderate impact on traffic conditions. We have discussed with AREVA the 

41 issues on traffic. They’ve been working with the Transportation Department. The road that is 

42 constructed out there has adequate capacity to handle any of the traffic flow, increased traffic 

43 flows that would be created by the construction and operations over the long-term operation of 

44 the facility. They’re well within the traffic design standards, even with that increased traffic flow 

45 on it. They are in the process of construction an overpass in their plans to access this site. With 

46 that construction, we fell that it would not be a traffic flow impediment with approaching cars 

47 coming in or out of the facility, or truck traffic. 

48
I-170

1 Response: The NRC acknowledges this comment and appreciates the participation in the 

2 NEPA process Please note that, as acknowledged in the response to Comment 142-01 from 

3 Mr. Blake Rindlisbacher of the ITD, plans for access to US 20 have not been finalized and 

4 construction has not yet begun.

5

6

7 Comment: The following comment discusses the waste classification of depleted uranium by 

8 the State of Tennessee and its relation to the handling, storage, and transport of UF6.

9

10 [181-20, Roger Turner] NEPA requires a hard look at environmental impacts even if waste 

11 classification system is flawed....

12

13 Because depleted uranium has been evaluated by the State of Tennessee as a “solid waste” as 

14 defined by RCRA, and because uranium hexafluoride is toxic, the EIS must examine more 

15 closely the handling, storage, and transport of UF6 including the environmental impacts, both 

16 cumulative and indirect from the project at Areva, regardless of the “official” classification of it as 

17 “Low-Level”, or Low Level Mixed waste.

18

19 Response: Classification of waste by the State of Tennessee has no bearing on the handling, 

20 storage, and transport of wastes generated at the proposed EREF. Impacts from the handling, 

21 storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive wastes, including depleted UF6, are 

22 addressed in Sections 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 4.2.11, and Appendix D of the EIS.

23

24

25 Comment: The following comment asserts that the risks of accidents associated with the 

26 transportation of radioactive materials to and from the proposed EREF site should require the 

27 NRC to notify all relevant regional offices when radioactive material will be shipped.

28

29 [191-16, Liz Woodruff] Accidents. The risks of accidents associated with the transportation of 

30 radioactive materials into and out of the site should require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

31 to notify all relevant regional offices when radioactive material will be shipped to and from the 

32 Areva facility.

33

34 Response: Per 10 CFR 71.97, such notifications would not be required for the shipment of UF6

35 or other radioactive materials and wastes that would be transported to or from the proposed 

36 EREF. 

37

38

39 Comment: The following comment relates to risks associated with radioactive materials.

40

41 [191-06, Liz Woodruff] Radioactive Waste Poses an Unacceptable Risk. Radioactive material 

42 is inherently dangerous. Just the activities directly connected with uranium enrichment pose 

43 risks, as do all other parts of the fuel chain. The NRC should perform a complete analysis of the 

44 risks of uranium mining and milling, mixing yellow cake with hexafluoride (itself a dangerous 

45 material), enriching UF6 in gas centrifuge plants, storing and deconverting depleted UF6, 

46 disposing of depleted uranium and low level waste, fabricating fuel from enriched uranium, and 

47 all intermediate transportation steps.

48
I-171

1 Response: The public health impacts from the transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive 

2 materials to and from the proposed EREF, including radioactive waste and depleted UF6, are 

3 addressed in Section 4.2.9 and Appendix D of the EIS. Public health impacts from incident-free 

4 transportation of materials to and from the facility would be SMALL, and public health impacts 

5 from transportation accidents would also be SMALL. The risks posed by other activities in the 

6 uranium fuel cycle (e.g., mining and milling) are not within the scope of this EIS, which is for the 

7 proposed EREF.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comment relates to the shipment of radioactive materials to and 

11 through the State of Idaho and the storage of such materials in Idaho.

12

13 [147-05, Joey Schueler] 1. Nuclear compounds will be shipped to Idaho and the byproduct 

14 waste of the process as well as enriched Uranium will be either shipped through our state or 

15 stored in Idaho.

16

17 Response: As discussed in Section 4.2.11 of the EIS, low level radioactive waste from 

18 operation of the proposed EREF would be transported to licensed TSDFs. No radioactive waste 

19 would be transported into Idaho as a result of the proposed EREF project. The only radioactive 

20 materials transported to the proposed EREF would be UF6 feed for the enrichment process.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comments contend that radioactive materials are already transported 

24 safely across Idaho. 

25

26 [133-08, Richard Provencher] Last, the transportation corridor in this area is robust and has 

27 been used successfully by other regional nuclear operators to safely transport large amounts of 

28 radioactive materials without incident. This existing infrastructure has also prepared local 

29 communities along transportation routes to respond to incidents should they occur making them 

30 well prepared.

31

32 [157-08, Hon. Erik Simpson] Transportation of radioactive materials. Concern was raised in 

33 western Idaho over the transportation of uranium hexafluoride and enriched uranium across 

34 Idaho’s highways. Radioactive materials are already transported across Idaho several times a 

35 week. In fact, Idaho National Laboratory contractors have shipped more than 40,000 cubic 

36 meters of low-level and transuranic waste safely across Idaho to out-of-state facilities during the

37 last decade.

38

39 Response: The NRC acknowledges these comments.

40

41

42 Comment: The following comments concern the cleanup costs for transportation accidents.

43

44 [049-02, Victoria Everett] And also, in the case of an accident, who plays for the cleanup? 

45 Who’s responsible for that? The State of Idaho? Or is it AREVA? You know, that wasn’t 

46 clarified. And in transportation, a truck gets in a wreck, it spills all over the ground. You know, 

47 such cases as that. Say there is a fire, and there’s a major disaster at the plant. Who pays for 

48 that?

49
I-172

1 [181-08, Roger Turner] It would be opposed because the project would transport 

2 approximately 2,000 trucks of radioactive material across the state highways with no financial 

3 support dedicated, and provided to this state for safety, or for cleanup.

4

5 Response: In general, cleanup and the costs of cleanup of radioactive material from accidents 

6 involving the transportation of materials to and from the proposed EREF, or any other industrial 

7 facility in the State of Idaho or elsewhere in the U.S., would be the responsibility of the carrier

8 and potentially the responsible facility (shipper or receiver, as would be pre-determined for each 

9 shipment). The IDEQ, in cooperation with the ITD and local authorities (e.g., law enforcement 

10 and the fire department), would be involved in emergency response and cleanup oversight. 

11

12

13 Comment: The following comments suggest that transportation risks and accidents, including

14 emergency response, are not covered in the Draft EIS.

15

16 [025-02, Hon. Sue Chew] So, you know, when I look at the fact that we have an aquifer, and 

17 we have potential waste that would be created upstream, I want to make sure that we have a 

18 good plan there when we look at transportation into Idaho and out, that those things are 

19 considered.

20

21 [027-03, Sara Cohn] And finally, we are concerned with the transportation analysis in the draft 

22 EIS, that it does not appropriately account for the hazardous and radioactive materials that will 

23 be transported to and from the site. Analyzing traffic impacts alone does not adequately 

24 encompass the potential impacts to public health, and the environment, associated with such 

25 cargo. Perhaps that will be addressed in the safety analysis. I have not yet seen that. I don’t 

26 believe it’s been out for public comment.

27

28 [027-07, Sara Cohn] Transportation: The ICL is very concerned about the transportation of 

29 hazardous and toxic materials to and from the project site. Based on the size of the facility and 

30 the number of trips expected to transport hazardous and toxic materials, the possibility of 

31 accidental spills and subsequent contamination is high. Transportation risk analysis should be 

32 provided within the final EIS to ensure that the transport of hazardous materials to and from the 

33 site will not result in the pollution of Idaho’s waters and air, or endanger public health. More 

34 information is needed to understand the size and scale of the enrichment facility, the amount of 

35 waste produced and transported from the site, and the amount of hazardous and toxic materials 

36 imported and exported from the site. We also request information regarding the methods of 

37 transport and the types of containment vessels that will be used to transport materials.

38

39 Detailed plans should be prepared to reduce contamination and public health risks in the event 

40 of a spill or accident during transport.

41

42 [050-02 Joanie Fauci] One of the areas I feel is under-emphasized in the DEIS is the Safety 

43 issue.

44 • There will always be safety issues with transportation, even of non-toxic substances. Nuclear 

45 material (uranium) involves additional safety measures for transport and possible emergency 

46 response.

47
I-173

1 [068-03, Anne Hausrath] I am opposed to the transport of radioactive waste. I believe this risk 

2 has not been addressed.

3

4 [105-04, Eve McConaughey] The most glaring question, not addressed or answered 

5 concerned the transportation risks and ultimate unresolved problem of waste disposal. 

6

7 [136-01, Susan Rainey] No uranium enrichment facility outside Id Falls by AREVA!!! The 

8 transport of radioactive material and the storage of nuclear waste are my biggest concerns. 

9 There are safety issues! We will be at risk. How will the waste be disposed of? Snake River 

10 Alliance did an excellent job explaining. NRC sounded like bureaucratic babble ignoring the real 

11 dangers and concerns. How is this really going to help us here in Idaho, USA? Let’s look at 

12 other options. Not worth the risk.

13

14 [153-08, Andrea Shipley; 197-08, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance;

15 184-11, Kitty Vincent] Accidents happen and there are risks associated with the transportation 

16 of radioactive materials. The EIS should fully evaluate the safety threats posed by the 

17 transportation of radioactive material into and out of the EREF. The accident scenarios should 

18 include an analysis of the potential environmental and public health effects of an accident on 

19 roadways in the event of a spill of the various radioactive materials that will be transported to 

20 and from the facility.

21

22 [169-02, Margaret Stewart] And there has been inadequate addressing in the EIS of wildfire 

23 threats, and transportation of nuclear material accidents.

24

25 [191-31, Liz Woodruff] Transportation. The EIS should fully evaluate the safety threats posed 

26 by the transportation of radioactive material into and out of the EREF. The accident scenarios 

27 should include an analysis of the potential environmental and public health effects of an 

28 accident on roadways in the event of a spill of the various radioactive materials that will be 

29 transported to and from the facility: uranium hexafluoride; enriched uranium, and depleted 

30 uranium.

31

32 [192-16, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope to see further examination of accident scenarios involving 

33 large wildfires around the facility, as well as accident scenarios involving the transportation of 

34 radioactive substances to and from the facility on our roads and highways.

35

36 Response: The public health impacts from the transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive 

37 materials, including the release of radioactive materials and other chemicals following a 

38 transportation accident severe enough to rupture a cargo container, are addressed in 

39 Section 4.2.9 and Appendix D of the EIS. Public health impacts from incident-free 

40 transportation of materials to and from the facility would be SMALL, and public health impacts 

41 from transportation accidents would also be SMALL.

42

43 The transportation of radioactive cargo is subject to both DOT and NRC shipping regulations as 

44 discussed in Section D.3 of the EIS. Safety measures in the regulations include the proper 

45 packaging of the material for shipment. Information about the containers that would be used to 

46 transport radioactive cargo is included in Section D.3.2. 

47
I-174

1 Emergency response plans for transportation accidents are not within the scope of the EIS, but 

2 are addressed in the SER (NRC, 2010b). Cleanup for accidents involving the transportation of 

3 materials to and from the proposed EREF, or any other industrial facility in the United States, 

4 would be handled by the carrier, the responsible facility (shipper or receiver), and the 

5 appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.

6

7

8 I.5.17 Public and Occupational Health

9

10 Comment: The following comment requests information related to the exposure of the public to 

11 toxic, radioactive, and/or harmful pollutants from operation of the proposed EREF.

12

13 [027-18, Sara Cohn] Public Health. The ICL is concerned that operation of this facility may 

14 expose Idahoans to toxic, radioactive, and/or harmful pollutants. Further detail and analysis 

15 must investigate risks associated with water and air contamination from enrichment operations. 

16 We request detailed information regarding the amounts and types of materials used, produced, 

17 and stored onsite. We would like detailed information about how these materials may be 

18 released and how releases may endanger public health. Detailed plans to contain releases as 

19 well as alert and protect the public will be essential in the final EIS. Additionally, further analysis 

20 must ensure no air releases during transportation of both uranium product and waste to and 

21 from the site. The health of Idahoans is of primary import and should not be compromised by 

22 enrichment product, waste, or transport.

23

24 Response: The NRC staff believes that the EIS presents sufficient detail on the potential 

25 impacts of exposures to toxic substances from proposed EREF operations. As reported in 

26 Chapter 6 of the SER, NUREG-1951 (NRC, 2010b), UF6 is the only chemical of concern with 

27 regard to potential occupational or public health exposures that will be used at the proposed 

28 EREF due to exposures to HF and uranium compounds produced in the interaction of UF6 with 

29 moisture. As shown in Section 4.2.10.2 and Appendix E, the EIS analyzes potential exposures 

30 of members of the public to these substances via the air pathway during the proposed EREF 

31 operations. The analysis shows that such exposures would be below regulatory limits and 

32 would not harm members of the public. There would be no exposures to any toxic substances 

33 by way of any water pathway; the facility would have no offsite waterborne effluent streams, as 

34 discussed in Sections 2.1.4.2 and 4.2.6.2. Section D.3.2 in Appendix D discusses the 

35 packaging requirements which preclude any releases of material during routine transportation 

36 operations. 

37

38

39 Comment: The following comment asks why the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) 

40 constraint on air emissions of radioactive material to the environment is not addressed in the 

41 EIS.

42

43 [066-08, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 6. 

44 Several places in the draft EIS reference the 100 millirem per year dose limit to any member of 

45 the public. The draft EIS does not discuss the ALARA constraint on air emissions of radioactive 

46 material to the environment of 10 millirem per year as stated in 10 CFR 20.1101(d). Please 

47 explain why this is not addressed.

48
I-175

1 Response: A comparison of estimated doses associated with air emissions to the limits in 

2 10 CFR 20.1101 has been added to Section 4.2.10.2.

3

4

5 Comment: The following comment questions the NRC’s use of the high-pressure ion chamber

6 (HPIC) exposure in air measurement to derive a hypothetical soil concentration. 

7

8 [066-09, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 7. 

9 Chapter 3: pp. 3-83 Line 12 discusses an average HPIC exposure rate in units of curie per 

10 kilogram with micro roentgen per hour in parenthesis and cites IDEQ INL Oversight Program 

11 (2008). The IDEQ INL Oversight Program only reports HPIC results in units of exposure per 

12 hour (micro roentgen per hour). Activity per unit mass is typical of a soil concentration 

13 measurement. If NRC has somehow used the HPIC exposure in air measurement to derive a 

14 hypothetical soil concentration, they need to subtract the contribution from cosmic sources from 

15 this measurement. Either way, the reference to IDEQ INL Oversight Program should only 

16 include the micro roentgen per hour units and any inferences should be clearly stated.

17

18 Response: Section 3.11 of the EIS has been revised. The concentration units have been 

19 corrected and changed from curie (Ci) per kilogram to coulomb (C) per kilogram

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment requests evaluation of potential elevated releases from the 

23 proposed EREF that would result in higher impacts than the ground level releases evaluated in 

24 the Draft EIS.

25

26 [066-19, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 17. 

27 Appendix E: pp. E-7, Line 45 through pp. E-8 Line 3 states “Since the exact height layout of the 

28 release points was not available and the CAP88-PC computer code does not account for 

29 building wake effects, releases were assumed to take place at ground level. Ground-level 

30 releases result in larger concentrations of radionuclides in air for receptors near the source than 

31 do elevated releases.” This statement is true and is more conservative for hypothetical public at 

32 the fence, but underestimates the dose to the nearest actual resident which is 8 km (5 mi) away. 

33 Additionally, pp. 6-16 lines 14-17 state an approximate elevation of 40 meters (132 feet) for the 

34 effluent emission points. This approximation could be used to run the CAP88-PC code. DEQ 

35 requests clarification in the EIS and evaluation of this potential impact.

36

37 Response: The CAP-88-PC computer code was run for both ground level and 40-meter (m)

38 releases. For conservatism, the maximum values of the two runs were chosen for the dose 

39 estimate. For the nearest resident, the maximum dose was associated with the ground level 

40 release, while the maximum population dose was associated with the 40-m release. The text 

41 and tables in Section 4.2.10.2 and Appendix E in the EIS have been modified to reflect these 

42 changes.

43

44

45 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns about worker safety at the proposed 

46 EREF and the need for safety procedures in general.

47
I-176

1 [036-02, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Safety procedures, 

2 protecting human health and the environment, for the storage facility as well as the processing 

3 facility need to make clear. Including but not limited to worker safety. Worker safety is always a 

4 concern and should be thoroughly characterized and described in the proposal.

5

6 Response: The proposed EREF would operate under a facility Health and Safety Plan 

7 administered by a Health and Safety Organization that would implement the health and safety 

8 requirements of the NRC and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as 

9 specified in the relevant portions of 10 CFR 20 and 29 CFR 1910, respectively, cited in 

10 Section 4.2.10 of the EIS. Procedures in the Emergency Plan for the proposed EREF would be 

11 designed to protect workers under emergency conditions.

12

13

14 Comment: The comment suggests that impacts to the public from air releases would be small.

15

16 [133-04, Richard Provencher] There appears to be only a small amount of air discharge of 

17 radioactivity which results in virtually no impact to the nearest public receptor.

18

19 Response: The NRC acknowledges the comment and appreciates the public participation.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment expresses a concern that impacts from fluoride exposure 

23 could be underestimated.

24

25 [141-03, Peter Rickards] The SENES fluoride documents on underestimating fluoride impact 

26 at Oak Ridge was not answered, despite acknowledging “someone” asked about it. The SENES 

27 team does work for CDC, and underestimating the fluoride is unacceptable.

28

29 Response: The SENES Oak Ridge Inc. fluoride documents concern releases of tens of 

30 thousands of pounds of HF on an annual basis and are not directly applicable to the proposed 

31 EREF. This is because HF releases from the proposed EREF are estimated to be less than 

32 4.4 pounds per year, as stated in Section 4.2.10.2 of the EIS, a difference of about 1000 to 

33 10,000 times less than those considered at Oak Ridge, resulting in much lower environmental 

34 concentration levels than considered harmful in the SENES documents. Section 4.2.10.2 of the 

35 EIS discusses the potential air concentrations of HF for workers and the public as a result of the 

36 proposed EREF. For workers, the potential estimated concentrations would all be below OSHA 

37 and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards. For members of 

38 the public, estimated concentrations would be about 1000 times below State of Idaho 

39 regulations. 

40

41

42 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns regarding risks due to uranium 

43 materials due to the preconstruction exemption granted to AES by the NRC. 

44

45 [147-07, Joey Schueler] 3. Contamination potentials are not being discussed or considered in 

46 the environmental impact assessment process due to “exemptions” and were missing from the 

47 public comment phase of the assessment and when asked to speak directly to this point by 

48 myself, NRC / EIS representatives refused to comment. Yet, the NRC website acknowledges 
I-177

1 that risks exist for this plant: “Hazards: The primary hazard in gaseous diffusion plants include 

2 the chemical and radiological hazard of a UF6 release and the potential for mishandling the 

3 enriched uranium, which could create a criticality accident (inadvertent nuclear chain reaction). 

4 Sited source: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html 

5

6 Response: AES would not be authorized to handle, store, or process uranium materials at the 

7 proposed EREF until a license is granted by the NRC. The exemption to which this comment 

8 refers allows preconstruction activities to be conducted by AES, such as site preparation 

9 activities, before the license is granted, as discussed in Section 1.4.1 of the EIS; however, those 

10 activities do not involve uranium materials. Therefore, there are no risks due to uranium 

11 compounds associated with the preconstruction exemption. Risks associated with UF6 at the 

12 proposed facility, including those from operations, accidents, and potential terrorist acts, are 

13 covered in Sections 4.2.10, 4.2.15, and 4.2.18.

14

15

16 Comment: The following comment points out that enriched uranium is more hazardous than 

17 depleted uranium. 

18

19 [147-13, Joey Schueler] 9. Enriched Uranium is far more hazardous than the “Depleted 

20 Uranium” used in Gulf military operations, even though many Desert Storm veterans fell prey to

21 cancer after their exposure to depleted Uranium in clearing bombed Iraqi vehicles, strongholds 

22 and implements of war, deemed “safe” by our military leaders (sound familiar?). 

23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Effects_of_depleted_uranium

24

25 Response: The EIS evaluates the potential doses to workers and members of the public 

26 associated with UF6 in storage and uranium releases associated with normal operations

27 (see Section 4.2.10), finding that the impacts would be SMALL.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comment states that the public health risks of temporary storage of 

31 depleted uranium should be addressed in the EIS. 

32

33 [181-11, Roger Turner] Public Health risks of “Temporary” Storage of depleted Uranium 

34 should be addressed in EIS. The draft EIS by the NRC significantly errs by minimizing the 

35 human health and environmental risks in the risks of the storage of uranium in above-ground 

36 pads in eastern Idaho. The EIS is flawed in its apparent assumption that another location will be 

37 certified for off-site storage. The EIS fails to acknowledge that these casks may be breached by 

38 handling or corrosion. Here is an excerpt of the EIS, under the Public Health section:

39

40 During peak operation, the proposed EREF is expected to generate 1222 cylinders of 

41 depleted UF6 annually, which would be temporarily stored on an outdoor cylinder 

42 storage pad in approved Type 48Y containers before being transported to a DOE-owned 

43 or private conversion facility.

44

45 The above paragraph, under the Public Health Section, in fact, does not even discuss public 

46 health. The EIS must assume that the casks of depleted Uranium will remain for some time at 

47 the site, as the treatment facility to convert UF6 to the more stable oxide is behind in schedules 

48 and experiencing budget problems affecting production. Anytime heavy equipment is operated 
I-178

1 there is a risk that accidents will occur. In fact, casks of UF6 were damaged by heavy 

2 equipment at Oak Ridge, so the risk to workers and public health is real. The EIS needs to 

3 define “temporary” and fully assess health and worker risks, for longer term storage at the 

4 site....

5

6 The characteristics of UF6 pose potential health and environmental risks.DUF6 in cylinders 

7 emits low levels of gamma and neutron radiation. Also, when released to the atmosphere, DUF6 

8 reacts with water vapor in the air to form hydrogen fluoride (HF) and uranyl fluoride (UO2F2), 

9 both chemically toxic substances. Consequently, spills and air releases of this material is 

10 potentially a significant adverse impact on the environment as defined by NEPA.

11

12 Response: The EIS considers the dose to workers and the public associated with stored UF6

13 cylinders in Section 4.2.10.2. The cylinder management program to minimize cylinder corrosion 

14 is covered in Section 4.2.11.2. Accidents with potential impacts that bound those involving 

15 heavy equipment and full cylinders are analyzed in Section 4.2.15. The consequences of the 

16 accidents analyzed encompass those of a storage pad cylinder release.

17

18

19 Comment: The following comment requests that information be added to the EIS regarding 

20 certain filtering and ventilation systems and the associated risks that would be part of the 

21 proposed EREF. 

22

23 [181-16, Roger Turner] Inadequate description and risk evaluation of the first step in the 

24 process. Sublimation of the solid UF6 into the gas phase. How is this done? What is the size of 

25 facility to accomplish this? What temperatures and pressures are required to sublimate UF6? 

26 The EIS describes, on page 2-19 a system of pre-filters before the “cleaned gases would be 

27 discharged to the atmosphere via rooftop stacks”. The EIS needs to describe this system and 

28 how it functions. What systems would be in place to monitor these filters and their integrity? 

29 What are the “clean gases” that will be discharged to the atmosphere and how are these gases 

30 monitored? Are continuous stack samplers employed for this? Please describe them in the EIS. 

31 What is the annual volume of gas produced and what are the safeguards? 

32

33 The Section on SBM notes that a ventilation system will be in place: “The Gaseous Effluent 

34 Ventilation System would be used to remove uranium and other radioactive particles and 

35 hydrogen fluoride from the potentially contaminated process gas streams.” 

36

37 The final EIS needs to go into some detail about the ventilation system. If there is a release of 

38 UF6, or HF, how does the ventilation system capture it? Once captured how is it specifically 

39 treated and how does it provide protection to the workers and protection from release into the 

40 atmosphere, or in the case of liquid or solid phases of it, protection from contact to workers?

41

42 Response: Presentation of detailed information regarding the sublimation process and the 

43 ventilation system of the EREF is beyond the scope of this EIS. However, Section 4.2.10.2 of 

44 the EIS discusses the doses associated with the potential routine airborne release of uranium 

45 from the proposed EREF; Section 4.2.15.2 discusses accident impacts including the rupture of a 

46 Centrifuge Test Facility feed vessel; Section 4.2.15.3 discusses mitigation measures in place to 

47 prevent this accident; and Section 5.2, Table 5-2, identifies mitigation measures associated with 

48 the release of UF6 and related compounds during operations. Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 discuss 

49 ambient air monitoring activities and reporting requirements.

50
I-179

1 Comment: The following comments raise the issue of thyroid cancer in Elmore County and 

2 state that this risk needs to be addressed in the EIS. 

3

4 [016-02, Manley Briggs] However, a really interesting thing that I noticed was that Elmore 

5 County had a statistically increased rate of thyroid cancer in those born after 1958. That means 

6 they weren’t affected by the nuclear bomb tests. But why do they have it? And it is pertinent, I 

7 think, at least needs to be looked into, that Elmore County is the first county down-river from the 

8 discharge of the Snake River aquifer at the Thousand Springs into the Snake River. So I think 

9 that at least needs to be addressed by the Environmental Impact Statement. 

10

11 [016-04, Manley Briggs] One last observation that I would like to point out is the high 

12 incidence of thyroid cancer in Elmore County. Elmore is the first county below the Thousand 

13 Springs, which is where the Snake River Aquifer empties into the Snake River. This was noted 

14 in the 1999 NCI Report regarding the Nuclear-Bomb test fallout. This increased incidence 

15 occurred only in individuals born after 1958 and thus could not be attributed to the Bomb fallout. 

16 Could it be due to leaching of radioactivity into the aquifer from previously stored nuclear 

17 materials? This would certainly have bearing on Areva’s proposal, and should be examined by 

18 the Areva EIS.

19

20 Response: Increased thyroid cancer rates are associated with exposure to radioactive iodine 

21 produced in nuclear fission, the characteristic chain reaction that occurs in a nuclear reactor or a 

22 nuclear bomb. Thyroid cancer rates are not an issue related to the proposed EREF because 

23 operations at the proposed EREF would not involve nuclear fission and would not produce 

24 radioactive iodine. For reasons discussed in Section 4.2.6.2 of the EIS, operation of the 

25 proposed EREF would not contaminate the Snake River Aquifer.

26

27

28 Comment: The following comments express concern regarding the exposure risks as a result of 

29 the proposed EREF.

30

31 [147-01, Joey Schueler] This is a very serious decision that we’ve entrusted to a very few 

32 people, and I’m not convinced from this meeting -- cause you’re convincing us as much as we’re 

33 trying to convince you tonight, right? I’m not very convinced that this is unbiased.

34

35 I’m extremely concerned about that, and the implications just are dire to me. And I have to ask: 

36 What is the risk? Not the impact. What is the risk?

37

38 I’ve heard a lot of statements about what the impact is. And the economic impact is, yes, I’m 

39 sure tremendous, and I think she put it well, that there’s a dollar sign to this. But I’m not here to 

40 hear about impact, whether it be pro or against. I want to know what the risk is to me and my 

41 family, because that’s what this is about. I know there’s many environmental factors, but I think

42 if there’s one thing we should be concerned about in Idaho, is our safety. 

43

44 [147-03, Joey Schueler] I do not feel that any summary statement on impact of nuclear 

45 enriched uranium plant that does not account for any statement on the potential risk of exposure 

46 is a sound or unbiased summation on environmental impact. This concerns me greatly and 

47 presents a basic failure on the part of the NRC, whether unintentional or planned.

48
I-180

1 Response: In the EIS, the NRC staff analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the 

2 construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed EREF. As part of its analysis, 

3 the staff has considered the impacts – both positive and negative – that the proposed EREF 

4 may have on members of the public. Further, the staff has considered how members of the 

5 public may be affected by the proposed EREF both during normal operations and as a result of 

6 certain abnormal events. The impacts that the staff analyzed in detail are listed in Section 1.4.3 

7 of the EIS. These impacts include impacts related to public and occupational health, as well as 

8 a variety of other impacts potentially affecting the quality of life. In Chapter 4 of the EIS, the 

9 NRC staff discusses these impacts in detail. In EIS Sections 2.4 and 2.5, the staff provides a 

10 summary of its analysis. Applying the impact scale outlined in Council on Environmental Quality 

11 regulations, the staff has determined that all impacts related to the long-term safety of the public 

12 would be SMALL.

13

14 In addition to analyzing environmental impacts potentially associated with the EREF, the NRC 

15 staff conducted a rigorous safety review of AES’s application. The staff conducted its safety 

16 review to determine whether AES’s application meets NRC regulations designed to protect 

17 public health and safety. For example, NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 prescribe radiation 

18 dose limits for individual members of the public. The staff has determined that AES’s 

19 application satisfies all applicable safety-related criteria in NRC regulations. The staff’s safety 

20 findings are presented in its Safety Evaluation Report.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comments discuss increasing radiation from stored depleted UF6 and 

24 the potential for accidental release.

25

26 [032-05, Cindy Cottrell] The problem with depleted uranium is that it becomes more 

27 radioactive over the course of 1,000,000 years. Where would we store this knowing it will 

28 become more radioactive? 

29

30 [103-05, Karen McCall] Depleted uranium becomes more radioactive as it ages leaving an 

31 ever increasing toxic legacy.

32

33 [157-02, Hon. Erik Simpson] Another issue related to the production of depleted uranium, that 

34 has been overstated, to a great extent, deals with the radioactive level of the material over time. 

35 It is true that depleted uranium tails from enrichment become more radioactive. The real 

36 question is whether that presents a problem to anyone’s future health and safety of the 

37 environment. We all know that uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element as found in 

38 nature. Uranium also contains all of the naturally-occurring decay products of the uranium decay 

39 chain.

40

41 After going through chemical purification and enrichment, the depleted uranium tails are 

42 stripped of those other materials that are actually much less radioactive than the form of 

43 uranium normally found in nature. So it is the build-up of those normal decay products in the 

44 depleted uranium that give reason for the position that it becomes more radioactive, with time. 

45 Truth be told, the uranium is actually building back up to its natural balance of uranium and 

46 decay products. The ultimate question we need to address was storage and disposal of 

47 depleted uranium, is can it be done safely and does this increase in radioactive, back to normal 
I-181

1 levels, create a future problem for the environment? The answer to that -- uranium can be 

2 very -- or it can be very safely stored and disposed. 

3

4 [168-03, Lon Stewart] What does Idaho get out of this? We get highly radioactive waste that 

5 increases in intensity over time, we get a chance to pollute the Eastern Snake River Aquifer, the 

6 main source for water for all of Southeast Idaho and then pollute the Snake River which flows 

7 through the Southwest portion of the state. We will probably get 350,000 tons of uranium waste 

8 over the life of the facility that no one currently knows how to dispose of. And when an accident 

9 occurs, which sooner or later it will, how many people will be affected? Doesn’t sound good to 

10 me.

11

12 [171-06, John Tanner] As far as disposal of decayed uranium is concerned, an honest 

13 comparison of the radioactivity between depleted uranium and uranium ore would compare 

14 equal amounts of uranium, not equal amounts of dirt. And on that basis, ore is far more 

15 radioactive than depleted uranium. It’s simply that in the depleted uranium, they’ve concentrated

16 the uranium, and it would make no sense to dilute it by mixing it with dirt just so we can say well 

17 now it’s ore. It should be buried, as is, and shallow, because some day we’re going to need it.

18

19 [180-06, Kaye Turner] Is it true that depleted uranium becomes more radioactive over time?

20

21 [193-05, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] So once it is deconverted, 

22 after treatment, if they come up with a solution for this, is the problem solved? Well, there is less 

23 of it. But the funny thing about depleted uranium is that it becomes more radioactive. Over time, 

24 as it decomposes, it exposes radon gas. And it’s most radioactive in its millionth year.

25

26 [192-13, Lisa Young] The storage of the depleted uranium waste, which will likely not be 

27 deconverted in any reasonable timeline, poses a serious risk to our health and safety as 

28 Idahoans, and to the residents of any other region where the waste will be stored in the future. 

29 Even after proper deconversion of this waste, the remaining waste, which cumulatively becomes 

30 more of a radioactive threat over time, has nowhere to go for acceptable long-term storage, and 

31 will continue to plague our waste storage sites with more and more barrels of poison, creating 

32 more and more of a health and safety risk for the surrounding communities. Producing this 

33 waste is irresponsible, and licensing a facility that will do just that is undeniably irresponsible.

34

35 Response: While uranium isotopes in depleted UF6 continue to decay at a constant rate after 

36 the enrichment process is complete, daughter products from their decay build up and increase 

37 the total radiation emitted from the material, which would be similar to that associated with 

38 naturally-occurring uranium ore. For illustrative purposes, the dose rate at 1 meter from a 

39 storage cylinder containing 10,000 kg of solid depleted uranium oxide would be expected to 

40 increase from 0.26 mrem/hour in the first year to 1 mrem/hour at 10,000 years and 

41 30 mrem/hour at 1 million years. As noted in Section 3.11.1 of the EIS, the average person in 

42 the United States receives approximately 310 mrem per year from natural background radiation 

43 sources.

44

45 Accident scenarios involving stored cylinders of depleted UF6 at the proposed EREF are 

46 encompassed by the accident analysis of more severe accidents presented in Section 4.2.15.2 

47 and analyzed in greater detail in the SER (NRC, 2010b). The consequences of the analyzed 

48 accidents bound accidents involving stored depleted UF6 cylinders on the storage pad, including 
I-182

1 routine handling scenarios. The NRC staff concludes that through the combination of plant 

2 design, engineered controls, and administrative controls, accidents at the facility pose a low risk 

3 to workers, the environment, and the public.

4

5

6 I.5.18 Waste Management 

7

8 Comment: The following comment expresses support for the project and a desire for more 

9 information on the storage and disposal of wastes.

10

11 [006-01, Anonymous] I am supportive of the AREVA project but would like to have heard more 

12 from the NRC on how waste from the process will be stored and ultimately disposed of.

13

14 Response: Storage and management of waste is discussed in Sections 2.1.4.2, 2.1.4.3, and 

15 4.2.11 of the EIS.

16

17

18 Comment: The following comment concerns the storage of SNF.

19

20 [007-02, Arnold Ayers] You talk about associated with that, another is storage of fuels. People 

21 are worried about storage. Well, I’ve got tell you, we did the testing on the storage for the spent 

22 fuels that are actually being stored in power plants today, and found no discharges anywhere. If 

23 we can do it for that, I see absolutely no reason why such facilities cannot be developed and 

24 built for AREVA to be able to handle the waste products that they have over an indefinite period 

25 of time.

26

27 Wait a minute, we’re talking waste products. The reality is that that fuel has a very strong 

28 potential under the right circumstances to become more fuel. It’s not a waste product, it is 

29 actually a potential energy resource.

30

31 Response: As reflected in the comment, no SNF would be generated or stored at the proposed 

32 EREF. Section 4.2.11.2 of the EIS addresses the disposal of waste that will be generated 

33 during operations at the proposed EREF.

34

35

36 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that there would be long term storage of 

37 “spent uranium” at the proposed EREF site.

38

39 [019-02, George Buehler] I see this as the narrow end of the wedge to create long term 

40 storage of spent uranium, since the process of establishing a permanent repository for nuclear 

41 waste has been hopelessly grid-locked for decades.

42

43 Response: The United States is still in the process of considering a permanent repository for 

44 high-level waste and SNF. Neither of these waste types would be generated by the proposed 

45 EREF or stored at the EREF site. Furthermore, AES has stated that depleted UF6 cylinders 

46 would not be stored at the proposed EREF site beyond the licensed lifetime of the facility 

47 (AES, 2010a). 

48

49
I-183

1 Comment: The following comment asserts that the Draft EIS does not contain adequate 

2 information regarding hazardous materials existing or proposed for storage at the proposed 

3 EREF site.

4

5 [027-19, Sara Cohn] Hazardous Materials: The EIS does not contain adequate information 

6 regarding hazardous materials existing onsite. Additionally, it is unclear how hazardous 

7 materials will be stored during operation of the proposed project, and as mentioned above, no 

8 adequate rules exist for disposal of such materials. The final EIS must provide detailed 

9 information with regard to any hazardous materials existing or proposed for storage onsite and 

10 any cumulative risk associated with the storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials 

11 during project operations. The final EIS must include a Management Plan for Toxic and 

12 Hazardous Materials. This document should be available for public comment and should 

13 address health and accident risks associated with toxic and hazardous materials onsite as well 

14 as accident prevention and management strategies. This information is incredibly important to 

15 protect the health and lives of emergency responders and communities such as Idaho Falls, 

16 Pocatello, and others that would potentially be harmed by facility operations. The ICL is 

17 concerned that a hazardous materials analysis was not included in the draft EIS and that the 

18 Safety Report for this facility has yet to be released. The Safety Report- an important document 

19 that will evaluate the safety of the proposed facility and potential threats to public health – must 

20 be released for public comment and evaluation before the final EIS is approved and the NRC 

21 seeks a licensing decision.

22

23 Response: For the purposes of responding to this comment, the NRC staff assumes that the 

24 commenter’s definition of “hazardous materials” includes hazardous and radioactive raw materials 

25 and waste. The public and occupational health impacts of storing radioactive and hazardous 

26 materials onsite are addressed in Section 4.2.10.2 of the EIS. The impacts of transportation 

27 accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are addressed in Section D.2.2.2, and the 

28 impacts of hazardous waste disposal are addressed in Section 4.2.11.2. Specific details about the 

29 onsite storage of hazardous materials at the proposed EREF will not be available until the facility 

30 design is finalized; and development of plans for management of toxic and hazardous materials 

31 and for emergency response is not within the scope of the EIS. The quantities of hazardous 

32 materials to be stored onsite are considered sensitive information and were taken into account as 

33 part of the safety evaluation in the NRC’s SER, NUREG-1951 (NRC, 2010b).

34

35

36 Comment: The following comment requests additional detail about waste from the Gaseous 

37 Effluent Ventilation System (GEVS) at the proposed EREF, including the use and disposal of 

38 filters.

39

40 [027-14, Sara Cohn] The environmental documents mention the use of Gaseous Effluent 

41 Ventilation Systems. We are concerned about the waste associated with the ventilation system 

42 and would like more detail with regard to the use and disposal of any filter-like product that may 

43 contain pollutants. 

44

45 Response: The impacts associated with the waste from the GEVS are addressed in 

46 Section 4.2.11.2 of the EIS. Additional information about use and disposal of filter-like products 

47 used in the GEVS has been added to that section, including the types of filters and the 

48 processing of filters after removal from service.

49
I-184

1 Comment: The following comment asks about who will pay for waste storage at the proposed 

2 EREF site and eventual removal. 

3

4 [050-11, Joanie Fauci] Who will pay for waste storage and eventual removal?

5

6 Response: AES is responsible for all costs of preconstruction, construction, operation, and 

7 decommissioning of the proposed EREF, including waste storage and removal.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comment expresses concern that the Draft EIS does not evaluate 

11 toxic waste impacts following decommissioning.

12

13 [077-03, Larry Hyatt] The most serious flaw in the EIS for Eagle Rock is that the evaluation of 

14 impacts end at the decommissioning of the facility where as the toxic contaminants of the 

15 enrichment process will be a serious environmental hazard for thousands of generations into the 

16 future. Both the depleted Uranium and the centrifuged product are a poison to humans and the 

17 proposal shows no assured containment of this material nor a method of rendering it safe. You 

18 cannot show adequate stewardship to manage this dangerous byproduct for its life of toxicities.

19

20 Response: Waste management impacts at the proposed EREF site following the conclusion of 

21 decommissioning are not addressed in the EIS, because residual environmental hazards are 

22 not anticipated. All waste and contaminated materials would be shipped to a licensed disposal 

23 facility. The NRC license, as well as the AES Decommissioning Funding Plan, would require 

24 the decontamination or removal of all materials from the site which prevent release of the facility 

25 and site for unrestricted use as defined in 10 CFR 20.1402 (NRC, 2010b). The NRC staff has 

26 found that AES’s plans for financial assurance for decommissioning and AES’s plan for 

27 chemical process safety and controls meet the requirements in 10 CFR Part 70 and provide 

28 reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be protected 

29 (NRC 2010b).

30

31 The long-term impacts of the disposed waste are covered under the licenses (and their 

32 supporting environmental analyses) that have been, and would in the future be, issued to 

33 commercial radioactive waste disposal facilities. These facilities are licensed by the 

34 Commission or designated Agreement States according to the requirements specified at 

35 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations. Further, the NRC is currently 

36 engaged in rulemaking to specify a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of 

37 low-level radioactive wastes, including large quantities of depleted uranium (NRC, 2009). In the 

38 interim, compliance with the performance objectives specified in Part 61, Subpart C, continues 

39 to provide reasonable assurance that low-level radioactive waste can be safely disposed at 

40 licensed facilities. On April 13, 2010, NRC staff summarized existing policy and guidance to 

41 assist Agreement States in making informed decisions regarding compliance with the 

42 performance objectives for land disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium until a new 

43 regulation is implemented (NRC, 2010a).

44

45

46 Comment: The following comment expresses concern regarding the integrity of storage 

47 containers for depleted UF6.

48
I-185

1 [125-01, Holly Paquette] Having all that been said, I think the perfect picture for me, that 

2 described what my worries are about this, with the storage of the uranium that we saw up there. 

3 Now Representative Simpson from Idaho Falls came up and said -- which actually did not make 

4 me feel better. I think he hoped that that would -- that those rusted containers are actually highly 

5 regulated, checked, and meet all of the standards that are needed to be keeping the people 

6 around it safe. For me, that was a shock, that that’s considered perfectly regulated, and I think 

7 that that brought to mind what’s going on in the Gulf right now. We have a lot of trust in our 

8 government, that they are regulating things, and that things are perfectly okay. If that means 

9 that depleted uranium is being stored in rusted metal containers, that we have no way of getting 

10 rid of, that frightens me. 

11

12 Response: As noted in Section 4.2.11.2 of the EIS, DOE has stored depleted UF6 in Type 48Y 

13 or similar cylinders outdoors since the mid-1950s, and cylinder leaks due to corrosion led DOE 

14 to implement a cylinder management program. Proper and active depleted UF6 cylinder 

15 management, which includes routine inspections and maintaining the anticorrosion layer on the 

16 cylinder surface, has been shown to limit exterior corrosion or mechanical damage and provide

17 for safe storage. AES has committed to the implementation of a similar cylinder management 

18 program (see Section 4.2.11.3 of the EIS), which would help ensure safe storage of depleted 

19 uranium at the proposed EREF site.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment concerns the transport of radioactive materials and waste 

23 through Idaho and the storage of these materials in the State.

24

25 [147-05, Joe Schueler] 1. Nuclear compounds will be shipped to Idaho and the byproduct 

26 waste of the process as well as enriched Uranium will be either shipped through our state or 

27 stored in Idaho.

28

29 Response: As discussed in Section 4.2.11 of the EIS, low-level radioactive waste from 

30 operation of the proposed EREF would be transported from the proposed EREF site to licensed, 

31 out-of-state TSDFs. Depleted UF6 from the enrichment process would be stored at the 

32 proposed EREF site until shipment to a DOE-owned or commercial conversion facility. AES has 

33 stated that depleted UF6 cylinders would not be stored at the proposed EREF site beyond the 

34 licensed lifetime of the facility (AES, 2010a). 

35

36 No radioactive waste would be transported into Idaho as a result of the proposed EREF project. 

37 The only radioactive materials transported to the proposed EREF would be UF6 feed for the 

38 enrichment process.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comment discusses potential uses for depleted uranium tails.

42

43 [157-04, Hon. Erik Simpson] Lastly, depleted uranium tails themselves are not considered 

44 waste. The tails contain residual value in both the remaining uranium and fluorine that it 

45 contains. In fact, the Idaho Company, International Isotopes, is in the process of licensing and 

46 building a $100 million facility in New Mexico specifically designed for the chemical 

47 deconversion of depleted uranium from enrichment. The facility will extract the valuable fluoride 

48 and sell that on the commercial market place. 

49
I-186

1 Response: As stated in the text box in Section 2.1.5 of the EIS, depleted uranium is source 

2 material as defined in 10 CFR Part 40, and, if treated as a waste, falls under the definition of 

3 low-level radioactive waste per 10 CFR 61.2. After conversion from hexafluoride to a more 

4 stable oxide form, the depleted uranium could potentially be used in various materials or 

5 products. However, DOE currently plans to dispose of most of the depleted uranium oxide as 

6 low-level radioactive waste (DOE, 2009). Should any depleted uranium generated at the 

7 proposed EREF be sent to the proposed International Isotopes facility in the future, the fluoride 

8 in the depleted UF6 would be recovered and sold on the commercial market.

9

10

11 Comment: The following comment ask about depleted uranium generation as a result of 

12 enriched uranium production.

13

14 [180-05, Kay Turner] Is it true that for every ton of enriched uranium produced there will be 

15 seven tons of depleted uranium?

16

17 Response: On an annual basis at full production, the proposed EREF is anticipated to produce 

18 approximately 2252 metric tons (2482 tons) of low-enriched UF6 and 15,270 metric tons 

19 (16,832 tons) of depleted UF6 as stated in Section 2.1.4.2. The resulting ratio between the 

20 enriched product and depleted tails is about 1.0 to 6.8 or about 1 to 7.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comment criticizes the classification system for radioactive wastes 

24 and states that the EIS should evaluate risks to the public from radioactive wastes.

25

26 [181-19, Roger Turner] NEPA requires a hard look at environmental impacts even if waste 

27 classification system is flawed. Classification of radioactive wastes in the U.S. errs because 

28 waste categories are based on the origin of the waste, not on the physical, chemical, or 

29 radiological properties that determine the hazards of the waste, and hence its safe and proper 

30 management. Hence the system does not take into account actual radioactivity levels of waste 

31 either overall or per unit volume. Thus, so-called “low-level waste” can contain materials more 

32 radioactive than those classified as “high-level waste.” However, the NEPA requires that risks to 

33 the public be evaluated, in addition to simply repeating the waste classification system 

34 employed in the U.S.

35

36 Response: Discussion of the waste classification established by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 61 is 

37 not within the scope of the EIS. Section 4.2.10 of the EIS presents the evaluation of the 

38 radiological risks to workers and the public as a result of the proposed EREF.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comment states that the Draft EIS fails to recognize UF6 as a 

42 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted material, and requests that the 

43 permit section of the Draft EIS be revised.

44

45 [181-15, Roger Turner] EIS Fails to recognize UF6 as a RCRA permitted material. Depleted 

46 Uranium was determined to be a Solid Waste as defined by RCRA and the EIS in Tennessee, 

47 and the EIS fails to recognize the possibility that Idaho DEQ will similarly require a RCRA permit 

48 for this material. Please revise Permit Section.

49
I-187

1 Response: Classification of waste by the State of Tennessee has no bearing on the handling, 

2 storage, and transport of wastes generation at the proposed EREF. To date, no States other than 

3 Ohio and Tennessee have expressed interest in regulating UF6 as a RCRA waste. IDEQ has not 

4 indicated that UF6 will be regulated as a RCRA waste in Idaho. Therefore, no change to 

5 Section 1.5.2 in the EIS is necessary.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment asks whether solid waste generated at the proposed EREF 

9 would require a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or RCRA permit, and states that the EIS 

10 should describe the current status of mixed waste treatment acceptance criteria and shipping 

11 requirements. 

12

13 [181-18, Roger Turner] Also, this section reports that the final solid material would be shipped 

14 off-site. This raises the issue of whether it would require a TSCA or RCRA permit. The EIS 

15 should describe the current status of mixed waste treatment acceptance criteria, shipping 

16 requirements.

17

18 Response: Hazardous waste (RCRA) permits are required for the treatment, storage, or disposal 

19 of hazardous wastes, and IDEQ implements RCRA within the State of Idaho. Text has been 

20 added to Section 4.2.11.2 of the EIS to clarify that the proposed EREF would not treat, store, or 

21 dispose of hazardous or mixed wastes in a manner that requires a RCRA permit. However, as 

22 noted in Section 1.5.3, the proposed EREF would request a hazardous waste generator number.

23

24 TSCA is designed to regulate the introduction of new chemical substances or the significant 

25 new use of an existing chemical substance. Neither applies to the proposed EREF, so TSCA

26 does not apply.

27

28 Section 4.2.11.2 states that hazardous wastes generated at the proposed EREF would be 

29 collected at the point of generation, classified, packaged, and shipped offsite to a licensed 

30 TSDF in accordance with Federal and State environmental and occupational regulations. 

31 Additional text has been added to Section 4.2.9.2 to clarify that the transportation of hazardous 

32 wastes is subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOT regulations. The 

33 current status of mixed waste treatment acceptance criteria is not within the scope of the EIS.

34

35

36 Comment: The following comment asks where the perfluoropolyether (PFPE) oil waste will be 

37 stored at the proposed EREF site. The comment also asks for the kilowatt rating of each of the 

38 four standby diesel generators, and how much diesel fuel will be stored on the site. 

39

40 [187-01, John Weber] After reviewing the safety analysis report and the EIS, I have a few 

41 questions and comments to present to NRC at this time. Because no Bobin (phonetic) oil 

42 recovery system will be used, where will the PFPE oil waste be stored?

43 What is the kilowatt rating of each of the four standby diesel generators, and how much diesel 

44 will be stored on the site?

45

46 Response: Specific details about the storage location of PFPE oil waste and diesel fuel at the 

47 proposed EREF will not be available until the facility design is finalized. The quantities of 

48 hazardous materials stored onsite, including diesel fuel, are considered to be sensitive information. 
I-188

1 However, such information was taken into account during the safety evaluation in the NRC’s SER, 

2 NUREG-1951 (NRC, 2010b).

3

4 As noted in Section 4.2.4.1 of the EIS, the development plan for the proposed EREF states that 

5 each of the four diesel-fueled emergency generators will be rated at 2500 watts (i.e., 2.5 kilowatts). 

6

7

8 Comment: The following comments note that radioactive waste would remain in the 

9 United States.

10

11 [032-04, Cindy Cottrell] I’m against a foreign country making the profit from this plant and 

12 leaving the contamination in our Country.

13

14 [187-04, John Weber] In section 10.1, it states that: “DOE is entitled to take title to and dispose 

15 of the waste.” So the French citizens take the profits and the U.S. citizens get the waste. 

16

17 Response: To ensure domestic uranium enrichment services, the generation of depleted 

18 uranium tails and uranium-contaminated waste that would need disposal in the domestic arena 

19 would be expected.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comments express concern over radioactive waste being left in the 

23 State of Idaho.

24

25 [014-03, William Blair] Idaho does not need to add to its radioactive waste problem.

26

27 [015-07, Beatrice Brailsford] So, that’s the proposal to meet the need of a domestic supply of 

28 enriched uranium. A uranium factory without any national purpose will produce fuel for everywhere 

29 in the world but here in Idaho, send its profits to France, and leave us with the waste. 

30

31 [061-02, Nancy Greco] I am also worried about the threats to our beautiful environment, not 

32 only from the construction and production of this plant, but also from the tons of waste which will 

33 be left behind. Idaho is not the armpit of the nation, and should not be seen as the perfect 

34 repository for more waste.

35

36 [110-01, John and Susan Medlin] As the Snake River Alliance presentation pointed out, there 

37 is no current need for this facility, no compelling evidence that a nuclear renaissance is coming 

38 (or inevitable), no rationale for a French company building a nuclear facility in Idaho that 

39 purports to promote US energy security while importing inputs and exporting outputs, no 

40 provision for the deteriorating and dangerous waste that will haunt us for decades or maybe 

41 forever, no concern for yet another threat to the Snake River aquifer, the lifeblood of Idaho 

42 agriculture.

43

44 So how can the NRC conclude that building this facility is vital, and that the most problematic 

45 outcome to be evaluated is construction dust?

46
I-189

1 [104-01, Carolyn McCollum] There’s little advantage to us Idahoans when Areva’s nuclear 

2 fuel would be sent worldwide and its profits back to France while we are left with its radioactive 

3 waste, compounding INL’s nuclear activities that have plutonium-contaminated the aquifer. 

4

5 Response: As discussed in Sections 2.1.3 and 4.2.11.2 of the EIS, all waste from operations at 

6 the proposed EREF, including the depleted UF6 tails cylinders, would be transported out of 

7 Idaho for treatment and disposal. Until a depleted UF6 conversion facility is available, cylinders 

8 containing depleted UF6 would be temporarily stored on an outdoor Cylinder Storage Pad. 

9 Storage of depleted UF6 cylinders at the proposed EREF would occur for the duration of the 

10 facility’s operating lifetime and before final removal of depleted UF6 from the proposed EREF 

11 site. However, AES has stated that depleted UF6 cylinders would not be stored at the proposed 

12 EREF site beyond the facility’s licensed lifetime (AES, 2010a).

13

14

15 Comment: The following comments are concerned with the costs of waste management and 

16 disposal.

17

18 [050-11, Joanie Fauci] Who will pay for waste storage and eventual removal?

19

20 [083-04, Diane Jones] Assuming that the project goes forward, and the enriched uranium is 

21 used in the United States, there’s an assertion in the EIS that this would be an economical 

22 source of enriched uranium. My question is: Does that economy include the cleanup of the 

23 waste that’s generated? It seems clear that the NRC has not yet figured out how this waste 

24 should be, could be disposed of, and it’s the -- who bears the cost?

25

26 [096-02, Arjun Makhijani] The cost of -- and I’m not saying do it, or don’t do it here -- I’m just 

27 commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement, and what will be at risk, and what 

28 taxpayers might have to do if a private corporation unloads this DU under the Department of 

29 Energy, as it can do by law, and it has said it might do. And the Department of Energy takes it, 

30 and you’re requiring them to put two or two and a half billion dollars out, and my estimate for 

31 what it would cost to dispose of 300,000 metric tons of depleted uranium is closer to eight or ten 

32 billion dollars. So, who’s going to pay that? It’s going to come -- everybody who is complaining 

33 about the deficit should at least pay some attention to the potential cost of this.

34

35 [171-07, John Tanner] Now, as for who pays for disposal, so far the nuclear industry has been 

36 paying for all nuclear waste disposal, not the taxpayer. They certainly haven’t been getting their 

37 money’s worth as the saga at Yucca Mountain shows.

38

39 Response: AES is responsible for all costs of preconstruction, construction, operation, and 

40 decommissioning of the proposed EREF, including waste storage, removal, and disposal. In the 

41 case of the depleted UF6, the DOE would be required to take the material from the proposed 

42 EREF, but AES would still be responsible for the costs associated with transport, conversion,

43 and disposal. Text has been added to Section 2.1.5.1 of the EIS for clarification.

44

45

46 Comment: The following comments concern wastewater permitting and regulatory issues.

47
I-190

1 [066-23, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 21. 

2 Subsurface Sewage Disposal Requirements The wastewater system for the Visitor Center was 

3 not discussed in the draft EIS. The Visitor Center will be located adjacent to Highway 20 

4 approximately 1.5 miles from the enrichment facility. The exact site location has not been 

5 determined. The wastewater system for the Visitor Center will be an onsite subsurface disposal 

6 system with a projected flow of approximately 1500 gallons per day (gpd). Subsurface sewage 

7 disposal is governed by the subsurface sewage rules (58.01.03) and permitting has been 

8 delegated to the local Health District. DEQ participates in plan and specification review for 

9 collection systems with more than 2 connections and large soil absorption systems. We expect 

10 that AES will comply with all applicable regulations, licensing and operating requirements of 

11 both DEQ and the local Health District related to this facility.

12

13 [066-22, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 20. 

14 Wastewater System Requirements The Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility wastewater 

15 system consists of a collection system, private municipal wastewater treatment plant, and two 

16 (2) total containment lined wastewater lagoons. The system will be classified as a Public 

17 Wastewater System and subject to the requirements of the Wastewater Rules (IDAPA

18 58.01.16). DEQ expects that AES will comply with all applicable requirements.

19

20 Response: Approvals and permits, such as those pertaining to municipal wastewater, must be 

21 obtained by AES from other regulatory agencies. Table 1-1 in Section 1.5.1 of the EIS lists the 

22 applicable requirements, including those for wastewater at the proposed EREF. Table 1-2 in 

23 Section 1.5.2 lists the agencies to which AES must submit the appropriate applications.

24

25 A row for IDAPA 58.01.03 has been added to Table 1-1. The regulation is already listed in 

26 Table 1-2, but the entry has been modified to note that a permit may be required for the Visitor 

27 Center.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comments note that little byproduct waste would be produced by the 

31 proposed EREF.

32

33 [133-03, Richard Provencher] It includes an enclosed system that has virtually no byproduct 

34 waste generated through the flow sheet. 

35

36 [133-06, Richard Provencher] The facility does not require a large amount of water to operate. 

37 This is good from an aquifer conservation and a waste minimization standpoint.

38

39 Response: The NRC acknowledges the comments and appreciates the public participation.

40

41

42 Comment: The following comments express concern about the operation of the Liquid Effluent 

43 Collection and Treatment Systems at the proposed EREF.

44

45 [027-15, Sara Cohn] We also concerned that hazardous materials will be concentrated in 

46 retention basins prior to and after evaporation of any water. These materials have the potential 

47 to settle in sediments and be released into the air with other dust particles. 

48
I-191

1 [100-01, Wendy Matson; 191-17, Liz Woodruff] Are the filtration systems set up to 

2 decontaminate water prior to evaporation adequate, to ensure that containments will not be 

3 released in the air? 

4

5 [181-18, Roger Turner] Liquid Effluent Systems needs addressed. This section of the EIS 

6 (Page 2-20) describes a process where contaminated liquids would be processed for uranium 

7 removal through several precipitation units, filtration units, microfiltration units, and evaporation 

8 units. These units need to be described in detail and evaluated with respect to human and 

9 ecological risks. How are liquid contaminants collected and what is the risk to workers during 

10 these spills? Also, this section reports that the final solid material would be shipped off-site. This 

11 raises the issue of whether it would require a TSCA or RCRA permit. The EIS should describe 

12 the current status of mixed waste treatment acceptance criteria, shipping requirements.

13

14 [184-13, Kitty Vincent] In addition we are concerned that the filtration systems set up to 

15 decontaminate water prior to evaporation adequate to ensure that contaminants will not be 

16 released in the air? 

17

18 Response: The proposed Liquid Effluent Collection and Treatment System is described in 

19 Sections 2.1.4.2 and 4.2.6.2 of the EIS. Additional information about these systems has been 

20 added to Section 4.2.11.2, including the processes for sampling and treating the various liquid 

21 effluent streams.

22

23 As discussed in Sections 2.1.4.2 and 6.1.3 of the EIS, liquid effluent would be routed to 

24 collection tanks and treated through a combination of precipitation and filtration to remove 

25 radioactive material prior to evaporation.

26

27 As described in Sections 4.2.6.2 and 6.1.4, most stormwater runoff would be discharged to a 

28 detention basin for evaporation to the atmosphere and ground infiltration. Treated sanitary 

29 effluent and stormwater runoff from the cylinder storage areas would be discharged to lined 

30 retention basins for evaporation to the atmosphere. Although the retention basins would not 

31 receive process-related effluents and would not be expected to contain radioactivity or 

32 hazardous constituents from other sources, stormwater and sediment from these basins would 

33 be sampled periodically as part of the site environmental measurement and monitoring program

34 (as described in Chapter 6).

35

36 The public and occupational health impacts from operations of the proposed EREF are 

37 addressed in Section 4.2.10, and the environmental impacts of the proposed Liquid Effluent 

38 Treatment Systems are addressed in Section 4.2.6.2. As noted in Section 9.3.1.3 of the SER 

39 (NRC, 2010b), the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed controls will ensure that radiation 

40 levels to the public remain within regulatory limits and that as low as reasonably achievable 

41 (ALARA) liquid effluent goals are met.

42

43

44 Comment: The following comments deal with the safety of long-term storage of depleted UF6 at 

45 the proposed EREF site, the availability of the DOE conversion facilities, and ultimate 

46 disposition.

47
I-192

1 [006-01, Anonymous] I am supportive of the AREVA project but would like to have heard more 

2 from the NRC on how waste from the process will be stored and ultimately disposed of.

3

4 [014-01, William Blair] Idaho does not need more radioactive waste placed over the Snake 

5 Plain Aquifer in an active earthquake area. Until a safe method of handling and storing 

6 radioactive waste for thousands of years is devised, NO new facilities should be approved.

7

8 [015-05, Beatrice Brailsford] The most domestic part of the proposal is that the waste will, in fact, 

9 stay here. The plant would produce 320,000 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride over its 

10 licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the license to be extended. That waste might be 

11 stored on outdoor concrete pads above the Snake River aquifer until the plant is decommissioned.

12

13 It’s worth noting that New Mexico sharply limits how much, and how long waste can stay at the 

14 plant there. The waste has to be treated before it can be disposed of. Two government-owned 

15 treatment plants are under construction, over budget, and behind schedule. Waste the U.S. has 

16 already accumulated will take a combined 43 years to process.

17

18 [015-14, Beatrice Brailsford] The EREF will produce more than 350,000 tonnes of depleted 

19 uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) over its licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the 

20 license to be extended. That waste would be stored in 25,718 cylinders on outdoor concrete 

21 pads above the Snake River Aquifer as long as the plant operates. DUF6 is both radioactive 

22 and chemically toxic and has to be treated before it can be disposed of. The DOE has built two 

23 plants to treat depleted uranium hexafluoride waste the US has already accumulated. That 

24 treatment will take a combined 43 years to process. A private US corporation is seeking a 

25 license for its own treatment plant. The draft EIS cavalierly dismisses any potential bottlenecks 

26 by stating that the waste could simply be sent to the DOE treatment plants before they’re ready 

27 to process it and then their operating lives extended. But it is at least as likely that the DUF6 will 

28 be stored in Idaho for an uncertain length of time above the Snake River Aquifer, a sole source 

29 aquifer for nearly 300,000 people. Storage under these conditions must be fully evaluated under 

30 NEPA.

31

32 [030-04, Kerry Cooke] The nuclear waste quagmire is not going to go away any time soon -

33 not during licensing of this project; not during construction; not during operation; and not during 

34 decommissioning. The depleted uranium and low level waste the Areva plant will create will be 

35 added to the nuclear waste burden Idaho already carries. This plan should go no further until 

36 realistic plans are in place that address the need to take care of nuclear waste for centuries to 

37 come. 

38

39 [032-02, Cindy Cottrell] If Idaho allows this to happen, it will be the storage of all the waste 

40 forever, long after the plant has closed. There is no site established for waste to go to and will 

41 become the State of Idaho’s problem for generations to come.

42

43 [045-01, Joan Drake] I write to oppose the construction of the Areva nuclear power plant. I am 

44 very concerned that the proposed plant would produce an estimated 320,000 tons of depleted 

45 uranium hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime. In view of this, and the fact that its license might 

46 well be extended, indications are that this waste would likely be stored in or near Idaho until the 

47 plant’s decommissioning. Even after its removal and treatment, there is no certain disposal 
I-193

1 pathway. The Areva plant should not be licensed until regulations are in place for the 

2 environmentally safe disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.

3

4 [048-02, Genevieve Emerson] The EIS fails to consider the influence of wild fires in the region 

5 and also fails to adequately address the issue of waste storage and disposal, considering that 

6 there are no viable methods yet in existence for safely storing hexafluoride and depleted 

7 uranium.

8

9 [050-03, Joanie Fauci] One of the areas I feel is under-emphasized in the DEIS is the Safety 

10 issue...

11

12 •The storage of radioactive waste is also a safety concern. There is no current repository for the 

13 waste so how long it will stay in Idaho is unknown. Areva says it will get it out once the project is 

14 complete, but what guarantee do we have of that. Maybe the NRC can put some rules in as 

15 former governor of Idaho, Phil Batt, tried to institute with DOE waste at INL.

16

17 [066-03, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 2. 

18 Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Waste Disposal Path Section 2.1.5.

19

20 Section 2.1.5 acknowledges that long term storage of DUF6 presents a chemical hazard and 

21 that direct disposal is likewise prohibited because of this hazard.

22

23 The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has reported that long-term 

24 storage of depleted UF6 in the UF6 form represents a potential chemical hazard if not 

25 properly managed (DNFSB, 1995). For this reason, the strategic management of 

26 depleted uranium includes the conversion of depleted UF6 stock to a more stable 

27 uranium oxide (e-g., triuranium octaoxide [U308]) form for long-term management 

28 (OECD, 2001). Also, the DOE evaluated multiple disposition options for depleted UF6 

29 and agreed that conversion to U308 was preferable for long term storage and disposal of 

30 the depleted uranium in its oxide form, clue to the chemical stability of 11308 (DOE, 

31 2000). Therefore, the disposal option considered in the EIS is the conversion of the 

32 depleted UF6 to U308 at either a DOE-owned or commercial conversion facility followed 

33 by disposal as U308. Direct disposal of depleted UF6 was ruled out because of its 

34 chemical reactivity (DOE, 1999b).

35

36 For this reason the Draft EIS further acknowledges that DUF6 must be converted at one of two 

37 facilities currently under construction.

38

39 DOE is currently constructing two conversion plants to convert the depleted UF6 now in 

40 storage at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, to US08 and hydrofluoric acid. 

41 AES would transport the depleted UF6 generated by the proposed EREF to either of 

42 these new facilities and pay DOE to convert and dispose of the material. The proposed 

43 EREF would generate approximately 321,235 metric tons (354,101 tons) in total over its 

44 operating lifetime (AES, 20IOa). The depleted UF6 would be processed in a DOE 

45 operated conversion facility and then shipped off site for disposal.

46

47 Based on estimated capacity for depleted UF6 (DUF6) conversion at the Department of Energy 

48 (DOE) facilities in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, DEQ understands that it may take 
I-194

1 DOE approximately 25 years to address the current backlog of DUF6 stored at these facilities. 

2 Based on this timetable, it will take additional time to convert the 25,718 cylinders (345,000 

3 tons) of DUF6 projected to be generated during the licensed life of the Eagle Rock enrichment 

4 facility (EREF). Accordingly, it can be expected that DUF6 will be stored at the Eagle Rock 

5 enrichment facility for a period significantly in excess of the operating life of the facility and 

6 potentially for a period of time which creates the “long term storage hazard” identified by 

7 DNFSB.

8

9 [070-02, Virginia Hemingway] These statistics do not even begin to address the dangerous 

10 impact of 350,000 tons of depleted uranium that will be stored in more than three--30,000 

11 cylinders, which will be on cement pads above ground. Idaho is already a dumping ground for 

12 nuclear waste, and there is no place for it to go. There will be no place for it to go, because 

13 there are no plans for this waste to go anywhere.

14

15 [071-05, David Hensel] And I think that the -- once again, forgive me, but I just sort of feel like 

16 well, the EIS says something is going to happen, and I don’t think that’s an adequate way to 

17 address it. I mean, I think that there should be a more concrete analysis of what’s going to 

18 happen to that waste, how long it’s going to be here, and what the likelihood, and what the cost 

19 of that’s going to be.

20

21 [078-05, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] Disposal of waste which is huge appears to still be a problem 

22 and safety concerns loom.

23

24 [086-03, Paula Jull] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tons of depleted uranium 

25 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste 

26 might be stored in Idaho until the plant was decommissioned. 

27

28 [103-04, Karen McCall] This plant would produce 350,000 metric tons of depleted uranium 

29 which would be stored above ground. Depleted uranium has to be treated before it can be 

30 disposed of. Currently there are two treatment plants being constructed which are over budget 

31 and behind schedule with an enormous backlog of waste already needing to be treated.

32

33 [111-03, Robert Meikle] And I can tell you that when we see these slides of this nuclear waste 

34 being stored, the way it was stored, there’s no question – that’s going to scare “the heck” out of 

35 people. But that’s not the way we do it now, folks. It’s much better technology for the storage of 

36 nuclear waste, and it’s been proven for many, many years.

37

38 [036-01, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] I 

39 am still questioning how they plan to dispose of the by-products/waste from the enrichment 

40 process. What type of storage facility do they plan to have? How long do they plan to store the 

41 waste? And what are they going to do with it eventually, long term storage at the facility or move 

42 it somewhere else?

43

44 [128-06, Bob Poyser] Fourth. AREVA has a safe plan to temporarily store depleted uranium 

45 material during the life of the facility and safely transport that material, as stipulated by law, to a 

46 facility for deconversion.

47
I-195

1 While shipments of depleted uranium to a deconversion facility may occur throughout the life of 

2 the project to reduce the total inventory, there will be no -- I say again -- no depleted uranium 

3 left at the site when enrichment activities are completed and the NRC license is terminated.

4

5 [133-07, Richard Provencher] The byproduct that is generated as a result of the operation6 depleted uranium-is solid and stable and can be stored safely for a long period of time without 

7 incident.

8

9 [136-01, Susan Rainey] No uranium enrichment facility outside Id Falls by AREVA!!! The 

10 transport of radioactive material and the storage of nuclear waste are my biggest concerns. 

11 There are safety issues! We will be at risk. How will the waste be disposed of? Snake River 

12 Alliance did an excellent job explaining. NRC sounded like bureaucratic babble ignoring the real 

13 dangers and concerns. How is this really going to help us here in Idaho, USA? Let’s look at 

14 other options. Not worth the risk 

15

16 [147-02, Joey Schueler] And so I want you to address that, and look at that more seriously, 

17 because I hear your statements and they didn’t really speak to me about nuclear waste. And 

18 you all know that’s why we’re here. It’s not -- and the sagebrush is important, and the dust is 

19 important, and economy is important. But we wouldn’t be having public meetings if it weren’t for 

20 the fact that you’re going to put something that’s highly toxic into our state, and there is no real 

21 solution. You’ve not given me one that I feel merits that choice. 

22

23 So my real--what seems like the follow-up question, ends up being after we talk about risk, is: 

24 What is your price? And I don’t think there’s a price for putting my family at risk. And I want you 

25 to recognize that. And I want you -- can you -- I know this is public comment. 

26

27 Can you answer me? Do you — can you tell me there is no risk to placing depleted uranium in 

28 Idaho? Can any of you answer that in the affirmative or negative? Is there no risk? Or maybe 

29 are you not at liberty to answer?...

30

31 Yes. And based on your statement, I’m not convinced that you can answer to me that there’s no 

32 risk. And if that is the answer that I’m to take away from this meeting, then the meeting should 

33 not be about a process. To me, it should involve some element of outrage, to me, at the 

34 audacity of non-Idahoans, whether they be French, or otherwise -- and in fact, now that I’ve this 

35 testimony, Idahoans themselves, putting me, my family, my little nephews who are two and five, 

36 at risk, cause you haven’t -- you haven’t really proven to me that isn’t risk.

37

38 So I’m going to have to go with that, because that’s a safety issue to me. So tell me the pros of 

39 putting my family at risk, and why in Idaho, if there is risk, because I think we all know there is? 

40 Is it because there’s low population here? Is it a lesser target for terrorism, which is an issue, 

41 hasn’t been discussed? These mitigations, which I keep hearing, we’re mitigating things, left 

42 and right here, do they make my family less safe, and all of these people’s families more or less 

43 safe? Yeah. So your environmental requirements. You know, high -- we’ve had -- we’ve always 

44 mitigated environmental consequences since the dawn of this country, and, you know, like we 

45 see it in high obesity rates and things.

46

47 The FDA can write off whatever they want; it doesn’t make it right, or okay. And so we’re not 

48 talking about impact. We’re talking about what’s right. We’re not talking about what’s in our best 

49 interest, financially. We’re talking about what’s right.

50
I-196

1 So I hope you make a decision with that element in mind, knowing that people in Idaho are 

2 aware of that, and are watching that. 

3

4 [147-11, Joey Schueler] 7. I know this sounds obtuse, but enriched Uranium and the 

5 byproduct of creating enriched Uranium (spent fuel) is extremely hazardous and brings a level 

6 of instability to the area, especially considering the storing methods (see link): 

7 http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent‐fuel‐storage.html

8

9 [157-03, Hon. Erik Simpson] Now in the photograph that was showed, you saw the uranium 

10 safely stored. I must confess, a little rust on the container is not a problem, and what isn’t stated 

11 is that that material is regularly monitored and inspected per federal guidelines. That was not 

12 stated. 

13

14 [157-07, Hon. Erik Simpson] Second, waste. In the Sun Valley area, a claim was made 

15 uranium will be stored in Idaho, or depleted uranium will be stored in Idaho indefinitely, and the 

16 storage of the material is a danger. Not true. Depleted uranium is stored safely daily throughout 

17 the United States without incident. In fact, companies that store this product are required to 

18 regularly monitor and inspect the waste containers. Depleted uranium can be deconverted to 

19 remove the fluoride for use by a multitude of industries. International Isotopes, an Idaho Falls20 based company, is planning to construct a deconversion facility in New Mexico. And it was 

21 announced today, Uranium Disposition Services, LLC was recently selected to conduct hot 

22 functional testing of a conversion plant at Paducah, Kentucky, so there are plans for the waste 

23 that will be generated by this facility.

24

25 [168-06, Lon Stewart] The Areva plant is not needed in the United States or the world. We 

26 would be adding to a waste that we currently have more than we know what to do with, do not 

27 know how to safely store it, and have no idea if what we think will work will actually work for 

28 1 million years. This doesn’t sound good to me.

29

30 [181-03, Roger Turner] The Draft EIS by the NRC significantly errs by minimizing the human 

31 health and environmental risks in the long-term and short-term storage of uranium. The EIS is 

32 flawed in its apparent assumption that another location will be certified for offsite storage, and 

33 that the waste is categorized as low-level. 

34

35 Here is an excerpt of the EIS that is directed under the title of “Public Health.” “During the peak 

36 operation, the proposed EREF is expected to generate 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium 

37 hexafluoride annually, which would be temporarily stored on an outdoor cylinder storage pad in 

38 26 approved type 48-wide containers before being transported to a DOE-owned or private 

39 conversion facility.” That’s their public health assessment of the project. But what facility are 

40 they referring to?

41

42 In fact, this is not an EIS that carefully weighs the likelihood of another state stepping up to 

43 accept this waste, especially if there are problems in treating the uranium. This is an EIS that 

44 fails to follow the NEPA requirement to analyze realistic cumulative impacts.

45

46 We’ve seen these types of examples in this, and the fact that no state wants a certified spent 

47 nuclear fuel site to accept commercial fuel. So, for now, all of these sites that create the waste 

48 temporarily store this waste at their locations. And this was the -- this was an enabled legislation 

49 that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established in 1982, but they’re still being stored temporarily. 

50
I-197

1 [181-05, Roger Turner] The EIS is also fatally flawed in its assumption that a treatment facility 

2 will be available to convert the depleted uranium. The depleted uranium must be treated before 

3 stored.

4

5 [181-11, Roger Turner] Public Health risks of “Temporary” Storage of depleted Uranium 

6 should be addressed in EIS. The draft EIS by the NRC significantly errs by minimizing the 

7 human health and environmental risks in the risks of the storage of uranium in above-ground 

8 pads in eastern Idaho. The EIS is flawed in its apparent assumption that another location will be 

9 certified for off-site storage. The EIS fails to acknowledge that these casks may be breached by 

10 handling or corrosion. Here is an excerpt of the EIS, under the Public Health section:

11

12 During peak operation, the proposed EREF is expected to generate 1222 cylinders of 

13 depleted UF6 annually, which would be temporarily stored on an outdoor cylinder storage 

14 pad in 26 approved Type 48Y containers before being transported to a DOE-owned or 

15 private conversion 27 facility.

16

17 The above paragraph, under the Public Health Section, in fact, does not even discuss public 

18 health. The EIS must assume that the casks of depleted Uranium will remain for some time at 

19 the site, as the treatment facility to convert UF6 to the more stable oxide is behind in schedules 

20 and experiencing budget problems affecting production. Anytime heavy equipment is operated 

21 there is a risk that accidents will occur. In fact, casks of UF6 were damaged by heavy 

22 equipment at Oak Ridge, so the risk to workers and public health is real. The EIS needs to 

23 define “temporary” and fully assess health and worker risks, for longer term storage at the site.

24

25 [181-21, Roger Turner] As mentioned above, the temporary storing of depleted and enriched 

26 uranium and at the Areva facility, is not a good idea, and the NRC should, if this project is 

27 approved, evaluate an alternative that limits the inventory of it to a bare minimum, immediately 

28 shipping it to the facilities to convert it to the more stable oxide, or for fuel fabrication.

29

30 [180-07, Kaye Turner] Is it true that depleted uranium has to be treated before it can be 

31 disposed of?

32

33 Is it true the U.S. is building two treatment plants and both are behind schedule, over budget 

34 and will have decades of already stored waste to treat?

35 Is it true Areva’s waste will stay in Idaho as long as Areva operates here?

36

37 [183-01, James Vincent] Since the two US de-conversion facilities are not operational, and if 

38 they do become operational they will first process already existing depleted uranium waste for 

39 60 plus years of existing waste, from the 100 plus nuclear energy producing plants here in the 

40 US, the timeline for the removal of the on site storage of Uranium hexafluoride DUF6 from Idaho 

41 is in doubt. I have a problem with storing this waste above ground and possible leaching of 

42 contaminants into the aquifer for our state

43

44 Their figures are that these are increasing to 2,000 metric tons per year. And, in addition, there’s 

45 like 12 million cubic feet of low-level waste from these plants. Supposedly, we have around 

46 60,000 metric tons of waste in this country that we have to get rid of one way or another.

47
I-198

1 [183-07, James Vincent] Since the two US de-conversion facilities are not operational, and if 

2 they do become operational they will first process already existing depleted uranium waste for 

3 60 plus years of existing waste, from the 100 plus nuclear energy producing plants here in the 

4 US, the timeline for the removal of the on site storage of Uranium hexafluoride DUF6 from Idaho 

5 is in doubt. I have a problem with storing this waste above ground and possible leaching of 

6 contaminants into the aquifer for our state.

7

8 [191-12, Liz Woodruff] • The draft EIS assumes that depleted uranium hexafluoride will not be 

9 stored on site beyond the licensed life of the facility. But the draft EIS also acknowledges that 

10 Areva may well apply for a license extension. The NRC must discuss the length of a potential 

11 extension and whether or not cumulative waste storage would be allowed....

12

13 • Any newly operating deconversion facilities in the US will first process already existing 

14 depleted uranium waste, the time-line for the removal of DUF6 from Idaho is therefore uncertain 

15 and verifiably in excess of the time-line specified by Areva in the draft EIS.

16

17 [193-04, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] So once again the waste, 

18 rusty cylinders. The U.S. already stores nearly 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium. That’s 

19 in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And all of that waste has 

20 to be disposed of first, before the waste produced by a commercial, new commercial reactor --

21 or excuse me -- new commercial enrichment factory, like AREVA, could be disposed of. So we 

22 are behind, we’re back in line behind these other wastes. 

23

24 So why is that waste just sitting there? Why has it been sitting there for so long? Well, 

25 hexafluoride is highly reactive with water. So none of this waste can be disposed of until it’s 

26 treated in deconversion plants. 

27

28 Those plants are under construction, over budget, and behind schedule. So this waste has 

29 nowhere to go, nowhere to be deconverted before it can be disposed of, and it’s the concern of 

30 the Snake River Alliance, that that means this depleted uranium waste will be stored above the 

31 aquifer for 300,000 people, the sole source aquifer in Idaho, for decades. 

32

33 [192-03 and 192-09, Lisa Young] Also, it is not likely that the waste will be deconverted in a 

34 timely manner, as the U.S. has no operational deconversion facilities, and even with those that 

35 are up-and-coming, the current stockpile of around 704,000 tons of depleted uranium waste will 

36 take several decades at least to fully deconvert, with our current capabilities. This facility is 

37 estimated to produce an additional 320,000 tons of depleted uranium waste over the course of 

38 its lifetime. When it comes time to decommission this facility, all of this waste will need to be 

39 relocated, and, as the deconversion process looks limited, it will likely be transported elsewhere 

40 for further storage.

41

42 [192-04 and 192-10, Lisa Young] The storage of the depleted uranium hexafluoride, which 

43 reacts with water, water vapor, to produce two dangerous, corrosive, and soluble compounds, 

44 UO2F2 and HF, is extremely unstable. The production of these compounds presents huge risks 

45 in the storage timeline, as the corrosion of storage cylinders and the possibility for leaks is a 

46 very real reality. Even after proper deconversion of this waste, the remaining waste, which 

47 cumulatively becomes more of a radioactive threat over time, has nowhere to go for acceptable 

48 long-term storage, and will continue to plague our waste storage sites with more and more 
I-199

1 barrels of poison, creating more and more of a health and safety risk for the surrounding 

2 communities. Producing this waste is irresponsible, and licensing a facility that will do just that is 

3 undeniably irresponsible.

4

5 Response: The onsite management of depleted UF6 generated by the proposed EREF, 

6 including details and impacts of temporary onsite storage, is addressed in the EIS, in 

7 Sections 2.1.3 (facility description), 2.1.5 (depleted uranium management), 4.2.10.2 

8 (radiological exposures), and 4.2.11 (waste management) of the EIS. It was determined that all 

9 impacts would be SMALL.

10

11 The management of other (non-UF6) wastes generated by the proposed EREF is addressed in 

12 Section 4.2.11. Temporary storage of non-UF6 wastes at the proposed EREF would be 

13 conducted in accordance with license conditions.

14

15 As discussed in Section 2.1.5.1, the DOE has completed construction of two depleted uranium 

16 conversion plants. The Portsmouth conversion plant is expected to begin full operations in 

17 summer 2011, and the Paducah plant is expected to begin operation later in the year. As noted 

18 in Section 4.2.11.2, the conversion of the existing DOE inventory of depleted uranium 

19 hexafluoride to depleted uranium oxide is expected to consume the first 18–25 years of 

20 operation at these two facilities. Depending on the timing of shipment to a conversion plant 

21 (DOE or private), depleted UF6 generated by the proposed EREF may continue to be stored in a 

22 safe manner until conversion is possible.

23

24 The inventory of depleted UF6 for conversion does not include any other form of LLRW or SNF 

25 from commercial nuclear power plants. SNF from commercial nuclear power plants requires a 

26 permanent high-level waste repository and would not be treated or processed at a depleted 

27 uranium conversion plant. Similarly, LLRW that does not require conversion is eligible for 

28 disposal at licensed disposal facilities.

29

30 Under the USEC Privatization Act, DOE is obligated to accept depleted UF6 waste from the 

31 proposed EREF (see Section 2.1.5.1). Depleted UF6 from the proposed EREF would be stored 

32 in steel containers and would not require treatment at the proposed EREF prior to shipment to a 

33 conversion facility.

34

35 As noted in Section 4.2.11.2, proper and active depleted UF6 cylinder management, including 

36 routine inspections and maintaining the anticorrosion layer on the cylinder surface, has been 

37 shown to limit exterior corrosion or mechanical damage and provide for safe and long-term 

38 storage of depleted UF6. AES has committed to the implementation of such a cylinder 

39 management program as discussed in Section 4.2.11.3.

40

41 While awaiting shipment to a conversion facility, some amount of depleted UF6 will be stored at 

42 the proposed EREF for the operating life of the facility. If DOE is not able to take possession of 

43 the depleted UF6 as it is generated, the potential exists that some of the depleted UF6 generated 

44 over the facility lifetime will be stored onsite until license termination. However, AES has stated 

45 that depleted UF6 cylinders would not be stored at the proposed EREF site beyond the licensed 

46 lifetime of the proposed facility (AES, 2010a).

47
I-200

1 DOE intends to reuse the conversion product to the maximum extent possible or package it for 

2 disposal at an appropriate disposal facility (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b; DOE, 2007a; DOE, 

3 2007b; 72 FR 15870). 

4

5

6 Comment: The following comments express concern that disposal of depleted uranium is 

7 currently not a viable option because NRC is in the midst of rulemaking on the disposal of large

8 quantities of depleted uranium.

9

10 [012-01, Janice Berndt] The Areva factory would produce 320,000 tons of waste materials 

11 (depleted uranium hexafluoride) over its licensed lifetime. This waste could be stored in Idaho 

12 until the plant is decommissioned. Even if it is removed and treated, there is no certain disposal 

13 pathway. The draft EIS essentially ignores the fact that the U.S. does not have guidelines on 

14 how the treated waste will be disposed. Areva’s factory should not be licensed until regulations 

15 are in place for disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium. 

16

17 [014-01, William Blair] Idaho does not need more radioactive waste placed over the Snake 

18 Plain Aquifer in an active earthquake area. Until a safe method of handling and storing 

19 radioactive waste for thousands of years is devised, NO new facilities should be approved.

20

21 [015-06, Beatrice Brailsford] The draft EIS essentially ignores the fact that the U.S. does not 

22 have guidelines on how large quantities of the treated waste will be disposed of, but it will most 

23 certainly be disposed of in the United States. 

24

25 [015-15, Beatrice Brailsford] The draft EIS essentially ignores the fact that the U.S. does not 

26 have guidelines on how the treated waste will be disposed of. This failure is egregious. The 

27 NRC is in the midst of a multi-year rulemaking process to establish guidelines for depleted 

28 uranium disposal. The NRC is aware that the rulemaking has already stirred some controversy, 

29 and the outcome is not certain. The NRC must fully discuss the disposal options under NEPA 

30 and must not issue a record of decision or a license until the disposal rules are in place.

31

32 [022-01, Judy Carroll] I am strongly opposed to Areva’s plan to build a plant here because I do 

33 not believe that the radioactive waste will be handled appropriately and taken out of Idaho. 

34 Areva is taking advantage of Idaho in the fact that the unemployed and poor need jobs. What 

35 they don’t say is that Areva will also be bringing sickness and death to Idaho. We may seem like 

36 a simple people but we do know in this state how important clean water and land are to our way 

37 of life. Idahoans are the ones who are able to enjoy beautiful wilderness, rivers and wildlife. If 

38 Areva needs uranium enriched, let them enrich it in France!

39

40 [027-01, Sara Cohn] As the Federal Register announcement for this proposed rulemaking 

41 suggests, NRC does not currently provide adequate guidance for the type of waste streams that 

42 will be created by the proposed Eagle Rock facility and stored on site. Until regulations are in 

43 place governing disposal of depleted uranium, and disposal facilities have implemented those 

44 regulations, ICL believes it is inappropriate to license any new uranium enrichment facility. NRC 

45 should consider the creation of adequate rules to guide the safe disposal of depleted uranium 

46 as paramount to permitting individual facilities.

47
I-201

1 [027-06, Sara Cohn] Waste Storage: ICL has provided public comments on the scoping 

2 analysis for the proposed AREVA Enrichment facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho (see Attachment A) 

3 and provided comments on the Potential Rulemaking for the Safe Disposal of Unique Waste 

4 Streams Including Significant Quantities of Depleted Uranium (see Attachment B). As the 

5 Federal Register announcement for the potential rulemaking states, NRC does not currently 

6 provide adequate guidance for disposal of the type of waste streams that will be created by the 

7 proposed Eagle Rock enrichment facility and stored onsite. We are very concerned the lack of 

8 appropriate regulations for the safe disposal of depleted uranium will facilitate unsafe storage of 

9 such materials within the project site and above a sole source aquifer. Until rules are in place to 

10 govern the disposal of depleted uranium and existing disposal facilities have implemented those 

11 regulations, ICL believes it is inappropriate to license any new uranium enrichment facility in 

12 Idaho. NRC should consider the creation of adequate rules to guide the safe disposal of 

13 depleted uranium as paramount to permitting individual facilities.

14

15 From Attachment B:

16 • More clarity is needed with regard to the scope of the potential rulemaking.

17 • Until regulations are in place governing disposal of depleted uranium and disposal

18 facilities have implemented those regulations, it is inappropriate to license any new

19 uranium enrichment facility.

20 • The NRC should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies, such as the U.S.

21 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others, to ensure comprehensive

22 analysis of potential disposal sites and to protect natural resource, human health,

23 ICL Comments on NRC public workshops and proposed rulemaking – depleted uranium and 

24 national security. 

25

26 [030-02, Kerry Cooke] Depleted uranium is adding to a waste burden that Idaho already 

27 suffers with, and I believe that you owe it to the people of the United States to not license any 

28 facility that is going to increase, make any more depleted uranium, until this question is 

29 thoroughly solved, not proposed, not suggested, not theoretical, but solved. Just needs to stop. 

30

31 [032-05, Cindy Cottrell] For ever ton of uranium enriched enough for use in a nuclear power 

32 reactor creates 7 tons of depleted uranium waste. No Country that enriches uranium has figured 

33 out how to dispose of this waste. The problem with depleted uranium is that it becomes more 

34 radioactive over the course of 1,000,000 years. Where would we store this knowing it will 

35 become more radioactive? 

36

37 [045-01, Joan Drake] I write to oppose the construction of the Areva nuclear power plant. I am 

38 very concerned that the proposed plant would produce an estimated 320,000 tons of depleted 

39 uranium hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime. In view of this, and the fact that its license might 

40 well be extended, indications are that this waste would likely be stored in or near Idaho until the 

41 plant’s decommissioning. Even after its removal and treatment, there is no certain disposal 

42 pathway. The Areva plant should not be licensed until regulations are in place for the 

43 environmentally safe disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.

44

45 [066-04, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 

46 Moreover, the PEIS assumes that once converted the low-level radioactive waste would be 

47 disposed of at a commercial low level waste disposal facility:

48
I-202

1 The Commission has stated that depleted uranium in any form (e.g., UF6, U308) is 

2 considered a form of low-level radioactive waste (NRC, 2 005a). However, the chemical 

3 reactivity of depleted UF6 precludes it from being a stable waste form, and thus makes it 

4 unsuitable for direct disposal without conversion (DOE, 19996). As discussed in 

5 Section 2.1.5.1, AES has requested the DOE to accept all depleted UF6 generated at the 

6 proposed EREF for conversion to the oxide form for disposal (AES, 2010a) After 

7 conversion of depleted uranium tails (depleted UF6) to U308, disposal of this U308 at a 

8 commercial low-level waste disposal facility would be a viable option if the disposal 

9 facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61.

10

11 However, because this waste will be generated in Idaho it must be shipped to the Northwest 

12 Compact facility at Hanford Washington. It is Idaho understands that the Hanford facility is 

13 nearing its source term limit and would need an expansion license to accept the ERAES waste. 

14 It is possible that this license might not be granted or that the facility might otherwise be 

15 unavailable at the time waste is ready for disposal. Moreover Idaho understands that the Energy 

16 Solutions facility in Clive Utah, which might otherwise accept the waste, currently will not do so

17

18 In light of the current situation at DOE facilities and the potential unavailability of licensed low 

19 level radioactive waste disposal facilities, DEQ requests NRC provide more clarity on the 

20 environmental risks associated with long term storage and further explain in detail how 

21 AES/NRC plans to meet this commitment for DUF6 off site treatment/disposal.

22

23 [070-02, Virginia Hemingway] These statistics do not even begin to address the dangerous 

24 impact of 350,000 tons of depleted uranium that will be stored in more than three --

25 30,000 cylinders, which will be on cement pads above ground. Idaho is already a dumping 

26 ground for nuclear waste, and there is no place for it to go. There will be no place for it to go, 

27 because there are no plans for this waste to go anywhere.

28

29 [078-05, Hon. Wendy Jaquet] Disposal of waste which is huge appears to still be a problem 

30 and safety concerns loom.

31

32 [083-05, Diane Jones] How can we expect the company to -- whose financial future is 

33 uncertain, to be able to guarantee that they will bear the cost of treating all that waste and 

34 disposing of all that waste, when the process for disposing of the waste is not even known? 

35 This seems highly reckless to me, and not a very sound economical calculation. 

36

37 [083-07, Diane Jones] And then I think, myself, along with, I think, many members of this 

38 audience, wonder how the generation of 350 metric tons of waste, of depleted uranium, for 

39 which no known disposal route has been proposed, accepted, whatever, can be regarded as a 

40 small impact. 

41

42 [086-04, Paula Jull] Areva’s plant should not be licensed until regulations are in place for 

43 disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.

44

45 [088-05, Stan Kidwell] Areva’s plant should not be licensed until regulations are in place for 

46 disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.

47
I-203

1 [095-05, Linda Leeuwrik] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium 

2 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste 

3 would likely be stored in Idaho until the plant was decommissioned. Even after it is removed and 

4 treated, there is no certain disposal pathway.

5

6 [096-01, Arjun Makhijani] Depleted uranium in large amounts from enrichment plants is not 

7 covered by any U.S. environmental rule. The NRC has ruled, as stated in the EIS, that depleted 

8 uranium from enrichment plants is low-level waste. However, the low-level waste rule itself, the 

9 impacts of large amounts of depleted uranium have not been considered under the low-level 

10 waste rule. According to the rule itself, and now according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

11 Commission, which has admitted in October of 2005, and in 2009 started a process of 

12 rulemaking as to how and under what conditions disposal of depleted uranium in large amounts 

13 from enrichment plants should be carried out.

14

15 What does large amounts mean? Large means more than small, and small has been defined as 

16 a few metric tons. This facility will produce 300,000 metric tons, approximately, I did a rough 

17 addition from the EIS. That is definitely very large amounts of depleted uranium.

18

19 I want to read to you what the U.S. National Academy has said about depleted uranium, and its 

20 concentrations of radioactivity, which are much, much higher than uranium ore. In fact, they’re 

21 quite a bit like the transuranic waste you have here in Idaho that the state government has 

22 insisted be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the National Academy, in considering the 

23 question of depleted uranium, also shares my own opinion of quite longstanding, which has 

24 been presented to the NRC in expert testimony on more than one occasion, that depleted 

25 uranium is like the transuranic waste you have here in Idaho, that you don’t want in this state, 

26 and that you’re sending to New Mexico because it is more than 100 nanocuries per gram of 

27 alpha emitting long-lived radionuclides that grow in radioactivity over time, because you get 

28 Thorium-230 and radium-226. And it’s many, many times more radioactive than uranium ore, 

29 including its radium and thorium that is present in uranium ore.

30

31 The Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the impacts of depleted uranium 

32 disposal. And, in my opinion, it does not conform to the NRC regulations, 10 CFR Part 51.71, 

33 and it does not conform to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, and it does 

34 not conform with the National Environmental Policy Act. And I will read it, but you can find on 

35 page 224 that they, essentially, say, if the licensing requirements for land disposal of depleted 

36 uranium can be met, then it be disposed of. However, every calculation of disposal of large 

37 amounts of depleted uranium but one that has been done has shown that disposal of large 

38 amounts in shallow land burial would grossly violate existing regulations by as much as 1,000 

39 times over the radiation dose limit or more, including official calculations, except one done by 

40 the NRC in 2009, which did not calculate doses according to the regulation; that is, it did not 

41 calculate organ doses.

42

43 I won’t detain you for long. I am going to submit for the record the comments I have already 

44 given the NRC, as an invitee of the NRC to the deliberations on the rulemaking. And I will 

45 observe that this particular EIS, the drafters of it have not talked to their counterparts, or appear 

46 not to have talked to their counterparts in the section of the NRC that are actually currently 

47 engaged in making the rule as to how the depleted uranium should be disposed of. And the 

48 author of that paper, SECY 0187, by coincidence, himself, said that calculating doses the way 

49 he did for a million years in shallow land burial was “silliness.” And then the NRC moderator, like 
I-204

1 you, said the other day that silliness is perhaps not an appropriate regulatory term, but I take it 

2 in that spirit. We could invent some other regulatory equivalent of silliness, but NRC’s own 

3 invited geochemist agreed that even calculating shallow land burial doses for 10,000 years is 

4 not appropriate. This stuff needs to be disposed of in deep disposal. The cost of -- and I’m not 

5 saying do it, or don’t do it here -- I’m just commenting on the Environmental Impact Statement, 

6 and what will be at risk, and what taxpayers might have to do if a private corporation unloads 

7 this DU under the Department of Energy, as it can do by law, and it has said it might do. And the 

8 Department of Energy takes it, and you’re requiring them to put two or two and a half billion 

9 dollars out, and my estimate for what it would cost to dispose of 300,000 metric tons of depleted 

10 uranium is closer to eight or ten billion dollars. So, who’s going to pay that? It’s going to come --

11 everybody who is complaining about the deficit should at least pay some attention to the 

12 potential cost of this.... 

13

14 [105-04, Eve McConaughey] The most glaring question, not addressed or answered 

15 concerned the transportation risks and ultimate unresolved problem of waste disposal. 

16

17 [122-01, Kathy O’Brien] I do not want the waste from this plant here in Idaho or anywhere. It is 

18 not clean energy because of the waste both from this plant and from nuclear power plants. 

19 Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium hexafluoride over its licensed 

20 lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste might be stored in Idaho until the 

21 plant was decommissioned. Even after it’s removed and treated, there is no good way to 

22 dispose of it.

23

24 [150-02, Katie Seevers] The draft EIS assumes that the depleted uranium hexafluoride will not 

25 be stored on the site past the license life of the facility. However, it also acknowledges that 

26 Areva may apply for a license extension. I find the lack of a fully developed rule on disposal of 

27 depleted uranium problematic, especially when coupled with the prospect of seismic activity in 

28 the area and the potentiality for a license extension.

29

30 [174-01, Christopher Thomas; 198-01, Vanessa Pierce] The classification of depleted 

31 uranium for disposal purposes has been a contentious issue that the State of Utah, the Nuclear 

32 Regulatory Commission, and other key-stakeholders have worked on for years, and relevant 

33 rule-making to govern the disposal of this unique waste is still underway. As such, the 

34 assumption in the draft EIS that there will be a disposal pathway for the depleted tails from the 

35 AES facility is unfounded.

36

37 The draft EIS states that “[t]he depleted UF6 would be sent to a DOE conversion facility, and 

38 then shipped offsite for disposal” (2-25). Given the current NRC rule-making to develop a site39 specific analysis for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium, and the State of Utah’s 

40 own requirement for a site-specific analysis for DU disposal, it is premature to assume that 

41 depleted uranium will be found suitable for disposal at EnergySolutions’ Clive facility or any 

42 other facility. Indeed, the standards by which any site could be found “suitable” for the safe, 

43 long-term disposal of DU have yet to be codified.

44

45 The draft EIS does not explicitly identify any specific site for the final disposal of the converted 

46 DU waste. We believe this is in part because no disposal site will currently accept depleted 

47 uranium waste for disposal. For instance, note that DU oxide waste from DOE’s Savannah River 

48 Site (SRS) currently has no disposal pathway

49
I-205

1 Although there has been some effort to move this waste from South Carolina to the Waste 

2 Control Specialists site in Texas, the waste would only be stored there on a temporary basis 

3 rather than permanently disposed. Furthermore, the single trainload of SRS DU waste that 

4 made its way to the Clive site is also being held in temporary storage until the completion of a 

5 site specific analysis in accordance with Utah Rule R313-25-8 - Technical Analyses.

6

7 If disposal at a DOE site were indeed a “plausible strategy” as noted in the EIS (2-25), the DOE 

8 would simply send this DU waste to one of its other disposal sites. The fact that DOE has been 

9 forced to look at temporary storage options for the SRS DU appears to be prima facie evidence 

10 that DOE has no disposal option. In light of recent events, the NRC Commission’s decision that 

11 disposal of DU waste at a DOE site is a “plausible strategy” must be re-evaluated.

12

13 We believe the Draft EIS is deficient because it assumes that converted DU tails will have a 

14 disposal pathway, when in reality the most recent evidence indicates that this waste could

15 indeed become an orphan waste stream, similar to the SRS DU. We believe that the final EIS 

16 should assess what would happen if there is not a disposal pathway for the converted DU tails. 

17 This assessment should address at least the following issues: how the DU tails would be 

18 managed, the health and environmental risks of such management, who would manage them, 

19 and at what cost. We believe these are critical issues that must be considered and addressed, 

20 given that DU disposal is not currently feasible, and may not be feasible for the next many 

21 years, especially if most or all near-surface disposal sites are eventually found to not be 

22 protective of human health and the environment in the long-term. 

23

24 [136-01, Susan Rainey] No uranium enrichment facility outside Id Falls by AREVA!!! The 

25 transport of radioactive material and the storage of nuclear waste are my biggest concerns. 

26 There are safety issues! We will be at risk. How will the waste be disposed of? Snake River 

27 Alliance did an excellent job explaining. NRC sounded like bureaucratic babble ignoring the real 

28 dangers and concerns. How is this really going to help us here in Idaho, USA? Let’s look at 

29 other options. Not worth the risk. 

30

31 [148-01, Eric Schuler] Taken as a whole, the EIS suggests that this facility will have a relatively 

32 low impact on the environment. Of course several aspects of this, of the — have been 

33 overlooked in making this conclusion. For instance, as others have already noted, it does not 

34 consider the impact of the exempted preconstruction activities, the high risk of wildfires in the 

35 area, or the lack of an appropriate disposal pathway for depleted uranium. Accordingly, the true 

36 impact of this facility is certainly larger than the DEIS suggests.

37

38 [150-03, Katie Seevers] I find the lack of a fully developed rule on disposal of depleted 

39 uranium problematic, especially when coupled with the prospect of seismic activity in the area 

40 and the potentiality for a license extension.

41

42 [153-07, Andrea Shipley; 197-07, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

43 This is not to mention the lack of a fully developed rule on disposal of depleted uranium in the 

44 US, leaving no pathway for disposal of this waste, and a line of already existing depleted 

45 uranium hexafluoride waiting for deconversion.

46

47 [169-01, Margaret Stewart] And aside from AREVA’s greed, grim, and very, very devastating 

48 global environmental and human rights record around the world, particularly in Africa, I 
I-206

1 vehemently oppose the NRC licensing of this facility on grounds that the facility has not been 

2 proven necessary, a huge amount of dangerous radioactive waste that would be created has no 

3 disposal place, the nuclear reactors that the EIS says will need AREVA’s product more than 

4 likely will never be built. 

5

6 [168-03, Lon Stewart] ...We will probably get 350,000 tons of uranium waste over the life of 

7 the facility that no one currently knows how to dispose of....

8

9 [168-06, Lon Stewart] The Areva plant is not needed in the United States or the world. We 

10 would be adding to a waste that we currently have more than we know what to do with, do not 

11 know how to safely store it, and have no idea if what we think will work will actually work for 1 

12 million years. This doesn’t sound good to me.

13

14 [171-05, John Tanner] The question of disposal of depleted uranium I suppose was left out of 

15 the Environmental Impact Statement because that’s not really going to be an AREVA, or an 

16 Idaho problem. The depleted uranium that we produce will not be in the form that’s suitable for 

17 disposal; that is, if the nation wants it disposed of, it will have to be shipped out of state to a 

18 conversion plant to convert the fluoride form to the oxide form, which, by the way, is the form 

19 that it is when it’s an ore. And then it will be a problem for the Department of Energy, and 

20 possibly for the conversion plant which will be out of state.

21

22 [175-04, Ellen Thomas] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium 

23 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. There is no 

24 certain disposal pathway.

25

26 [180-08, Kaye Turner] Is it true the NRC has stated a whole new regulatory scheme has to be 

27 developed to guide in the disposal of depleted uranium?

28 Is it true that no country on earth that enriches uranium knows how to dispose of the depleted 

29 uranium? 

30

31 [181-01, Roger Turner] So now comes a proposal to create and store 350,000 tons of uranium 

32 compounds at eastern Idaho. Setting aside the radiation risk, uranium compounds exhibit a 

33 similar heavy metal toxic characteristics as does mercury. So, why now is there support for 

34 uranium enrichment project, for which there is no repository outside of Idaho? 

35

36 [191-13, Liz Woodruff] The lack of a fully developed rule on disposal of depleted uranium 

37 creates great uncertainty about the disposal pathway for this waste

38

39 [192-13, Lisa Young] The storage of the depleted uranium waste, which will likely not be 

40 deconverted in any reasonable timeline, poses a serious risk to our health and safety as 

41 Idahoans, and to the residents of any other region where the waste will be stored in the future. 

42 Even after proper deconversion of this waste, the remaining waste, which cumulatively becomes 

43 more of a radioactive threat over time, has nowhere to go for acceptable long-term storage, and 

44 will continue to plague our waste storage sites with more and more barrels of poison, creating 

45 more and more of a health and safety risk for the surrounding communities. Producing this 

46 waste is irresponsible, and licensing a facility that will do just that is undeniably irresponsible.

47
I-207

1 [193-03, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And we believe that the 

2 storage of this radioactive waste, on site, in Idaho, poses an insurmountable risk to the licensing 

3 of this facility. The enriched uranium then travels to a conversion facility, once again 

4 transported, and then it’s transported again to a reactor, where high-level radioactive waste in 

5 the form of spent fuel is the result.

6

7 So how much waste is produced in the enrichment of uranium? Well, for one ton of enriched 

8 uranium, seven tons of depleted uranium waste are produced, and this is a picture of depleted 

9 uranium hexafluoride waste stored in Piketon, Ohio. You can see in the rusty cylinders on 

10 concrete slabs. It’s been sitting there for decades because the NRC has not established an 

11 adequate disposal pathway for depleted uranium....

12

13 And the NRC has recently acknowledged this fact, and started a rule making process around 

14 the disposal of depleted uranium meant to reclassify it, essentially, and find an adequate

15 disposal pathway.

16

17 So what have they decided? The NRC still wants to dispose of depleted uranium in shallow 

18 dumps designed for a few hundred years. This is an inadequate disposal pathway. It has not yet 

19 been an established rule it’s a waste stream that becomes more radioactive, over time. There 

20 are no deconversion facilities, and thus, it will be sitting above the Snake River aquifer for 

21 decades.

22

23 Areva would add 320,000 metric tons of DUF6 to the current amount.

24

25 Response: As discussed in Sections 4.2.11 and 4.13.4 of the EIS, AES intends to transport 

26 depleted UF6 to DOE facilities after temporary onsite storage for conversion and disposition by 

27 the DOE (AES, 2010a), pursuant to Section 3113 of the 1996 USEC Privatization Act, 

28 42 U.S.C. 2297h-11. On January 18, 2005, the NRC stated that, pursuant to Section 3113 of 

29 the USEC Privatization Act, disposal at a DOE facility represents a plausible strategy for the 

30 disposition of depleted uranium tails (NRC, 2005).

31

32 As stated in Section 4.13.3.5, DOE intends to reuse the conversion product to the maximum 

33 extent possible or package it for disposal at an appropriate disposal facility (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 

34 2004b; DOE, 2007a; DOE, 2007b; 72 FR 15870). DOE wastes disposed at DOE owned and 

35 operated facilities are not subject to NRC or Agreement State licensing authority. 

36

37 According to DOE Directive 435.1-1, if a non-DOE facility (e.g., a commercial facility) is used for 

38 disposal of low-level radioactive waste, an exemption from DOE’s policy of using only DOE 

39 disposal facilities to manage radioactive wastes must be obtained (DOE, 2001). To obtain the 

40 exemption, it must be shown that the non-DOE disposal facility complies with applicable 

41 Federal, State, and local requirements, and has the necessary permits, licenses, and approvals 

42 for the specific wastes to be disposed.

43

44 Commercial radioactive waste disposal facilities, in contrast to DOE disposal facilities, are 

45 licensed by the NRC or designated Agreement State according to the requirements specified at

46 10 CFR Part 61 or compatible Agreement State regulations. Currently, the NRC is engaged in

47 rulemaking to specify a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of low-level 

48 radioactive wastes, including large quantities of depleted uranium (NRC, 2009). In the interim, 
I-208

1 compliance with the performance objectives specified in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, continues 

2 to provide reasonable assurance that low-level radioactive waste, including depleted uranium,

3 can be safely disposed at licensed facilities. On April 13, 2010, NRC staff summarized existing 

4 policy and guidance to assist Agreement States in making informed decisions regarding 

5 compliance with the performance objectives for land disposal of significant quantities of 

6 depleted uranium until a new regulation is implemented (NRC, 2010a). 

7

8

9 I.5.19 Socioeconomics 

10

11 Comment: The following comment asserts that economic risk should be given a higher priority 

12 in the EIS.

13

14 [050-13, Joanie Fauci] The economic risk should be given a higher priority in the EIS.

15

16 Response: The extent of the analysis of each resource area considered in the EIS is 

17 dependent on its overall impact. As shown in Section 4.2.12 of the EIS, the NRC staff has

18 determined that the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be SMALL.

19 Therefore, additional review is not warranted.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment outlines AES’s position on the funding of the EREF project.

23

24 [128-08, Bob Poyser] Finally, let it be made clear. The Eagle Rock enrichment facility is being 

25 fully funded through direct investment by AREVA, and like any major capital project, the balance 

26 will be financed through a loan accompanied by interest charges, repayment schedules, and 

27 certain protections for the lender.

28

29 AREVA will bear the full cost of construction and operation of the Eagle Rock enrichment 

30 facility. Even the removal of depleted uranium from the site is accompanied by a payment to the 

31 deconversion facility for its services. 

32

33 In the final analysis, AREVA will bear the full cost of construction and operation.

34

35 Response: The NRC acknowledges the comment.

36

37

38 Comment: The following comment expresses EPA’s interest in any information on how Tribes’

39 economic conditions would be enhanced because of the project.

40

41 [138-09, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

42 Region 10] Since the project would result in economically beneficial impacts to the region, EPA 

43 would be interested in any information on how Tribes’ economic conditions would be enhanced 

44 because of the project.

45

46 Response: The socioeconomic impacts, beneficial or otherwise, on the Shoshone-Bannock 

47 Tribes was included with the socioeconomic benefits to the citizens of Bannock, Bingham, 

48 Caribou, and Power Counties, in which the tribes’ reservation is located and most of the tribal 

49 members in the region are believed to reside. It would be difficult to predict the specific benefits 
I-209

1 to, or enhancement of economic conditions of, the Tribes because of the difficulty in predicting 

2 such factors as the number of tribal members who might be employed in some capacity by the 

3 project. 

4

5

6 Comment: The following comment asserts that the Socioeconomics part of the EIS has not 

7 been given enough weight.

8

9 [146-02, Doug Sayer] So I want to point out in your EIS, when it comes to the socioeconomical 

10 portion, that there is a piece that I don’t think carried enough weight. You know, in the history of 

11 nuclear energy in the last few years in the United States, the supply chain has broken down. As 

12 we haven’t had construction projects, it’s deteriorated. I want to assure you, that’s not the case 

13 in Idaho. That network of suppliers is accredited, that understands the Code of Federal 

14 Regulations, that understands safety significance, is alive and well. We encourage you to 

15 pursue this license and approve it, so that we can get back to work and build these nuclear 

16 projects like our country needs them. 

17

18 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment and the technical expertise located in 

19 the project area. The site selection process used by AES, as discussed in Section 2.3.1.3 of the 

20 EIS, took the available construction and operations workforces into consideration as well as the 

21 available technical resources. The analysis of the socioeconomic impacts took into account the 

22 occupations likely to be required during construction and operation of the facility, and compared 

23 them to the number of workers present in these occupations in the 11-county Region of 

24 Influence (ROI) surrounding the site of the proposed facility. This information was then used to 

25 estimate the number of in-migrating workers and their families likely to reside in this ROI, and 

26 the potential impact in-migrants may have on housing, and on public and educational services.

27 The relatively small number of in-migrants likely to move into the ROI during these phases of 

28 the project, and the likelihood that most in-migrants and their families are likely to live in urban 

29 areas in this ROI, where there are good housing and educational choices and adequate existing 

30 public service provision, will likely mean that the incremental impact of worker in-migration on 

31 the provision of these resources in the ROI would be SMALL.

32

33

34 Comment: The following comment expresses disagreement with the conclusions in the Draft 

35 EIS on the socioeconomic effects of the proposed project. 

36

37 [150-08, Katie Seevers] This concerns me, as does the prospect of an artificial local economy 

38 supported by an unsustainable factory. In reference to table 2-6 of the draft EIS, I would like to 

39 contest the conclusions drawn on the socioeconomic effects of the facility. Once it is 

40 decommissioned, this area could very well resemble, economically speaking, so many of 

41 Idaho’s logging towns once the mill has been closed down. Tax dollars will be long gone, the 

42 local area will quite probably be left with waste from the facility, and jobs that supported local 

43 residents will be nonexistent.

44

45 Response: In-migration of workers and their families associated with preconstruction, 

46 construction, and operation of the proposed facility may require more teachers and other local 

47 public service employees. However, the relatively small number of in-migrants likely to move 

48 into the 11-county ROI during these phases of the project, and the likelihood that most in-
I-210

1 migrants and their families are likely to live in urban areas in this ROI, where there are good 

2 housing and educational choices and adequate existing public service provision, will likely mean 

3 that the incremental impact of worker in-migration on the provision of these resources in the ROI 

4 would be SMALL, and unlikely to create “boom-bust” conditions. These impacts are described 

5 in Section 4.2.12 of the EIS.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment questions the science and environmental research 

9 supporting the analysis of impacts in the Draft EIS, including socioeconomic impacts. 

10

11 [181-02, Roger Turner] And what is the science and environmental research behind the 

12 endorsement of the AREVA project? Well, science and environmental risks are being 

13 downplayed on this proposed project, because of job creation, and economic development. 

14

15 Response: The NRC staff believes it has provided an objective analysis in the EIS for all 

16 resource areas, based on the requirements of NEPA and the NRC regulations for implementing 

17 NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. In the case of job creation and economic development, the 

18 socioeconomic impacts, beneficial and adverse, were found to be SMALL as presented in 

19 Section 4.2.12 of the EIS. Such a finding does not downplay the adverse impacts found in other 

20 resource areas with SMALL-to-MODERATE or MODERATE impacts.

21

22

23 Comment: The following comment expresses concern about the negative impact of the 

24 proposed project on opportunities for hunting and fishing, due to the influx of people into the 

25 area.

26

27 [183-05 and 183-12, James Vincent] My other main concern is personal. I live to hunt and fish 

28 in Idaho. It is the main reason I love this state. I believe my opportunities to hunt and fish will be 

29 severely limited if 1000 new residents are brought into Idaho Falls to work at this facility. There 

30 will be many less opportunities to successfully apply for big game permits, and my favorite rivers 

31 will be impacted with crowding. Already, there is talk of limiting the number of boats on the 

32 South Fork of the Snake River. I am not the only resident who values Idaho outdoor activities, 

33 and sustained controlled growth for the quality of Idaho life. I believe many of my neighbors also 

34 live in Idaho Falls for the same reason. 

35

36 Response: Two hundred and sixty-six new temporary residents are expected in the 2-county 

37 ROI, consisting of Bonneville and Bingham Counties, during the construction and 

38 199 permanent residents are expected during operation of the proposed EREF, as discussed in 

39 Sections 4.2.12.2 and 4.2.12.3 of the EIS. In general, the resulting impacts from the additional 

40 residents would be SMALL, and the impact of these residents on the total number of big game 

41 licenses issued by the State would also likely be SMALL.

42

43

44 Comment: The following comments suggest that jobs and economic impacts should not be 

45 considered in the EIS.

46

47 [008-01, Carol Bachelder] I know that this was an attempt to limit the discussion to the 

48 environmental impact, but we have strayed, haven’t we? Into jobs and economic projection. 

49
I-211

1 [087-04, Dennis Kasnicki] Comment 3: This was a meeting on the Draft EIS.... I think ALL of 

2 the attendees who commented in favor of this facility (perhaps in particular the “dignitaries” or 

3 their representatives who commented) spoke from the standpoint of the potential economic 

4 benefits of this plant to the area. Those comments were “off subject” and therefore distracting 

5 and very inappropriate. I suppose this was a forum where anyone is free to say mostly anything, 

6 but that IS a serious distraction and therefore a problem.

7

8 [106-05, Ted McConaughey] I think -- and as for jobs, I feel this is a fallacious argument that 

9 should not be entertained in the environmental review process, because this is not a hearing on 

10 jobs. As far as jobs goes, I think that any time we dedicate ourselves to building one facility, 

11 especially something as massively expensive as this, we deprive ourselves of the opportunities 

12 to build alternative facilities. That money is not going into research, and wind, or solar, or 

13 biomass, or whatever. It’s going into a single source, and we don’t have that money back, so --

14 and any one of those sources would produce jobs. So I really would like to take the jobs issue 

15 off the table. That’s not to say it’s unimportant, but it is to say that whatever we do, we will be 

16 creating those jobs, and they will not be lost. 

17

18 Response: The economic impacts, including any benefits such as job creation, of the proposed 

19 EREF are considered in the EIS analysis as presented in Section 4.2.12. While it is true that 

20 other endeavors may produce jobs, the creation (or loss) of jobs is an integral part of the 

21 socioeconomic impact analysis, as required under NEPA and the NRC’s NEPA-implementing 

22 regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, and is not “off subject.”

23

24

25 Comment: The following comments address the issue of the influence of the proposed EREF 

26 on future economic activity.

27

28 [147-16, Joey Schueler] 12. Even if one cannot accept that nuclear waste in Idaho could prove 

29 hazardous, the sheer notion that a nuclear plant exists and nuclear waste resides and is 

30 transported in our borders is a deterrent to other commercial interests and could hamper other 

31 major industries from choosing Idaho as a site to locate their business, due to poor “livability”

32 incentives for their employee base.

33

34 [184-04, Kitty Vincent] They say the project will create jobs. Well, what might be lacking are 

35 creative entrepreneurs who can help the Idaho Falls job market as my husband and I did when 

36 we moved a fly line company to the city in the late 1990s. Idaho Falls has the potential to be a 

37 major center for green energy products and projects. I have heard that most of the supposed 

38 1000 jobs will actually be for people who are brought in to work on the project whose 

39 qualifications meet the unique technical level of skill needed. Also, I truly believe property values

40 will be damaged by the presence of this facility as will the influx of new business. Who in their 

41 right mind would come to a city that has a nuclear facility eighteen miles to the West at the foot 

42 of one of the most active seismic areas in the country? Especially a facility that is owned and 

43 managed by a company that has a history of problems?

44

45 Response: In addition to the 590 direct jobs created at the proposed facility during the peak 

46 year of construction, and the 550 direct jobs created during operations, the proposed EREF is 

47 expected to produce 1097 indirect jobs in the 11-county ROI during the peak year of 

48 construction and 2739 indirect jobs in this ROI during operations. On the other hand, while 
I-212

1 there is no clear evidence to suggest that industrial and commercial plants and facilities are 

2 averse to locating in areas with existing or proposed nuclear facilities, there is some evidence to 

3 suggest that the perception of nuclear facilities may affect local property values, providing an

4 incentive for entrepreneurs and employees in some companies to look elsewhere for locations 

5 for new plants and facilities. Text has been added to the EIS in Section 4.2.12 to summarize 

6 these findings.

7

8

9 Comment: The following comments express concern that the economic boost given to the 

10 region is only temporary and that long-term impacts to the citizens of Idaho could be adverse.

11

12 [032-06, Cindy Cottrell] The jobs that this plant will produce will be few in comparison to the 

13 cost of allowing it here. Maybe 300 people will get jobs that will not last forever, but only for the 

14 lifetime of the plant. Right now it will cost tax payers would have to loan Areva $2 billion. Other 

15 types of energy would be much more worth the taxpayer’s money. That’s a lot of money for 

16 300 jobs and waste to manage forever. Other kinds of energy that is less risky would be better 

17 to invest in.

18

19 [050-05, Joanie Fauci] Another area I am very concerned about is economics.

20

21 • Many testifiers at the hearing were from the Idaho Falls area. They want jobs. They want jobs 

22 now. They don’t care about the future and their children’s future in that area. Bringing nuclear 

23 material to that area, with unknown future removal of it, is very short sighted. We should not be 

24 sacrificing jobs now for a ruined environment for the rest of human life.

25

26 [184-06, Kitty Vincent] The idea that this will boost the economy of Idaho is short sighted. 

27 Affected could be the lives of the future citizens in Idaho and the West. 

28

29 [189-01, Josh Well] These jobs are temporary and nuclear waste is forever.

30

31 Response: In addition to the 590 direct jobs created at the proposed facility during the peak 

32 year of construction and the 550 direct jobs created during operations, the proposed EREF is 

33 expected to produce 1097 indirect jobs in the 11-county ROI during the peak year of 

34 construction and 2739 indirect jobs in the 11-county ROI during operations. On the other hand, 

35 in Section 4.2.10 of the EIS, the NRC staff determined that impacts on human health from 

36 preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed EREF would be SMALL. It was 

37 determined in Section 4.2.11 that impacts from waste management, including the removal of all 

38 radioactive material and waste from the proposed EREF by the end of the license period, would

39 also be SMALL. 

40

41

42 Comment: The following comments address the magnitude of the impact of employment, 

43 income, and tax revenues, suggesting that the positive impacts are larger than those presented 

44 in the EIS.

45

46 [041-02, Hon. Tammy de Weerd; 156-02, Robert Simison, on behalf of Hon. Tammy de 

47 Weerd] We do feel that taking the “no action alternative” is not a viable option for the State of 

48 Idaho, and believe, just by looking at the socioeconomic impacts, as others have stated, is valid 
I-213

1 reasons why we should move this project forward. I just want to specifically point out that, you 

2 know, while the draft EIS does list it as a small impact, due to the criteria that was used, in the 

3 State of Idaho, that part of the region, the 11 counties over there, it is really not a small impact. 

4 It has a tremendous impact, here, in the state, and we believe, as a city, that this will also 

5 impact this side of the state, here, in the Treasure Valley, as we try to work more and more with 

6 the products and services that are coming out of INL, and hope that there will be partnerships 

7 that will come from the private industry as well as the research that’s currently being done at 

8 INL, that may answer questions that many people still might have about nuclear energy and 

9 depleted uranium in the future. I think this could be a good partnership for the area.

10

11 [098-03, Linda Martin] The Regional Development Alliance has done several impact studies, 

12 which have been noted in previous instances, and the positive local impact of diversifying the 

13 tax base in Bonneville County is significant. Whereas the current annual tax rolls may reflect an 

14 annual property tax income of a few hundred dollars, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility would 

15 bring in approximately $4 million.

16

17 We are looking forward to the thousands of jobs during the various phases. While all human 

18 jobs and endeavors are subject to risk, this risk outweighs, by far -- I mean, this risk is 

19 outweighed, by far, by the benefits of this project. 

20

21 As an economic development agency, we are already receiving inquiries from projects 

22 interested in this project, seeking to open new offices, and train and hire new employees. 

23

24 This is a great thing for the economic health of our community and the State of Idaho. Quoting 

25 testimony from the December 08 hearing in Idaho Falls: “We don’t need a bailout. We need 

26 AREVA.”

27

28 [098-10, Linda Martin] The Regional Development Alliance conducted an IMPLAN economic 

29 impact study regarding AREVA’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility decision to locate in eastern 

30 Idaho. The combined phases, for the purposes of this analysis, are expected to cover a 

31 multiyear period (30-35 years) across three phases of development (design, construction, 

32 operation) and would number in excess of $5 Billion in total output. 

33

34 The positive local impact of diversifying the tax base in Bonneville County, is significant. 

35 Whereas the current annual tax rolls may reflect an annual property tax income of a few 

36 hundred dollars, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility would bring in approximately $4 Million.

37

38 As an economic development agency, we are already receiving inquiries from companies 

39 interested in this project, seeking to open new offices, and train and hire new employees. This is 

40 a great thing for the economic health of our community, and the state of Idaho. We are looking 

41 forward to the thousands of jobs during the various phases of the project. And while all human 

42 jobs and endeavors are subject to risk, this risk is outweighed by the benefits of the project.

43

44 Quoting previous testimony in December, 2008 from Rich Cartney “We don’t need a bailout, we 

45 need AREVA!”

46

47 [124-02, Lane Packwood] There is one -- I’d like to echo the comments of some of the other 

48 speakers here tonight. We are somewhat surprised that the EIS finds that the economic and 
I-214

1 fiscal benefits associated with the project to be small, and I think I just -- we -- we disagree that 

2 it’s small. It is, in fact, enormous. And just to put some perspective on the impact of this project, 

3 just taking the numbers from peak facility construction alone, direct employment, 590 jobs, that 

4 would decrease unemployment in the two county ROI by 10 percent. There’s only 5100 

5 unemployed workers in Bonneville and Bingham County. 590 jobs is an enormous impact. In 

6 fact, the roll-up of all the jobs of the four phases examined nearly 3300 jobs. Just this project 

7 alone would move Idaho unemployment by one-half a percent. So that is non-negligible impact 

8 on employment in this state. The same with income generated by the project.... So, for 

9 example, just the income generated by the 11 years leading up to full operation, just the 

10 construction phases, is half a billion dollars, and that’s almost five and a half times what the 

11 estimate here, in Table 4-27, lists. The same with property taxes. Just a tremendous impact on 

12 the economy. 2.8 million in income taxes generated, 6 million in sales and use taxes, 5.3 million 

13 in property taxes. When the facility is operational, it’ll be paying something like 3.5 million in 

14 property taxes. Now Bonneville County only collects 23.8 million now, and just put that in some 

15 perspective. What does that mean to a local economy? You know, 3.5 million is 58 teachers, 

16 each year, year after year, just the average -- and that’s the average salary, that’s not starting 

17 salary of teachers in Idaho. Fifty-eight. So I guess our point here tonight is just to encourage the 

18 NRC to take a look at the economic impact, and to understand what a -- what a -- the scale of 

19 the project, and we’ve heard various estimates of the overall cost, the capital expenditures, 2, 3, 

20 4 million. Let’s just say it’s 3.5 billion. Let’s just say that’s the cap X of the project. Well, the 

21 economy of the State of Idaho, the GDP is only 52 billion. That’s 6.6 percent of our state GDP. 

22 On a federal level, if we were to compare that to what size federal project would represent 

23 6.6 percent of federal GDP, AREVA is to Idaho what a $947 billion project out be to the national 

24 economy. And that’s bigger than the stimulus. So certainly not small in its impact. 

25

26 [164-01, Timothy Solomon] The Regional Development Alliance is experienced in doing 

27 economic impact analysis, and I want to congratulate you on the socioeconomics portion of the 

28 EIS, which I’m going to address throughout my comments. We subsequently ran an additional 

29 analysis based upon your numbers in the EIS, to see how those came out, and those job 

30 numbers are “right on” in our estimation. 

31

32 The job creation numbers for a region of this size are quite substantial. They are not an 

33 insignificant impact on the state and on our region. 308 preconstruction jobs and 

34 1,687 construction jobs will impact Idaho, in a very positive way, over the years in which those 

35 activities take place. 3,289 direct, indirect, and induced jobs are also very, very significant 

36 throughout the operational period. 

37

38 The direct output effects of more than 315 million in the first full year of operations is not a small 

39 impact, and provides a substantial base of potential business for local suppliers, service 

40 providers, and sole proprietors, a very important part of our economy. Even if the output 

41 remains static over a 20 year period, using the numbers in the EIS, the region would have a 

42 base of 6.3 billion in total direct East Coast activity from which to draw for those business 

43 opportunities over that operational period. 

44

45 We do urge the NRC to take another look at your labor income numbers. We think they may be 

46 slightly less than a project of this size, and a region of this size merits. However, if you just take 

47 the 92.4 million that is outlined in the EIS, if you take that out over a 20 year operating history, 
I-215

1 assuming no year-to-year change, we estimate nearly $2 billion of labor income along on that 

2 side of it. 

3

4 The economic impact of AREVA’s $2 billion investment in Idaho is driven by capital investment 

5 that leads to job creation. The Eagle Rock enrichment facility location in eastern Idaho is 

6 absolutely critical to the economic vitality of the region. Real property has improved and begins 

7 yielding tax revenues at a much higher level. New investments are made in tangible personal 

8 property that keeps our manufacturing and processing capabilities and our job infrastructure on 

9 the leading edge. Jobs are created; dollars are spent in the local economy. Business to 

10 business and business to consumer transactions increase, real per capita income increase, tax 

11 revenues throughout the area of impact, both direct and indirect, to the investment, increase, 

12 and the general economy of the entire state is strengthened. And with that, we highly encourage 

13 you strongly support the issuance of a license.

14

15 [165-01, Hon. Lee Staker] I won’t get into a lot of details, other than to say the tax base of 

16 Bonneville County is about $5.9 billion, and you start looking at this as a tax base. Even though 

17 the full taxes won’t be from that, it is significant to Bonneville County. 

18

19 Response: Although the employment, income, and tax revenues created by the 

20 preconstruction, construction and operation of the proposed facility may appear to be large, 

21 when compared to the size of the economic and fiscal baseline of the 11-county ROI, the

22 employment impacts are SMALL. As discussed in Section 4.2.12 of the EIS, changes in total 

23 (direct and indirect) employment during the peak year of construction would amount to less than 

24 1 percent of total employment in the 11-county ROI. While the commenter is correct that 

25 impacts are presented for discrete intervals for construction, preconstruction impacts occur only 

26 in one year (2012), and operations impacts would be the same in each year beginning in 2022. 

27 Chapter 7 of the EIS (Benefit-Cost Analysis) provides the total (i.e., summed over all years of 

28 the project) employment, income, and fiscal impacts of the project. Labor income data and 

29 assumptions used in the analysis of impacts have been verified.

30

31

32 Comment: The following comments address the issues of financial incentives, including tax 

33 breaks and the highway overpass grant, provided by the State of Idaho.

34

35 [050-08, Joanie Fauci] The State of Idaho has had to cut budgets everywhere. Yet somehow 

36 they found money to loan to Areva and also provide tax breaks. This is wrong! I am mad that my 

37 tax dollars have already been given to this project. 

38

39 [180-02, Kaye Turner] Is it true the state of Idaho, i.e., the taxpayers are giving this company 

40 huge tax breaks to build this nuclear plant?

41

42 [098-02, Linda Martin] Under economic impacts, there are no Idaho taxes directly going to 

43 support the construction of this facility. As a group which encouraged the grassroots statewide 

44 support of the legislation, it should be noted that it not only applies to AREVA, but to any other 

45 new capital investment of similar magnitude. These are earned benefits to any company which 

46 chooses to invest in Idaho, of similar monetary amounts. The DOE issued a federal loan 

47 guarantee, not a federal loan. This was based on the technical ability and the creditworthiness 

48 of AREVA, currently a U.S. corporation.

49
I-216

1 [098-09, Linda Martin] Economic Impacts: There are NO Idaho taxes directly going to support 

2 the construction of this facility. As a group which encouraged the grassroots statewide support 

3 of the legislation, it should be noted that it not only applies to AREVA, but to any other new 

4 capital investment of similar magnitude. These are earned benefits to companies choosing to 

5 invest in Idaho. The DOE issued a federal loan guarantee – not a federal loan. This was based 

6 on technical ability and financial credit worthiness from AES, and American corporation.

7

8 [106-03, Ted McConaughey] Another concern I have here is this idea that government should 

9 subsidize these industries, and we have Bob Poyser from AREVA saying, in quotes here: 

10 “AREVA will bear full costs.” And so far, they have not. So far, the state throws in money for the 

11 ‘interchange for nowhere’ and there’s other subsidies that come, right and left. And I think that 

12 even the Tea Party people ought to be upset about these government facilities for this 

13 construction here. We all ought to say no--AREVA should be funding this stuff, not the 

14 government. 

15

16 [150-06, Katie Seevers] My final concern I would like to address tonight are the economic 

17 implications associated with this facility. The company who is creating this facility is French, and 

18 its production of enriched uranium in the United States does not result in domestic control of 

19 that product as addressed in the draft EIS, section 2-17. In spite of this, the State of Idaho has 

20 “bent over backwards,” awarding tax exemptions funded by Idaho taxpayers. Additionally, the 

21 Department of Energy has provided a $2 billion loan guarantee with more of our tax dollars, and 

22 then, to top all of this off, Idaho Department of Labor and Commerce granted $750,000 towards 

23 an overpass. Perhaps we could just write everybody in Bonneville County a check. All the same, 

24 a substantial portion of our state and federal tax dollars are being allocated towards a facility 

25 which will be decommissioned within 30 years. 

26

27 [182-03, Brianna Ursenbach] Assuming that the U.S. uranium fuel supply is insecure, it is 

28 clear that the EREF will not fix it, and although it is not specifically related to the EIS, it is worth 

29 noting that the federal and state tax dollars are being used to subsidize this project. Thus EREF 

30 provides no tangible security improvements to the American people, but it does lay a financial 

31 burden on them. 

32

33 [183-04, James Vincent] My other issue is about estimates of uranium throughout the world. 

34 The research I have done shows that there’s somewhere between 50 years at the low end, and 

35 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of 

36 dollars to implement, with public tax dollars for a loan guarantee, and I realize that it is a 

37 guarantee, and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology? Even 100 years is not very 

38 long, as far as reserves.

39

40 [183-11, James Vincent] My research has found known estimates world wide of uranium 

41 somewhere between 50 years on the low end and 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would 

42 we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of dollars to implement with public tax dollars 

43 for a loan guarantee and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology, Even 100 years is 

44 not very long as far as reserves.

45

46 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will store 

47 radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people; impact sensitive 

48 species; require the transport of radioactive materials; impair the Hell’s Half Acre National 
I-217

1 Monument; support destruction of the John Leopard homestead, which has been recommended 

2 for the National Register of Historic Places; devour billions of dollars in state and federal

3 largess; and obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. The 

4 Alliance is here to say it is not worth the risk.

5

6 [191-25, Liz Woodruff] State and federal largess. • In 2008, the state of Idaho showered Areva 

7 with huge tax breaks funded by Idaho taxpayers, including a cap on property tax valuation at 

8 $400 million and unnecessary sales tax exemptions....

9

10 • Not convinced the state had already done enough, the state Departments of Labor and 

11 Commerce gave Areva $750,000 to help offset the cost of a highway interchange at its site, 

12 even though the project hadn’t been approved by the NRC and sidestepping traditional Idaho 

13 Transportation Department review.

14

15 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges these comments. However, the tax issues discussed 

16 in the comment above are not issues in which the NRC is involved.

17

18

19 Comment: The following comments concern the DOE loan guarantee.

20

21 [032-06, Cindy Cottrell] The jobs that this plant will produce will be few in comparison to the 

22 cost of allowing it here. Maybe 300 people will get jobs that will not last forever, but only for the 

23 lifetime of the plant. Right now it will cost tax payers would have to loan Areva $2 billion. Other 

24 types of energy would be much more worth the taxpayer’s money. That’s a lot of money for 300 

25 jobs and waste to manage forever. Other kinds of energy that is less risky would be better to 

26 invest in.

27

28 [050-07, Joanie Fauci] • The State of Idaho has had to cut budgets everywhere. Yet somehow 

29 they found money to loan to Areva and also provide tax breaks. This is wrong! I am mad that my 

30 tax dollars have already been given to this project.

31

32 • I have read that loan guarantees are frequently defaulted on. With the existing track record of 

33 these, the US government/NRC, should not be offering any to Areva or any other company.

34

35 [098-02, Linda Martin] Under economic impacts, there are no Idaho taxes directly going to 

36 support the construction of this facility. As a group which encouraged the grassroots statewide 

37 support of the legislation, it should be noted that it not only applies to AREVA, but to any other 

38 new capital investment of similar magnitude. These are earned benefits to any company which 

39 chooses to invest in Idaho, of similar monetary amounts. The DOE issued a federal loan 

40 guarantee, not a federal loan. This was based on the technical ability and the creditworthiness 

41 of AREVA, currently a U.S. corporation. 

42

43 [098-09, Linda Martin] Economic Impacts: There are NO Idaho taxes directly going to support 

44 the construction of this facility. As a group which encouraged the grassroots statewide support 

45 of the legislation, it should be noted that it not only applies to AREVA, but to any other new 

46 capital investment of similar magnitude. These are earned benefits to companies choosing to 

47 invest in Idaho. The DOE issued a federal loan guarantee – not a federal loan. This was based 

48 on technical ability and financial credit worthiness from AES, and American corporation.

49
I-218

1 [103-06, Karen McCall] Areva wants US Federal loan guarantees in the amount of $2 billion 

2 dollars. US taxpayers would get far more energy for that money spent on renewables. An 

3 analysis by Idaho Power shows that nuclear power would cost significantly more per megawatt 

4 hour than wind, geothermal and biomass.

5

6 [145-02, Ann Rydalch] I urge the NRC to continue to listen to scientific facts and to disregard 

7 untruthful or scare tactic statements, statements such as DOE is giving $2 billion loan 

8 guarantee, a misleading statement, because no money exchanges hands. DOE is not giving 

9 AREVA the 2 billion dollars. However, by it being included in the Loan Guarantee program, 

10 AREVA and other companies in that program will be able to possibly receive lower interest 

11 rates. It’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

12

13 [154-03, Diana Shipley] They are asking for loan guarantees from the United States 

14 government and I wonder who will be left to clean up the waste and pay the bills if they bail out? 

15

16 [157-06, Hon. Erik Simpson] I’d like to address some misconceptions I’ve read in Idaho’s 

17 newspapers, and read on the internet about this project. First, financing. AREVA was recently 

18 awarded a $2 billion loan guarantee by the Department of Energy. First, a federal loan guarantee 

19 is not a taxpayer loan. It is not a bailout. A federal loan guarantee allows a company like AREVA 

20 to secure a loan from a lender with the credit backing of the United States Government. This 

21 arrangement allows a company to secure a better interest rate.

22

23 [168-02, Lon Stewart] Areva, a French government owned company, should not be subsidized 

24 by the United States to build and operate a plant in the United States. What logical business 

25 person would loan a foreign company $2 billion dollars to build a plant that WILL have cost 

26 overruns while under construction, where similar projects have a loan default rate of 50%, 

27 where the company can declare bankruptcy and just leave the US., and the company does not 

28 pay any royalties to the US? Doesn’t sound good to me. 

29

30 [180-01, Kaye Turner] I have nothing but questions that I hope will be answered honestly and

31 accurately before Areva is given permission to build their plant. Is it true the U.S. government, is 

32 giving this company a $2 billion loan guarantee to build this nuclear plant? And if Areva fails, we 

33 the tax payers pick up the tab?

34

35 [182-03, Brianna Ursenbach] Assuming that the U.S. uranium fuel supply is insecure, it is 

36 clear that the EREF will not fix it, and although it is not specifically related to the EIS, it is worth 

37 noting that the federal and state tax dollars are being used to subsidize this project. Thus EREF 

38 provides no tangible security improvements to the American people, but it does lay a financial 

39 burden on them. 

40

41 [183-04, James Vincent] My other issue is about estimates of uranium throughout the world. 

42 The research I have done shows that there’s somewhere between 50 years on the low end and 

43 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of 

44 dollars to implement, with public tax dollars for a loan guarantee, and I realize that it is a 

45 guarantee, and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology? Even 100 years is not very 

46 long, as far as reserves. 

47
I-219

1 [183-11, James Vincent] My research has found known estimates world wide of uranium 

2 somewhere between 50 years on the low end and 100 years on the optimistic side. Why would 

3 we utilize a technology that costs literally billions of dollars to implement with public tax dollars 

4 for a loan guarantee and Idaho tax incentives for a limited time technology, Even 100 years is 

5 not very long as far as reserves.

6

7 [184-07, Kitty Vincent] Areva’s proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) will store 

8 radioactive waste above the sole source aquifer for nearly 300,000 people; impact sensitive 

9 species; require the transport of radioactive materials; impair the Hell’s Half Acre National 

10 Monument; support destruction of the John Leopard homestead, which has been recommended 

11 for the National Register of Historic Places; devour billions of dollars in state and federal

12 largess; and obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the federal government. The 

13 Alliance is here to say it is not worth the risk.

14

15 [187-05, John Weber] Also, the US citizens bear most of the risk by giving the French 

16 company multiple tax benefits and loan guarantees. Is it true the estimated cost of 

17 decommissioning the plant is 3.5 billion U.S. dollars?

18

19 [191-26, Liz Woodruff] Warned by Areva that it probably wouldn’t build the enrichment factory 

20 without US taxpayer support, the Department of Energy reached into your pockets to grant the 

21 French-owned company a $2 billion loan guarantee.

22

23 Response: Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the DOE to 

24 support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional 

25 private financing due to high technology risks. In addition, the technologies must avoid, reduce, 

26 or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Technologies 

27 considered include: biomass, hydrogen, solar, wind/hydropower, nuclear, advanced fossil 

28 energy coal, carbon sequestration practices/technologies, electricity delivery and energy 

29 reliability, alternative fuel vehicles, industrial energy efficiency projects, and pollution control 

30 equipment. DOE’s mission is to accelerate the domestic commercial deployment of innovative 

31 and advanced clean energy technologies at a scale sufficient to contribute meaningfully to the 

32 achievement of national clean energy objectives. A loan guarantee is a contractual obligation 

33 that the Federal Government will cover the debt obligation in the event of a default. In May 

34 2010, the DOE issued a conditional commitment for a Federal loan guarantee to AES for the 

35 proposed EREF. The award of the loan guarantee is contingent on a number of conditions 

36 being met prior to loan closure, including issuance of the NRC license for the EREF. More 

37 information on the DOE loan guarantee program is available at http://lpo.energy.gov/

38 ?page_id=29.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comments stress the importance of the economic boost that the 

42 proposed EREF would have on the Idaho Falls area and the region.

43

44 [026-02, Rob Chiles] Over the last few years, the business community, and members of the 

45 Chamber of Commerce, have shown tremendous support for this important economic 

46 development project. The positive impacts are obvious. With so many America manufacturing 

47 jobs going out of the country, we welcome AREVA’s investment and the creation of jobs for U.S. 

48 workers.

49
I-220

1 [026-03, Robb Chiles] I appreciate your time and the opportunity to speak to you on this truly 

2 important project. We support your recommendation to grant a license for this project. As Mr. 

3 Packwood so eloquently put in his -- regarding economic benefits, it just makes good business 

4 sense.

5

6 [034-07, Greg Crockett] We do, however, disagree on the scoring of the socioeconomic 

7 impacts. We believe that when you combine the four phases of the project over 30-35 years of 

8 prospective operations, the total economic benefit to the region and state will be much higher 

9 than stated in the Draft EIS.

10

11 [038-01, Brian Davidson] That plant will help Idaho stay on the forefront of nuclear power 

12 technology and add as well as attract badly-needed good-paying jobs to our area of the state.

13

14 [039-03 and 039-06, Kreg Davis] Second, the Areva project is good for the economy, both in 

15 the short and long run. In the short run, it will create many Idaho jobs, both in Idaho Falls and 

16 Boise. A modest estimate of jobs created will number in the thousands. In addition, many more 

17 jobs will be saved. In my industry—my company, my customers, my suppliers, my competitors 

18 even the State of Idaho’s DBS — I am aware of many Treasure Valley jobs that depend on 

19 Areva’s success.

20

21 I ask every Boise/Treasure Valley elected official to speak directly with your business 

22 community and especially with anyone in the construction business. We have been among the 

23 hardest hit during these difficult economic times. Ask these businesses and their employees —

24 your constituents — if Areva’s project will save and create Boise jobs. If you have doubts, call 

25 me. I can introduce you to many Boise/Treasure Valley based businesses and employees who 

26 hope this Areva project is a success.

27

28 [041-02, Hon. Tammy de Weerd; 156-02, Robert Simison, on behalf of Hon. Tammy de 

29 Weerd] We do feel that taking the “no action alternative” is not a viable option for the State of 

30 Idaho, and believe, just by looking at the socioeconomic impacts, as others have stated, is valid 

31 reasons why we should move this project forward..

32

33 I just want to specifically point out that, you know, while the draft EIS does list it as a small 

34 impact, due to the criteria that was used, in the State of Idaho, that part of the region, the 11 

35 counties over there, it is really not a small impact. It has a tremendous impact, here, in the state, 

36 and we believe, as a city, that this will also impact this side of the state, here, in the Treasure 

37 Valley, as we try to work more and more with the products and services that are coming out of 

38 INL, and hope that there will be partnerships that will come from the private industry as well as 

39 the research that’s currently being done at INL, that may answer questions that many people 

40 still might have about nuclear energy and depleted uranium in the future.

41

42 [043-01, Rocky Deschamps] I am going to speak just a little bit, and I won’t take much time. 

43 I’m going to talk a little bit about, I spent six years on the Bingham County Planning and Zoning 

44 Commission, the last two years as chairman of that Commission, and there’s one area here on 

45 the Environmental Impact Statement that I’d just like to maybe touch just a little bit of base on, 

46 and it talks about, it’s anticipated the number of workers moving into the area during each phase 

47 of the proposed project they call them migration workers, that might have some impact on the 

48 schools, health care, law enforcement, availability, cost of public utilities, such as electric, water, 
I-221

1 sanitary, road, number of migrating workers expected during the construction and operations 

2 might impact the housing.

3

4 My time on the Bingham County Planning and Zoning, we encourage businesses because our 

5 schools are crying out, we need more students. We’re actually declining in our number of youth 

6 in our schools. Our roads are very adequate. Our schools are adequate. We have an 

7 infrastructure here in southeast Idaho because we are so used to having INL, we have the 

8 colleges here that can train the workers. We have the high schools that are there that are ready 

9 to accept anything new that we might have in this area in the schools. We have multiple, 

10 multiple infrastructure in place because of the INL, and the experience we have with the INL out 

11 there.

12

13 Also, I’ve been involved with the supply side. We have contractors in this area that are so 

14 familiar with the requirements to build a facility like this, that it’s just -- you don’t find that in a lot 

15 of areas. We also have suppliers that are used to supplying the specifications, the ASTM 

16 specifications that are required on a nuclear facility to do that, so we are very able to take on a 

17 facility like this, and take care of it, and do what we need to do.

18

19 [047-01, Mark Dunham] I’m excited about the positive impact of the AREVA project. We 

20 believe this will be a major boost to Idaho’s employment base, and my members are ready to be 

21 a part of this project, and to assist in any way that we can.

22

23 I have 840 member companies in Idaho, with close to 200 in Eastern Idaho alone. Idaho’s 

24 contractors are ready to help with the construction of necessary infrastructure and facilities for 

25 this important project.

26

27 On Saturday, Ken Simonson, who’s the chief economist of the Associated General Contractors 

28 of America, was in Idaho speaking to my members about the dismal state of the economy. He 

29 told my members that Idaho’s construction employment rate is at the same level as it was in 

30 December of 1994. In my industry, it is about jobs, and it is about money, because that 

31 translates into helping your families stay in Idaho, raise their future generations in Idaho. So we 

32 think this will be helpful.

33

34 As a result, the importance of projects like the AREVA Eagle Rock enrichment plant cannot be 

35 underestimated. Not only will the plant help with our nation’s energy situation; it will have a 

36 significant impact on Idaho’s economy in terms of jobs.

37

38 Analysis of this project shows that the project will have economic benefits such as creating 

39 almost 5000 direct, and indirect, jobs through the life of the project. It will also result in billions of 

40 dollars in additional investment into Idaho’s economy, and families, at a time the state would 

41 benefit from increased economic development.

42

43 A George Mason University study commissioned by the AGC of America about infrastructure 

44 investment, in general, says, indicates the construction jobs created would have significant 

45 other impacts on the economy. 

46

47 There would be indirect jobs from supplying construction materials and services. Most jobs 

48 would be in the State of Idaho. There would also be additional jobs created when the 
I-222

1 construction and supplier workers, and owners, spend their additional incomes throughout the 

2 state’s economy.

3

4 [054-01, Paul Fullmer] Areva is good for the community and economy just because for the 

5 simple fact that it is cheaper on the electricity and it produces more jobs for Idaho.

6

7 [062-01, Trevor Grigg] And, you know, I want the same opportunity of prosperity that my 

8 parents have had, and I know that these acquaintances and these friends, they want the same 

9 opportunity of prosperity, and I think that this economic benefit that comes to our state through 

10 this project is huge, and it gives us that opportunity.

11

12 [065-02, Hon. Ida Hardcastle] I spend a large amount of time in the city among the residents 

13 and it is exciting to feel the enthusiasm most have for this project coming to Idaho Falls. Of 

14 course the main interest is the economic impact it will have on the area, in other words - jobs. 

15 Also the community supports the fact that there will be a very small environmental impact from 

16 this facility. We thank the NRC again for their efforts in this particular concern. We have a top 

17 notch workforce here which was recognized by AREVA in the beginning. The community as a 

18 whole supports energy being produced by nuclear power. We simply have to address our 

19 independence on foreign oil.

20

21 [073-02, Mark Holzmer] The Areva project has the potential to significantly improve the 

22 economic base in southeast Idaho – impacts which are not small to moderate, but will have 

23 immediate positive effects on our economy.

24

25 [080-01, Don Johnson] And I would just have to say that I represent a lot of people that this 

26 job would really help. I’ve lived here all my life. I’ve raised my family. I’ve got five grandkids, and 

27 I hope that this would help them in the future find employment, because God knows that we all 

28 need more jobs in this state. So, I would highly recommend that you accept this application.

29

30 [098-03, Linda Martin] The Regional Development Alliance has done several impact studies, 

31 which have been noted in previous instances, and the positive local impact of diversifying the 

32 tax base in Bonneville County is significant. Whereas the current annual tax rolls may reflect an 

33 annual property tax income of a few hundred dollars, the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility would 

34 bring in approximately $4 million.

35

36 We are looking forward to the thousands of jobs during the various phases. While all human 

37 jobs and endeavors are subject to risk, this risk outweighs, by far -- I mean, this risk is 

38 outweighed, by far, by the benefits of this project.

39

40 As an economic development agency, we are already receiving inquiries from projects 

41 interested in this project, seeking to open new offices, and train and hire new employees.

42

43 This is a great thing for the economic health of our community and the State of Idaho. Quoting 

44 testimony from the December 08 hearing in Idaho Falls: “We don’t need a bailout. We need 

45 AREVA.”

46

47 [123-03, Hon. Butch Otter; 090-03, Paul Kjellander, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter; 195-03, 

48 Hon. Jeff Thompson, on behalf of Hon. Butch Otter] First, the Eagle Rock project will 
I-223

1 provide a much-needed stabilizing economic force in Idaho Falls, and the southeastern Idaho 

2 region. Second, the facility will create much-needed high-quality jobs for the dedicated 

3 workforce in the area. Eagle Rock will create thousands of construction and contractor jobs, and 

4 in 30 years of operation, hundreds of long-term, high-end positions.

5

6 [128-01, Bob Poyser] We welcome this opportunity to provide factual information about our 

7 project to Boise and the surrounding communities. Assuming we are granted a license next 

8 year, those in Boise, who make the trip to Idaho Falls by way of Highway 20, will see the 

9 beginning of an important step towards our nation’s energy independence, the development of a 

10 significant investment in Idaho, and construction of an American facility which will provide jobs 

11 to American workers, and strength to the local economy.

12

13 [128-07, Bob Poyser] Eagle Rock will have a significant impact on the local and regional 

14 economy. This facility will create much-needed jobs for Idaho workers. During construction, we'll 

15 create about a thousand jobs locally, and support thousands more regionally. This is a 

16 construction effort that will run for nearly seven years. Within two years from today, AREVA will 

17 begin to hire and train a workforce that will eventually exceed 400 people, to operate and 

18 maintain the Eagle Rock facility over the next 30 years of operating life.

19

20 We believe this is a positive, is positive news to the many hard-working people in Idaho who are 

21 struggling with difficult economic conditions. 

22

23 [133-10, Richard Provencher] For the community of Idaho Falls, the pursuit of this facility will 

24 help bring jobs to the area, and potentially help with workers being displaced from the highly 

25 successful Idaho Cleanup Project as it completes cleanup work. Studies have been performed 

26 on jobs in the area which shows for every new job there is a secondary benefit of 1.8 to the 

27 surrounding community-this will result in even more benefit to the community.

28

29 [135-02, Hon. Dave Radford] We’re happy with the prospects. We’re optimistic about the jobs. 

30 Serving my third term, and recently running for re-election for my fourth term, the people that I 

31 talked to on the street, it was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s what they were interested in, and 

32 how can we promote that, how can we keep the quality of life that we have here in eastern 

33 Idaho, but still further enhance our energy independence? 

34

35 [137-01, Ralph Reeves] 1. This plant will add to our exports, which is desperately needed.

36

37 [137-03, Ralph Reeves] 3. This plant will result (in time) in a well trained work force with skills 

38 that can be transferred to other jobs.

39

40 [137-04, Ralph Reeves] 4. This plant will likely foster support establishments which will likely 

41 result in exports and well trained workers.

42

43 [155-02, Jerry Shivly] It was going to help Idaho Falls, because it was going to produce jobs. 

44 And at that time, even in 2008 jobs were starting to fall off. And it’s going to energize Idaho Falls 

45 because every time new people come, they bring some of themselves. And we get together and 

46 find out that we are better, and that we have a better product amongst us. The arts thrive, the 

47 schools thrive, and we all thrive. And I am very much in favor of AREVA coming to Idaho Falls.

48
I-224

1 [185-01, Wade Virgin] What would AREVA do? My understanding is, and I hope my figures 

2 are correct, it would bring 800 to 1,000 jobs to this area for construction, with several hundred 

3 other jobs coming afterwards. I spent some time not long ago on the internet, and looked at 

4 some of their jobs, and how well they pay. There would not only be jobs, there would be 

5 secondary jobs that would be brought to this area.

6

7 I guess I can only say, and be brief in saying it, but I fully support, in fact, I strongly encourage 

8 the application be approved for AREVA located here in the Idaho Falls area.

9

10 [163-01, Cindy Smith-Putnam] On behalf of Grow Idaho Falls, and although you and others 

11 have already done a good job capturing it in the process leading up to the Draft EIS, I simply 

12 cannot overstate the positive socioeconomic impacts this project would bring. Even now in this 

13 very early stage, we are already seeing transportation improvements easing the flow of current 

14 traffic along U.S. Highway 20 corridor, and that’s because we’ve asked our officials to 

15 anticipate, plan for, and assess these future needs, and to address them in advance. But when 

16 it comes to economic development, this project’s significance reaches far beyond the obvious 

17 direct impact of jobs creation, dramatic expansion of tax revenues for our cash strapped state, 

18 infrastructure development, and the multiplier effect of all of those dollars.

19

20 [164-01, Timothy Solomon] The Regional Development Alliance is experienced in doing 

21 economic impact analysis, and I want to congratulate you on the socioeconomics portion of the 

22 EIS, which I’m going to address throughout my comments.

23

24 We subsequently ran an additional analysis based upon your numbers in the EIS, to see how 

25 those came out, and those job numbers are “right on” in our estimation.

26

27 The job creation numbers for a region of this size are quite substantial. They are not an 

28 insignificant impact on the state and on our region. 308 preconstruction jobs and 

29 1,687 construction jobs will impact Idaho, in a very positive way, over the years in which those 

30 activities take place. 3,289 direct, indirect, and induced jobs are also very, very significant 

31 throughout the operational period.

32

33 The direct output effects of more than 315 million in the first full year of operations is not a small 

34 impact, and provides a substantial base of potential business for local suppliers, service 

35 providers, and sole proprietors, a very important part of our economy.

36

37 Even if the output remains static over a 20 year period, using the numbers in the EIS, the region 

38 would have a base of 6.3 billion in total direct East Coast activity from which to draw for those 

39 business opportunities over that operational period.

40

41 We do urge the NRC to take another look at your labor income numbers. We think they may be 

42 slightly less than a project of this size, and a region of this size merits. However, if you just take 

43 the 92.4 million that is outlined in the EIS, if you take that out over a 20 year operating history, 

44 assuming no year-to-year change, we estimate nearly $2 billion of labor income along on that 

45 side of it.

46
I-225

1 The economic impact of AREVA’s $2 billion investment in Idaho is driven by capital investment 

2 that leads to job creation. The Eagle Rock enrichment facility location in eastern Idaho is 

3 absolutely critical to the economic vitality of the region. 

4

5 Real property has improved and begins yielding tax revenues at a much higher level. New 

6 investments are made in tangible personal property that keeps our manufacturing and 

7 processing capabilities and our job infrastructure on the leading edge.

8

9 Jobs are created; dollars are spent in the local economy. Business to business and business to 

10 consumer transactions increase, real per capita income increase, tax revenues throughout the 

11 area of impact, both direct and indirect, to the investment, increase, and the general economy of 

12 the entire state is strengthened.

13

14 And with that, we highly encourage you strongly support the issuance of a license, and I thank 

15 you, once again.

16

17 [176-03, Hon. Jeff Thompson] It is estimated the local region will see more than $5 billion in 

18 economic impact, and 5,000 in direct and indirect jobs will be created throughout the United 

19 States for this contract.

20

21 [178-02, Randy Trane] This is a project that will serve two purposes. It will allow nuclear power 

22 to serve the world and it will help the economy in the Eastern Idaho area with much needed 

23 employment. I have several friends who are experts in the nuclear power industry and they are 

24 telling me that this project will not have any negative impact on the environment in this area.

25

26 [190-01, Dave Whaley] The Idaho State AFL-CIO, representing approximately 24,000 affiliates 

27 across the State of Idaho, would like to go on record in support of the AREVA Enrichment 

28 Service’s proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant being built in Eagle Rock, Idaho.

29

30 Idaho, like the rest of the United States, is experiencing record high unemployment. The jobs 

31 this site will provide for-the construction industry as well as future operation jobs when the 

32 facility is complete will be instrumental in Idaho’s economic recovery

33

34 Response: The NRC acknowledges these comments and appreciates the public participation.

35

36

37 I.5.20 Environmental Justice

38

39 No comments were received on the Environmental Justice section of the Draft EIS.

40

41

42 I.5.21 Accidents

43

44 Comment: The following comment expresses concern regarding worker safety associated with 

45 accidents at the proposed EREF.

46

47 [049-01, Victoria Everett] But I’m concerned about the workers. It says you’re providing jobs. 

48 How safe are these jobs? You know, coal mines provide jobs, but they’re not very safe jobs, 
I-226

1 and, you know, it wasn’t addressed, on the safety of the workers. If there is an accident, how 

2 safe are these workers? Who pays for, you know, the damage done to them, and taking care of 

3 their families? 

4

5 Response: The proposed EREF will be designed with a number of features that would protect 

6 workers and mitigate the effects of accidents, as described in Section 4.2.15.3 of the EIS. In 

7 addition to physical design features such as barriers, ventilation systems, and alarms, an

8 Emergency Plan would be implemented to minimize the consequences of accidents to workers. 

9 Liability for payment for damages to workers would depend on the particular circumstances of 

10 an accident. AES would be liable for cleanup costs for accident consequences at the proposed 

11 EREF.

12

13

14 Comment: The following comment asks if AES’s Integrated Safety Assessment (ISA) 

15 addresses all credible accident scenarios whereby depleted uranium (or other contamination) 

16 could get into the Snake River Aquifer.

17

18 [087-02, Dennis Kasnicki] Comment 2a: Many attendees expressed concern regarding 

19 contamination, especially depleted uranium, getting into the Snake River Aquifer; that, by far, 

20 seemed to be the biggest concern, and rightfully so. Does AREVA’s Integrated Safety 

21 Assessment address ALL CREDIBLE accident scenarios whereby depleted uranium (or other 

22 contamination) could get into the Snake River Aquifer? Are the “probabilities” of all such 

23 scenarios deemed at least “highly unlikely”, or otherwise meet the requirements of 10 CFR 70? 

24 If so, or if not, this should be loudly and clearly “called out” in the Draft EIS.

25

26 Response: AES’s ISA (AES, 2010b) considered all credible accidents at the proposed EREF. 

27 The analysis considered the consequences and the likelihood of each accident sequence. 

28 Consequences included offsite impacts on the public and on the environment from airborne 

29 releases of UF6 and other forms of uranium resulting from an accident. Only accidents involving 

30 an airborne release can conceivably result in significant quantities of uranium being released 

31 because of the physical properties of the uranium materials used in the process. The 

32 environmental consequences of UF6 releases are analyzed in more detail in Section 4.2.18.2 of 

33 the EIS. This section analyzes the consequences of a UF6 release resulting from a terrorism 

34 event and concludes that areas contaminated by deposition of airborne plumes of uranium 

35 would be cleaned up to levels that would be protective of human health. Cleanup levels would 

36 be determined though a risk analysis that would include analysis of a groundwater exposure 

37 pathway. Cleanup of surface contamination would minimize possible migration of uranium to 

38 the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. Even in the absence of cleanup, it is unlikely that

39 uranium at levels of health concern could reach the aquifer from the surface in the vicinity of the 

40 proposed EREF due to adsorption of uranium by soils of greater than 200 m (660 ft) thick 

41 overlying the aquifer (see EIS Section 3.7.2.2).

42

43

44 Comment: The following comment states that sensitive population exposure scenarios need to 

45 be developed and addressed, not just from a worker standpoint but also from a member of the 

46 public standpoint. 

47
I-227

1 [036-04, Christina Cutler, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Sensitive population 

2 exposure scenarios need to be developed and addressed, not just from a worker stand point but 

3 also from a member of the public stand point. 

4

5 Response: As presented in Section 4.2.15 of the EIS, doses to members of the public are 

6 evaluated ranging from a person at the site boundary to the entire collective population within 

7 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed EREF site. Health effects from potential exposures 

8 were evaluated using State of Idaho or NRC reference values. These values included Idaho’s 

9 ambient air quality standard for HF (for routine emissions) and radiological exposure limits from 

10 10 CFR Part 20. For accidents, the NRC staff used threshold consequence levels for exposure 

11 to uranium and HF given in 10 CFR 70.61 and EPA’s Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

12 (AEGLs). The NRC staff believes that the reference values used are appropriate for evaluating 

13 potential health impacts from operation of EREF on potentially impacted populations, including 

14 workers, members of the public, and sensitive subpopulations.

15

16

17 Comment: The following comment asks about how AES will respond to accident scenarios on 

18 the proposed EREF site and how the public will be informed.

19

20 [129-01, Willie Preacher, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] A question arose on 

21 safety issues, how AREVA will respond internally to accident scenarios on the proposed site, 

22 and how the public will be informed.

23

24 Response: AES would respond to an accident in accordance with the EREF Emergency Plan 

25 implemented by the EREF Emergency Management Organization. The public would be 

26 informed through alert and notification procedures employed by local emergency management 

27 organizations, such as fire and police departments, after these organizations are notified of an 

28 emergency by the facility.

29

30

31 Comment: The following comment is about the SER not being included in the Draft EIS.

32

33 [141-03, Peter Rickards] In addition...

34

35 1) We are not able to double check the downplaying of accidents and terrorism dose to the 

36 public. The Safety Analysis Report (SER) is NOT included in the DEIS! Instead vague 

37 summaries were used touting they would meet legal requirements.

38

39 In my history of 23 years of being lied to in EIS’s, specifics are needed to demonstrate where 

40 you are misinforming the public to the potential REAL environmental impacts of the proposed 

41 plant. It is unacceptable to have an official draft comment period while withholding the MOST 

42 important details!

43

44 What the DEIS says on webpage 66 of 430 is:

45 “As noted in Section 1.4, some of these issues are analyzed in detail in the NRC’s SER and are 

46 only summarized in the EIS. For example, within the area of safety and security, the SER

47 analyzes the probabilities and consequences of various accidents at the proposed EREF, as

48 well as measures to prevent those accidents and mitigate their effects. This EIS does not go
I-228

1 into the same level of detail, but provides, in Section 4.2.15, an accident analysis for the

2 purpose of assessing the potential environmental impacts of accidents.”

3

4 Response: The SER (NRC, 2010b) documents the NRC’s safety review of the proposed EREF. 

5 Most of the issues addressed in the SER are not within the scope of the EIS. As pointed out in 

6 the comment, the safety review, as opposed to the environmental review covered in the EIS, 

7 goes into much more detail on safety-related matters, including potential accidents, as 

8 discussed in Section 1.4 of the EIS. Section 4.15 of the EIS provides a summary of the 

9 accident analysis in the SER.

10

11

12 Comment: The following comment pertains to certain information in the Draft EIS regarding 

13 doses due to accidents.

14

15 [141-05, Peter Rickards] 3) While assuming the HEPA filters contain most of an accident 

16 nuclear criticality, the DEIS does admit that a citizen at the fenceline could receive a 570 mrem 

17 dose, way above the 10 mrem annual limit! (Table 4-30, p 372/430). This dose seems not used 

18 when dismissing transport accidents in metropolitan areas.

19

20 Response: The 10 mrem/yr dose constraint is only applicable to routine facility operations. It is 

21 not applicable to accident scenarios. In addition, the criticality event analyzed in Section 4.2.15

22 of this EIS is not applicable to the impacts of transportation of UF6 or low level waste analyzed 

23 in the EIS.

24

25

26 Comment: The following comment requests certain information on accidents and problems at 

27 the Metropolis, Illinois, Honeywell facility.

28

29 [141-07, Peter Rickards] 5) While I have found some great contradicting documents on the 

30 NRC website, I was unable to find details on accidents and problems at current uranium 

31 enrichment plants, including the Metropolis, Illinois Honeywell facility.

32

33 Please address the statement of Hydrogen explosions recently at the Honeywell uranium 

34 enrichment facility from the article pasted below. Page 370/430 lists only 5 accident types 

35 analyzed, which all seem to qualify for ignoring by probability math tricks. However, this article 

36 mentions locals hospitalized from inhalation problems from Dec 2003. While NRC likes to dwell 

37 on estimated death rates, the public needs to know ALL the potential impacts on their health, 

38 including these scenarios. The article mentions a long problem with compliance at Honeywell, 

39 which appears unaddressed as a potential REAL AND PROBABLE health impact. (See red 

40 highlights) On the NRC website I could see references to Honeywell problems, but the searches 

41 lead to long lists that obscured me finding the details.

42

43 Response: The Metropolis, Illinois, Honeywell facility is a uranium conversion facility and not a 

44 uranium enrichment facility. As such, the processes and events at the Honeywell facility may 

45 not be applicable to the processes at the proposed EREF; a hydrogen fire is specifically not 

46 relevant to the proposed EREF enrichment process. Hydrogen use would occur only in 

47 laboratories at the proposed EREF where it would be used in small quantities under controlled 

48 conditions. The NRC review focused on the processes at the proposed EREF.
I-229

1

2 The NRC reviewed potential accident sequences that the applicant evaluated as part of the 

3 facility ISA. The ISA is performed by the applicant to identify those accident sequences which 

4 may have notable consequences (see the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61) 

5 including long-lasting health effects resulting from exposure to those chemicals associated with 

6 NRC-licensed materials. In addition, the NRC independently evaluated certain accident 

7 analyses to both verify the adequacy of the evaluations performed by the applicant and to 

8 determine the potential impact to the public as pertinent to the EIS. A summary of the ISA was 

9 submitted to the NRC as part of the license application and reviewed by staff to provide 

10 reasonable assurance that the proposed operations will be conducted in a manner that assures 

11 public health and safety and protects the environment. That review is not part of the EIS, but 

12 was performed as part of the application review and documented in the Safety Evaluation 

13 Report (NUREG-1951) (NRC, 2010b).

14

15

16 Comment: The following comment asserts that there are certain issues that the criticality 

17 analysis does not address.

18

19 [141-02, Peter Rickards] Specifically, the criticality analysis does not address the microscopic 

20 particle size problem from criticalities, nor the “alpha recoil” problem with HEPA filters for normal 

21 operations, nor the fire problems with HEPA filters.

22

23 Response: With regard to the criticality analysis, as reported in Chapter 5 of the SER (NRC, 

24 2010b), NRC staff used dose conversion factors for particulates consistent with both 

25 10 CFR Part 20 and International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30. 

26 ICRP 30 recommends use of a 1 micron activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD) particle 

27 size when the particle size is unknown. Dispersion modeling of releases is consistent with 

28 NUREG/CR-6410 and previous evaluations.

29

30 With regard to alpha recoil problems, the staff recognizes that enriched uranium is a low specific 

31 activity material and there have been no apparent issues with alpha recoil for uranium materials.

32

33 Fire hazards and the potential consequence of fires are addressed in the facility ISA. NRC staff 

34 reviewed the ISA summary and found the risks to be adequately controlled. The NRC staff 

35 concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed operations will be conducted in 

36 a manner that ensures public health and safety and protects the environment, as reported in

37 Chapter 7 of the SER (NRC, 2010b).

38

39

40 Comment: The following comment expresses concern about the threat to air quality in the 

41 event of an accidental release of radioactive material.

42

43 [100-02, Wendy Matson; 184-12, Kitty Vincent; 191-18, Liz Woodruff] The amount of 

44 radioactive material that will be present on the proposed site represents an implicit severe threat 

45 to air quality in the event of an accidental release of radioactive toxins.

46

47 Response: The human health consequences of representative accidents that involve releases 

48 of UF6 to the atmosphere are analyzed in Section 4.2.15.2 of the EIS. Releases from high-
I-230

1 consequence accidents, which involve the greatest releases of UF6 to the atmosphere, were 

2 analyzed. The analysis concludes that operation of the proposed EREF would pose an 

3 acceptably low risk to workers, the environment, and the public from accidents. Air 

4 concentrations of uranium and HF would subside quickly after an accident and would not 

5 produce lasting effects on air quality.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comments express concern about the cleanup costs following an 

9 accident at the proposed EREF.

10

11 [049-02, Victoria Everett] And also, in the case of an accident, who plays for the cleanup? 

12 Who’s responsible for that? The State of Idaho? Or is it AREVA? You know, that wasn’t 

13 clarified. And in transportation, a truck gets in a wreck, it spills all over the ground. You know, 

14 such cases as that. Say there is a fire, and there’s a major disaster at the plant. Who pays for 

15 that? And who pays the doctor bills of the families that have cancer?

16

17 [050-10, Joanie Fauci] Who will pay for all accidents which occur?

18

19 Response: AES would be liable for cleanup costs for accidents at the proposed EREF. Liability 

20 for payment for damages to workers or members of the public, such as cancer-related claims,

21 would depend on the particular circumstances of an accident.

22

23

24 Comment: The following comments note the hazardous nature of uranium hexafluoride and the 

25 potential risk from breached containers.

26

27 [181-14, Roger Turner] EIS fails to realistically evaluate container breaches. Moving, stacking 

28 and unstacking cylinders has breached the containers, at the Oak Ridge Facility. The EIS needs 

29 to be realistic about risks, where heavy equipment is in use because accidents and spills will 

30 happen. Inspections are subject to human error and constrained by budgets. Inconsistent 

31 pressure levels in containers are well known. Excess pressure in containers may make them 

32 more susceptible to breaching or corrosion. Corrosion has been found on these containers at 

33 Oak Ridge. The combination of problems were not adequately considered in the draft EIS.

34

35 The EIS fails to acknowledge toxicity of Uranium (both enriched and depleted) and the risks to 

36 workers and the public when released. As mentioned above, the EIS also failed to consider 

37 extended storage of containers, with additional risk of breached containers, as a result. 

38

39 [192-04 and 192-10, Lisa Young] The storage of depleted uranium hexafluoride, which reacts 

40 with water (gas or liquid) to produce two dangerous, corrosive, and soluble compounds, UO2F2

41 and HF, is extremely unstable. The production of these compounds presents huge risks in the 

42 storage timeline, as the corrosion of storage cylinders and the possibility for leaks is a very real 

43 reality.

44

45 Response: The cylinder management program to minimize cylinder corrosion is described in 

46 Section 4.2.11.2 of the EIS. Risks to workers and the public of exposure to breached cylinders 

47 are encompassed by the accident scenarios considered in the accident analysis in 

48 Section 4.2.15 of the EIS. The accident analysis considers all credible accidents at the 
I-231

1 proposed EREF. The EIS evaluates several representative accident scenarios with 

2 intermediate to high consequences. The scenarios analyzed in the EIS encompass the

3 consequences of cylinder handling accidents and releases due to cylinder corrosion and over4 pressurization. Regarding the toxicity of uranium, health effects from radiological exposure are 

5 presented in Section 3.11.3.2 and from chemical exposure in Section 3.11.3.3. 

6

7

8 Comment: The following comments are concerned with wildfires in the vicinity of the proposed 

9 EREF. Some commenters believe wildfires could have a major impact while others note the 

10 conditions that would mitigate any major impacts.

11

12 [004-01, Anonymous] I am astonished you are not considering fire in the EIS review. I 

13 suggest you revise your hurried considerations! http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/thinking14 the-unthinkable-russian-fires-fan-nuclear-fears/19589710?sms_ss=email.

15

16 [015-21, Beatrice Brailsford; 088-09, Stan Kidwell; 122-05, Kathy O’Brien; 127-02, Sheila 

17 Plowman] The NRC should address both Areva’s failure to comply with the Federal Farmland 

18 Protection Act and its own failure to fully analyze the environmental effects of a large range fire 

19 at the Areva site. 

20

21 [027-04, Sara Cohn] Similarly, we are concerned that fire is not addressed as a potential 

22 threat, when fuels exist on site and fires have recently been burning in the region.

23

24 [048-02, Genevieve Emerson] The EIS fails to consider the influence of wild fires in the region

25 and also fails to adequately address the issue of waste storage and disposal, considering that 

26 there are no viable methods yet in existence for safely storing hexafluoride and depleted 

27 uranium.

28

29 [066-05, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 3. 

30 Wildfires on the Snake River Plain and specifically the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) occur 

31 with surprising regularity and typically burn tens of thousands of acres before being 

32 extinguished (two such fires in 2010). Wildfires have threatened DOE facilities and caused 

33 facility shutdowns due to particulate clogged air exchange filters; low visibility and destruction of 

34 overhead power lines. The EIS should discuss the risk, potential environmental impacts from 

35 wildfires, and safety procedures to be implemented to guard against potential releases as they 

36 relate to the enrichment facility and the depleted UF6 storage cylinders. 

37

38 [067-09,Mike Hart] With respect to the half-acre lava field, I think it actually protects this facility’s 

39 location from fires, because fires, typically, are drawn by wind, the wind pushes fire down wind, 

40 with a big, huge lava barrier, there’s less likelihood of a fire hitting the grounds because it has to go 

41 through the lava first.

42

43 [070-04, Virginia Hemingway] As has been mentioned, we just escaped a fire that could have 

44 totally decimated the INL, which is just almost right next to your facility, that you’re -- that the 

45 AREVA is planning. And in Russia, they are currently trying to control a fire that is coming very 

46 close to where Chernobyl melted down, and, in fact, their emergency minister had this to say 

47 about it. 

48
I-232

1 He said that the heat from the fires in the region, which already has nuclear contamination from 

2 the Chernobyl disaster, more than 20 years ago, could release harmful radioactive particles into 

3 the atmosphere. In the event of a fire there, radionuclides could rise into the air, together with 

4 combustion particles, resulting in a new pollution zone. And he said this on state television in 

5 Russia.

6

7 [152-04, Steven Serr] We have--we’ve reviewed the issues as far as fire code protection. We 

8 expressed concern over the safety on site, have they the ability to fight fires? AREVA has opted to 

9 petition in to the fire district. We’ve had planning meetings with the fire district. We have another 

10 planning meeting, this week, to work out responses in case of wildland fires coming in. We’ve 

11 addressed safety setback issues to protect the facility. We don’t have any real concerns to be able 

12 to protect this facility from wildland fires with the implementation measures that they are planning 

13 on putting in place, along with the expansion of the fire service facilities, and staff, and buildings 

14 and equipment, to be able to provide that fire protection.

15

16 [152-10, Steven Serr] Some of these issues we brought up were regarding fire risk. We had a 

17 meeting just yesterday with the fire department to discuss fire safety issues out there, response 

18 time, what could be done for defensible space surrounding the operation. We felt we have 

19 addressed the needs for making that site very safe, and protected from any fire hazard that might 

20 occur from a wildfire issue. And, also, the fire district is addressing the potential increased demand 

21 for fire needs, and that they have already acquired land on the west side of Idaho Falls to 

22 construction additional fire stations, to provide additional equipment and support facilities for this 

23 type -- for this plant.

24

25 [148-01, Eric Schuler] Taken as a whole, the EIS suggests that this facility will have a 

26 relatively low impact on the environment. Of course several aspects of this, of the — have been 

27 overlooked in making this conclusion. For instance, as others have already noted, it does not 

28 consider the impact of the exempted preconstruction activities, the high risk of wildfires in the 

29 area, or the lack of an appropriate disposal pathway for depleted uranium. Accordingly, the true 

30 impact of this facility is certainly larger than the DEIS suggests.

31

32 [157-09, Hon. Erik Simpson] Fire. It is my understanding that AREVA is currently securing an 

33 agreement for fire protection at the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility. Although a wildfire is 

34 something you have to plan for, it is by no means a showstopper for this project.

35

36 [169-02, Margaret Stewart] And there has been inadequate addressing in the EIS of wildfire 

37 threats, and transportation of nuclear material accidents.

38

39 [184-10, Kitty Vincent] This waste and the facility will be threatened by wildfires at the 

40 proposed site. The recent Jefferson Fire at the INL is but the latest example of such threats and 

41 the EIS does not provide a detailed analysis of the threats posed by fire.

42

43 [191-14, Liz Woodruff] Threat Posed by Fire. The draft EIS fails to even consider the threats 

44 associated with wildfires at the proposed site. While the draft EIS looks specifically at the 

45 geology and weather patterns at the site, it does not provide a detailed analysis of the threats 

46 posed by fire, claiming that fires do not occur east of the Idaho National Lab (INL). The recent 

47 example of the Jefferson Fire at and stretching east of the INL (and within 10 miles of the 

48 proposed EREF) demonstrates this is a real hazard which warrants specific analysis.

49
I-233

1 [193-22, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] And my final point before I 

2 reach my conclusions are around fire. Fire poses an unacceptable risk to this facility. This 

3 radioactive waste, and the facility as a whole, will be threatened by wildfires at the proposed 

4 site, yet it is never addressed as an impact relevant to that specific geography in the EIS. The 

5 DEIS does not provide a detailed analysis of the threats posed by fire, and some of you might 

6 recall that just about, oh, three weeks ago, there was a huge fire over at the lab. The draft EIS 

7 specifically says fires often don’t occur east of the lab. Well, whoops -- let’s go back. 

8

9 Here’s the lab and this is east, and that’s the fire. So I’m pretty sure that fires occur east of the 

10 lab. 150,000 acres just burned there over Superfund sites. This is the proposed facility. Actually, 

11 if you looked at their map, it might even be a little closer. But this is about 10 miles. The EIS 

12 evaluates earthquake risk specific to this geography. It evaluates flood risk specific to this 

13 geography. It evaluates weather risks specific to this geography. It does not evaluate wildfires 

14 specific to this geography. And it absolutely must. 

15

16 [192-16, Lisa Young] Indeed, I hope to see further examination of accident scenarios involving 

17 large wildfires around the facility, as well as accident scenarios involving the transportation of 

18 radioactive substances to and from the facility on our roads and highways.

19

20 Response: All credible accidents at the proposed EREF, including those initiated by natural 

21 events, were considered in the accident analysis. Although wildfires can occur in areas 

22 surrounding the facility, an accident associated with a wildfire was not considered a credible risk 

23 to the facility due to the nature of the surrounding topography and vegetation (low density, low 

24 height), vegetation management measures used onsite, the distance to the controlled area 

25 boundary, and the resistance of UF6 storage cylinders and process structures to fire by their 

26 design and materials.

27

28

29 I.5.22 Decontamination and Decommissioning

30

31 Comment: The following comment expresses concern regarding the future decommissioning of 

32 the proposed EREF.

33

34 [008-02, Carol Bachelder] And it’s interesting to me, that we’re already talking about 

35 decommission, and this isn’t even “off the ground” yet. I mean, the plant is set for 30 years, 

36 that’s all a nuclear plant can operate, is 30 years, and then you have to take it down, and it sits 

37 there, being radioactive, for how many generations? I don’t even know.

38

39 Response: The proposed EREF is not a nuclear power plant. The proposed EREF site would 

40 be returned to free release conditions following the decommissioning process, as discussed in 

41 Section 4.2.16 of the EIS.

42

43

44 Comment: The following comments relate to the source and adequacy of funding for the 

45 cleanup of the EREF site following cessation of operations of the proposed EREF. 

46

47 [050-09, Joanie Fauci] Who will pay for the cleanup of this site?

48
I-234

1 [066-02, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 1. 

2 Financial Assurance - a. Section 2.1.4.3. states: 

3

4 Decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed EREF would be funded in accordance 

5 with the Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) for the proposed EREF (AES, 201Ob). The 

6 DFP, prepared by AES in accordance with 10 CFR 70.25(a) and the guidance in NUREG-/757 

7 (NRC, 2006), would provide information required by 10 CFR 70.25(e) regarding AES’s plans for 

8 funding the decommissioning of the proposed EREF and the disposal of depleted uranium tails 

9 generated as a result of plant operations. Funding would be provided by AES by means of a 

10 Letter of Credit in accordance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 70 and guidance in 

11 NUREG-1757 (NRC, 2006).

12

13 However, Section 2.1.4.3 further states:

14

15 A complete estimate of the wastes and effluent to be produced during decommissioning would 

16 be provided in the Decommissioning Plan that AES would submit prior to the start of the 

17 decommissioning.

18

19 Please explain how an adequate cost estimate for the Decommission Funding Plan can be 

20 prepared in the absence of a complete inventory/estimate of decommissioning wastes.

21

22 b. Due to NRC’s approval of pre licensing construction activities at the site, DEQ requests NRC 

23 explain in this EIS whether Financial Assurance Mechanisms similar to a “Decommissioning 

24 Funding Plan” and associated financial assurance mechanisms have been required of the 

25 Applicant concerning decommissioning and restoration to unrestricted use should the facility not 

26 receive a license or initiate a business based withdrawal of the license application.

27

28 [147-10, Joey Schueler] 6. The term of this plant is 30 years, after which time the plant will be 

29 decommissioned. This means 30 years of revenues and 50 to 100 to into perpetuity years of 

30 cost and impact on Idaho’s wilderness and economy. Will Areva still be paying for this cost? No, 

31 the cost will fall to Idaho taxpayers. 

32

33 Response: AES is required by the NRC’s regulations under 10 CFR 20.1402 to fund the 

34 cleanup of the proposed EREF site during decommissioning, as discussed in Section 2.1.4.3 of 

35 the EIS. A summary breakdown of the estimated decommissioning costs is provided in 

36 Chapter 10 of the SAR. The majority of the costs (excluding tails disposal) are associated with 

37 the dismantlement, decontamination, processing, and disposal of centrifuges and other 

38 equipment in the Separations Building Modules. These estimates are based on the centrifuge 

39 manufacturer’s prior decommissioning experience and current practices for decontamination 

40 and disposal. The DFP must be adjusted periodically at intervals not to exceed three years as 

41 required by the NRC’s regulations under 10 CFR 70.25(e), thereby ensuring that the funding 

42 plan is up-to-date using the latest available information.

43

44 Should the license application be withdrawn or the license not be granted, no nuclear material 

45 would have been present onsite. Thus, the site would have always been available for 

46 unrestricted use, and no decontamination or decommissioning would be necessary.

47

48
I-235

1 Comment: The following comment states that NRC license holders are required to provide 

2 financial assurance for decommissioning.

3

4 [157-01, Hon. Erik Simpson] Historically, nuclear projects being discussed in eastern Idaho 

5 are DOE actions. I just want to remind people, this is not a DOE action. NRC license holders are 

6 required to provide financial assurance for decommissioning. They must prove to the NRC that 

7 funds will be adequate for decommissioning. They must fund it before operations start. The 

8 licensees are required to periodically review and update this funding, and with this license 

9 requirement, there is no chance waste will be left behind, or that Idaho will be left with cleanup 

10 responsibility for the AREVA facility.

11

12 Response: The information in this comment is accurate.

13

14

15 Comment: The following comment asks about the location(s) to which equipment that is to be 

16 removed from, or replaced in, the proposed EREF would be stored or transported.

17

18 [129-05, Willie Preacher, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] The AREVA 

19 Enrichment Project will be in existence for a number of years, how many shutdowns, equipment 

20 upgrades, or modifications will be anticipated during the life cycle of this process? Where will 

21 equipment that is to be removed or replaced be stored or transported to, will it be left within the 

22 facility or will it be transported out of state?

23

24 Response: Shutdowns, upgrades, and modifications would be dependent on equipment 

25 performance and future design improvements and cannot be accurately determined at this time.

26 Any equipment with radioactive contamination that is not decontaminated for free release after 

27 use would necessarily be transported to, and disposed of, at an appropriately licensed LLRW

28 disposal facility. The locations of such facilities would depend on which facilities are licensed at 

29 the times of disposal. Information on anticipated wastes generated during operation of the 

30 proposed EREF is presented in Section 4.2.11 of the EIS. 

31

32

33 Comment: The following comments express concern about NRC accepting a letter of credit 

34 from AES as the method of assuring funds for decommissioning of the proposed EREF.

35

36 [015-16, Beatrice Brailsford] The entire conundrum of storage, treatment, and disposal goes 

37 hand in hand with the eventual challenges of decommissioning the EREF. The costs of those 

38 activities are pegged at $3.5 billion. The NRC, an agency charged with protecting the interests 

39 of US citizens, must not settle for a letter of credit from Areva to cover these costs. At the very 

40 least, the NRC must require a surety bond.

41

42 [187-03, John Weber] In section 10.0, one difference between the AREVA plant and the 

43 National Enrichment Facility is -- this is quoted: “AES will utilize a letter of credit to provide 

44 reasonable assurance of decommissioning funding, rather than a surety bond.” Why is that? We 

45 all currently know, after the last financial crisis, that a letter of credit is basically a worthless 

46 piece of paper. They have many risks a couple of them, including insolvency of the Applicant 

47 and insolvency of the bank issuing the letter of credit. 

48
I-236

1 Response: A letter of credit to assure funds for decommissioning is an acceptable financial 

2 assurance method, as indicated in the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 70.25(e). 

3

4

5 Comment: The following comments express concern that restoring the proposed EREF site to 

6 unrestricted use after the end of the license period might not occur because of funding issues.

7

8 [083-05, Diane Jones] How can we expect the company to -- whose financial future is 

9 uncertain, to be able to guarantee that they will bear the cost of treating all that waste and 

10 disposing of all that waste, when the process for disposing of the waste is not even known? This 

11 seems highly reckless to me, and not a very sound economical calculation.

12

13 [129-04, Willie Preacher, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes] Will the cost amount 

14 that has been set aside for the D&D of the facility after the mission is complete be enough and 

15 is there a guarantee that it will have be done and not a facility left standing in the desert west of 

16 Idaho falls. 

17

18 [154-03, Diana Shipley] They are asking for loan guarantees from the United States 

19 government and I wonder who will be left to clean up the waste and pay the bills if they bail out? 

20

21 Response: As part of its license conditions, AES would be required to restore the proposed 

22 EREF site to unrestricted use. Funding for decontamination and decommissioning would be 

23 provided by AES in accordance with the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 70.25(e), as discussed in 

24 Section 2.1.4.3 of the EIS.

25

26

27 I.5.23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

28

29 Comment: The comment discusses the importance of enriched uranium in reducing 

30 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

31

32 [067-06, Mike Hart] Also, they took exception with the cause and need for action. I think there’s 

33 most definitely a need for this, because there’s a need for carbon-free energy. Throughout the 

34 world, I think we’ve seen that global warming is a significant problem that we need to be paying 

35 attention to, and there’s also a demand for growth in nuclear energy. There’s a couple of facts I 

36 want to point out why we need nuclear energy, why we need this particular enrichment plant.

37

38 Carbon dioxide reflects, or absorbs, infrared energy that does not go back out to space. It 

39 makes the planet warmer. That’s simply a fact. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Levels of 

40 carbon dioxide have gone from 288 parts per million in 1850 to 369 parts per million in the year 

41 2000. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. That is a greenhouse gas that is increasing in 

42 concentration. But I’ll give you a hint as to where it’s coming from: fossil energy. In 1990s, we 

43 annually contribute 6.3 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through fossil 

44 combustion. That’s annual, 6.3 gigatons. The concern about 300,000 metric tons, 300,000 tons 

45 of total waste versus 6.3 gigatons in a single year, I view the problem with carbon as much more 

46 significant than the problem with depleted uranium.

47
I-237

1 So, what is a gigaton? Why is that a concern? Well, 2.3 gigatons is one part per million of 

2 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, every year we are steadily increasing carbon dioxide. So, 

3 yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, it’s our fault. Yes, carbon puts more of that in the 

4 atmosphere, and I think nuclear energy is a stopgap that will – is worth pursuing. So, yes, there 

5 is a need.

6

7 Energy demands are increasing worldwide. Currently, the population of the planet is about 

8 4.5 billion. By 2050, that will double, and people are not less energy consumptive. Populations 

9 like China and India used to be in the Third World. They have bought the second world, and 

10 they’ve placed a firm down payment on the first one. So, energy consumption will go up as the 

11 population goes up, so even if nuclear energy just holds its own at 15 percent, there will be a 

12 need for more nuclear plants, and that means there will be a need for more enriched uranium.

13

14 Response: The NRC acknowledges the comment and appreciates the public participation.

15

16

17 Comment: The following comment asks about the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

18 emissions associated with the operation of the proposed facility on air quality and climate 

19 change over the 30-year period of the license.

20

21 [140-08, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

22 Field Office] What would be the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases emissions associated 

23 with the operation of the facility on air quality and climate change over the thirty year period?

24

25 Response: GHG impacts associated with the proposed EREF are discussed in Section 4.2.17 

26 of the EIS. Impacts from preconstruction and construction are addressed separately from 

27 impacts associated with operation. Workforce commuting, truck shipments of feedstocks, 

28 finished enriched product and wastes, and onsite fossil fuel consumption in support of 

29 operations are all considered for their contributions to GHG emissions during facility operation.

30 Conservative assumptions were applied wherever possible (e.g., it was assumed that the 

31 majority of the workforce commuted from Idaho Falls and that no carpools or vanpools would be

32 used) to ensure that a maximum possible GHG emission (i.e., a bounding condition) was 

33 calculated. However, for simplicity, all GHG emissions were represented as carbon dioxide 

34 (CO2) equivalents (CO2-e). 

35

36 Tables 4-35 and 4-36 display the estimated annual emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents 

37 (CO2-e) (emissions of all of the GHGs produced, represented as CO2) associated with 

38 workforce commuting and deliveries to and from the proposed facility during operation, 

39 respectively. Annual values were calculated, based on the assumptions specified in 

40 Section 4.2.17.4. However, although those assumptions collectively represent a feasible 

41 condition of operation, the NRC has no basis for assuming that those operational conditions will 

42 remain unchanged throughout the life of the facility. Likewise, although the points of origin and 

43 destinations of shipments associated with facility operation are feasible for the purpose of 

44 defining a bounding condition, the NRC notes that alternative sources of feedstocks as well as 

45 alternative destinations for enriched product and wastes also exist. Thus, the NRC staff 

46 believes that calculating the cumulative impact of 30 years of operation on the basis of the 

47 bounding scenario would be highly speculative and would not yield reliable estimates of 

48 cumulative impacts. Further, simply multiplying the values contained in Tables 4-35 and 4-36 
I-238

1 by 30 would be an overly simplistic way of estimating lifetime GHG emissions because it would 

2 ignore alternative sources of feedstock, alternative customers for enriched product, and the use 

3 of alternative waste disposal facilities, as well as operational changes due to changing market 

4 conditions over the proposed facility’s lifetime. However, because the assumptions used to 

5 define the bounding condition were all intentionally conservative, GHG emissions over the 

6 proposed facility’s lifetime would be no greater than 30 times the values represented in 

7 Tables 4-35 and 4-36.

8

9

10 Comment: The following comments raise concerns about the adequacy of the GHG emissions 

11 section of the Draft EIS (Section 4.2.17).

12

13 [015-22, Beatrice Brailsford] With regard to assertions about EREF’s role in reducing 

14 greenhouse gas emissions and the claim that EREF will serve as a greenhouse gas “sink,” such 

15 reasoning omits the environmental and public health threats caused by EREF’s operations, from 

16 uranium mining to disposal of reactor waste and reactor decommissioning. If the EIS takes the 

17 illogical leap of crediting EREF for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the NRC is compelled 

18 to likewise credit EREF for the documented threats posed by the nuclear power industry 

19 throughout its fuel and waste cycles.

20

21 [113-13, Ken Miller] With regard to assertions about EREF’s role in reducing greenhouse gas 

22 emissions and the outlandish claim at Draft 4- 136 that EREF will serve as a greenhouse gas 

23 “sink,” such a tertiary benefit (theoretically reducing the operation of traditional coal plants and 

24 as a result their emissions), such reasoning omits the environmental and public health threats 

25 caused by EREF’s operations, from uranium mining to disposal of reactor waste and reactor 

26 decommissioning. If the EIS takes the illogical leap of crediting EREF for reducing greenhouse 

27 gas emissions, the NRC is compelled to likewise credit EREF for the documented threats posed 

28 by the nuclear energy industry throughout its fuel and waste cycles.

29

30 [153-09, Andrea Shipley; 197-09, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] 

31 The draft EIS (4-136) stretches credulity in attaching “Green House Gas sink” attributes to 

32 EREF. The reasoning in the EIS is that the project should be considered a greenhouse sink 

33 because it would produce enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors that might replace 

34 traditional coal and other fossil fuel plants. By this logic, my car is a GHG sink when I am not 

35 driving it. This tertiary GHG benefit is improper particularly in light of the EIS’s failure to 

36 acknowledge the secondary and tertiary environmental and public health threats created by 

37 EREF and its operations, from uranium mining to disposal of reactor waste and reactor 

38 decommissioning. If the EIS credits EREF for such greenhouse gas emission reductions due to 

39 its contribution to nuclear reactors, it must also credit EREF for the known environmental and 

40 health threats that are also attributed to the same nuclear reactors.

41

42 [184-14, Kitty Vincent] The draft EIS (4-136) stretches credulity in attaching “greenhouse gas 

43 sink” attributes to EREF. The reasoning is that the project should be considered a greenhouse 

44 gas sink because it would produce fuel for use in nuclear reactors that might replace fossil fuel 

45 plants. This tertiary GHG claim is improper particularly in light of the EIS’s failure to 

46 acknowledge the secondary and tertiary environmental and health threats created by EREF and 

47 its operations and the operations of nuclear reactors, from uranium mining to transportation, 

48 disposal of reactor waste and reactor decommissioning.

49
I-239

1 [191-22, Liz Woodruff] The draft EIS (4-136) stretches credulity in attaching “GHG sink”

2 attributes to EREF. The reasoning in the EIS is that the project should be considered a 

3 greenhouse sink because it would produce enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors that 

4 might replace traditional coal and other fossil fuel plants. This tertiary GHG benefit is improper 

5 particularly in light of the EIS’s failure to acknowledge the secondary and tertiary environmental 

6 and public health threats created by EREF and its operations, from uranium mining to disposal 

7 of reactor waste and reactor decommissioning. If the EIS credits EREF for such greenhouse 

8 gas emission reductions due to its contribution to nuclear reactors, it must also credit EREF for 

9 the known environmental and health threats that are also attributed to the same nuclear 

10 reactors.

11

12 Response: The NRC’s analysis of GHG impacts was performed in a manner consistent with the 

13 draft Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (CEQ, 2010) and addressed only GHG 

14 emissions associated directly with production of baseload power. The hypothetical scenario that 

15 the NRC staff selected was intended to represent a bounding condition, but is nevertheless 

16 feasible because it represents a situation where the entire potential annual output of enriched 

17 uranium from the proposed EREF is used to fabricate fuel that is deployed in U.S. reactors. Coal 

18 was chosen for comparison because coal currently provides a large percentage of baseload power 

19 (in fact, coal combustion for power generation is the largest single source of GHG emissions in the 

20 country) and, among the fossil fuels presently used for baseload power production, coal has the 

21 greatest GHG footprint (in terms of amount of GHG emitted per kWh of power produced).

22

23 However, the NRC acknowledges here that use of the term “GHG sink” in the EIS was imprecise 

24 and a source of confusion. A GHG sink is capable of removing GHGs from the atmosphere and 

25 sequestering it indefinitely and not something that prevents the release of GHG. Although 

26 objections to the use of the term “GHG sink” may be well founded, the argument clearly made in 

27 the EIS text is that use of a nuclear reactor instead of a coal-fired power plant to generate baseload 

28 power will avoid the release of GHGs to the atmosphere. Since the NRC cannot control the 

29 transmission system operator’s use of the generator dispatch queue, the idea that a nuclear 

30 reactor would always be selected in deference to a coal-fired plant must remain hypothetical. 

31 However, when such a selection of generating source is made, avoidance of GHG emissions will 

32 result.

33

34 With respect to suggestions that other environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle must be 

35 introduced into the analysis, these were not considered because the analysis was not intended to 

36 be a complete life-cycle assessment. To expand the argument to a full life-cycle assessment 

37 would have obligated the NRC to also introduce other environmental impacts across the entirety of 

38 the coal fuel cycle. Instead, the analysis was intended to focus only on the matter of GHG 

39 emissions related directly to electricity production in a manner consistent with the CEQ guidance. 

40

41 To avoid any confusion, NRC has amended the text in Section 4.2.17 to clarify the parameters of 

42 its analysis and to focus on a nuclear reactor’s ability to avoid the release of GHG rather than its 

43 ability to act as a GHG sink.

44

45
I-240

1 I.5.24 Terrorism

2

3 Comment: The following comment states the Draft EIS did not estimate the probability of 

4 terrorism.

5

6 [141-04, Peter Rickards] 2) While the DEIS does not address disgruntled employee sabotage, 

7 it at least acknowledges that terrorism could happen, during transport and at the facility. On 

8 page 396/430 the DEIS actually admits that terrorism would equal the full release of a severe 

9 transportation accident. However, the DEIS refuses to estimate the probability of terrorism, 

10 allowing licensing by the usual trick of pretending a severe transport accident will never happen, 

11 using probability math. By hiding behind probability math, the high doses the public can receive 

12 are dismissed as acceptable risk. 

13

14 While the public decides which energy policy is better for their families safety, 

15 windmills/solar/geothermal vs. nuclear power, hiding the profound devastating impacts of these 

16 accidents and terrorism is misleading and unacceptable.

17

18 Response: The NRC considered a number of potential terrorist scenarios, including those 

19 involving disgruntled employees, in its review. The impacts evaluated are representative of a 

20 range of what could occur, as presented in Section 4.2.18.2 of the EIS. 

21

22 The consideration of terrorism in the EIS does not include an estimate of probability because, as 

23 discussed in Section 4.2.18.2, the likelihood of occurrence of any terrorist scenario is 

24 speculative and cannot be determined. Thus, there is no discussion of risk, only the 

25 presentation of potential impacts should a terrorist attack occur. Section 4.2.18.3 presents a 

26 number of potential mitigation measures, to be imposed by the NRC, which would either help 

27 avoid or lessen the consequence of such an event.

28

29

30 Comment: The following comment questions statements in the Draft EIS regarding the public 

31 health effects of an HF plume at the proposed EREF.

32

33 [141-06, Peter Rickards] 4) Pages 397&8/430 claims an HF plume at the facility may affect 

34 1,900 members of the public, but also claims no fatalities, which seems untrue without detailed 

35 explanation to justify the dismissal of severe impact, including death.

36

37 Response: As stated in Section 4.2.18.2 of the EIS, the referred 1900 members of the public is 

38 for a different DOE facility used as a reference point in the analysis for the proposed EREF, 

39 where up to three irreversible health effects were estimated, of which about 1 percent, or fewer 

40 than one (0.03), would result in fatality. The text in Section 4.2.18.2 notes that “it is expected

41 that much fewer than 1900 members of the public could be affected in the vicinity of the 

42 proposed EREF because the DOE analysis was for a location with a higher population density 

43 (>34,000 people within 16 kilometers [10 miles]) than that of the proposed EREF location, which 

44 has no appreciable population within 16 kilometers (10 miles).” The risk of fatality would also be 

45 correspondingly lower than this already low level.

46

47 Exposure to HF produces a wide range of health effects ranging from irritation of the eye, nose,

48 and skin to possible death depending on the HF concentration in air and duration of exposure.

49 Low-level exposures produce reversible health effects, as described in Section 3.11.3.3 of the 
I-241

1 EIS. The estimated concentrations in HF plumes produced in release scenarios are at sublethal 

2 concentrations beyond the proposed EREF site boundary. 

3

4

5 I.5.25 Cumulative Impacts

6

7 Comment: The following comment points out the need to address impacts from the proposed 

8 EREF project in the distant future. 

9

10 [077-02, Larry Hyatt] I just want to make one point in addition to what I said briefly in Boise, 

11 was -- that is, the issue of stewardship. As you all know, human activity has results that we have 

12 to live with for years, potentially hundreds, and maybe even thousands of years. But it is critical 

13 in an evaluation like this in terms of its environmental impact that we seriously consider the year 

14 5010.

15

16 Response: As required under NEPA, in the EIS, the NRC staff has assessed all reasonably 

17 foreseeable activities and impacts associated with the preconstruction, construction, operation, 

18 and decommissioning of the proposed EREF project.

19

20

21 Comment: The following comment asks if a redundant source of electrical power is a 

22 requirement for operation of the proposed EREF, if AES has future plans to route a redundant 

23 transmission line, and if a redundant source of electrical power is a reasonably foreseeable 

24 future action that should be addressed in the cumulative impacts section of the EIS.

25

26 [140-01, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

27 Field Office] 1) A reading of the draft document makes clear that one criterion used to select 

28 the enrichment facility site was the presence of a redundant electrical power supply. It is further 

29 presented in Table 2-3 that the Bonneville County site passed Phase I screening indicating that 

30 there is a redundant power source available for the plant. However, the potential environmental 

31 impacts of the construction and use of a redundant power supply is not discussed under Utilities 

32 (2.1.3.2) (under the Proposed Action), nor is it discussed in the Environmental Impacts section 

33 of the document. The construction and use of a redundant power source is not considered as a 

34 reasonably foreseeable future action under the cumulative impacts section either.

35

36 These facts lead the BLM to ask: Is a redundant source of electrical power a requirement of the 

37 plants operation? If so, where would the redundant source come from? As you know, areas to 

38 the west of the plant (where a potential source of redundant power is available) are managed by 

39 the Idaho National Laboratory (INL; Department of Energy). Non-mission essential rights-of way 

40 (ROWs) on these lands are administered by the BLM, Upper Snake Field Office. Does AES 

41 have future plans to route a redundant transmission line across INL and BLM-administered 

42 lands?

43

44 Response: The NRC does not require that the proposed EREF have a redundant source of 

45 electrical power, and the absence of a redundant source does not raise a safety issue, as 

46 determined by the NRC’s safety review. The NRC is unaware of future plans that AES may 

47 have regarding a redundant source of electrical power.

48

49
I-242

1 Comment: The following comment expresses concerns regarding the cumulative impacts 

2 section of the Draft EIS, in particular with regard to the definition of the ROIs for each resource;

3 the limited discussion of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may 

4 contribute to cumulative impacts (particularly for past actions); and the cumulative impact 

5 analysis for the no-action alternative.

6

7 [140-05, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

8 Field Office] 4) The BLM would also like to express some concerns with the cumulative impact 

9 analysis section of the document. The NRC is correct in citing the regulations at 40 CFR§ 

10 1508.7 for the definition of what a cumulative impact is and in discussing the fact that ROI’s (we 

11 assume this is equivalent to a cumulative impact assessment area) can, and most likely, would 

12 be different for each resource affected.

13

14 The primary concerns from the BLM’s point of view is that the ROI’s are not defined for each 

15 resource, a cumulative impact baseline is not established for each ROI, and there is relatively 

16 little discussion of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may contribute 

17 to cumulative impacts (particularly for past actions). Although in some cases past and present 

18 actions and their impacts are discussed (although the intensity of the impact is not), the

19 emphasis seems to be on the reiteration of the direct and indirect impact presentation. Further, 

20 a cumulative impact analysis should be conducted for each resource affected by the proposed 

21 action and no action alternative, which is not evident in this section (for additional guidance, 

22 please refer to the Council on Environmental Quality’s [CEQ’s] 1997 publication, Considering 

23 Cumulative Effects Under the National Environment Policy Act).

24

25 Response: Section 4.3 of the EIS defines the ROI radius of the proposed EREF for cumulative 

26 impacts for each resource area analyzed as 16 kilometers (10 miles), except for 

27 socioeconomics, for which the ROI is defined as 80 kilometers (50 miles). Impacts on 

28 resources from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within these distances 

29 are analyzed if the actions would affect the resource. Effects on the entire resource are 

30 analyzed, even if the resource extends beyond 10 miles, for example, an ecoregion, in the case 

31 of the 10-mile ROI. Within the 10-mile ROI, the actual geographic extent of effects may be less 

32 than 10 miles for a given resource. Cumulative impacts are analyzed accordingly within the 

33 resource area discussions. The 10-mile and 50-mile ROIs thus represent threshold distances 

34 for identifying actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts on resources.

35

36 The cumulative impacts analysis in Section 4.3 considers the impacts of past actions mainly on 

37 resources that have been significantly impacted in the past and that will incur additional impacts 

38 from future actions, such as soils and ecological resources. For resources with relatively low 

39 past impacts, such as air quality, the analysis focuses on incremental impacts from foreseeable 

40 actions. A brief summary of major past actions, namely agriculture and the INL, has been 

41 added to the introduction of Section 4.3.

42

43 Section 4.3 of the EIS also notes that cumulative impacts associated with the no-action 

44 alternative would be generally less than those for the proposed action, with the exception of 

45 socioeconomic impacts. Within the 10-mile ROI for all other resources, the no-action alternative 

46 would have no impacts, as no other foreseeable actions occur within this distance, and the site 

47 would be expected to continue to be used for agriculture. A statement to this effect has been 
I-243

1 added to the introduction of Section 4.3. The revised cumulative impacts analysis takes into 

2 account CEQ’s guidance (CEQ, 1997) and BLM’s NEPA handbook (BLM, 2008).

3

4

5 Comment: The following comment asks about the cumulative impact to sage grouse from the 

6 implementation of the proposed action and the no-action alternative, and how long the effects

7 would last.

8

9 [140-06, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

10 Field Office] What would be the cumulative impact to sage grouse from the implementation of 

11 the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative? How long would the effects last?

12

13 Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.7 of the EIS, the contribution to cumulative impacts 

14 from the proposed EREF project on ecological resources would be SMALL. Text has been 

15 added to Section 4.3.7 to include sage-grouse. The effects would last for the life of the 

16 proposed transmission line and EREF site facilities that would affect sage-grouse. The no17 action alternative would have no impacts beyond current site use for agriculture because no 

18 other foreseeable actions occur within the 10-mile ROI.

19

20

21 Comment: The following comment asks about the incremental impact on air quality, soil 

22 resources, vegetation, wildlife, and grazing livestock from the periodic releases of small 

23 amounts of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) over the 30-year life of the facility.

24

25 [140-07, Wendy Reynolds, on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management, Upper Snake 

26 Field Office] What would be the incremental impact on air quality, soil resources, vegetation, 

27 wildlife and grazing livestock from the periodic release of small amounts of UF6 over the thirty 

28 year life of the facility?

29

30 Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.10 of the EIS, offsite air concentrations of uranium 

31 compounds would be below detection limits and would be expected to have a SMALL impact 

32 over the life of the facility. No measurable incremental impacts of any resource outside of the 

33 proposed EREF security fence would be expected due to the low anticipated emission rate of 

34 uranium from the proposed facility.

35

36 A conservative calculation estimates that existing (background) uranium soil concentrations, as 

37 listed in Table 3-16 of the EIS, would increase approximately 2 percent (less than the standard 

38 deviation of the soil measurements) immediately outside the proposed EREF security fence if 

39 30 years of uranium emissions from the proposed EREF were considered. If 527 microcuries of 

40 uranium were released on an annual basis, as discussed in Section 4.2.10.2 (AES estimates 

41 actual releases will be about 3 percent of that value), a total of about 15,810 microcuries would 

42 be released over the 30-year life of the facility. Considering a release of that amount, an 

43 increase of about 34 pCi/kg of uranium in the soil would be expected using the atmospheric 

dispersion factor in Table 4-17 (1.80 × 10-5 s/m3

), the deposition velocity of 1.8 × 10-3 44 m/s in 

Table E-6, an estimated soil density of 1.5 g/cm3 45 , and a mixing depth of 1 cm. For comparison 

46 with Table 3-16, the value of 34 pCi/kg is approximately 2 percent of the combined uranium 

47 isotope values and less than the standard deviation of the soil concentration measurements.

48 Moving further away from the proposed EREF, the corresponding soil concentrations at the 
I-244

1 nearest proposed site boundary where grazing could occur would be 20 percent less than the 

2 value at the security fence. Thus, the impacts to soil and dependent resources such as 

3 vegetation, wildlife, and grazing livestock would be SMALL and immeasurable.

4

5

6 Comment: The following comment states that the EIS should provide cumulative risk analysis 

7 regarding the amount of hazardous or toxic materials to be imported and exported across state 

8 lines.

9

10 [027-08, Sara Cohn] The draft EIS should provide cumulative risk analysis regarding the 

11 amount of hazardous or toxic materials to be imported and exported across state lines.

12

13 Response: Such a cumulative impact analysis is beyond the scope of the EIS, as the ROI for 

14 cumulative impacts (i.e., 10 miles) does not extend to the State borders. The risks of 

15 transporting materials to and from the EREF and the impacts on waste management from EREF 

16 operations under the proposed action alone are analyzed in Sections 4.2.9 and 4.2.11 of the 

17 EIS, respectively. 

18

19

20 Comment: The following comment indicates that economic impacts regarding income and tax 

21 revenues should also be evaluated in the EIS on a cumulative basis.

22

23 [124-03, Lane Packwood] I found it somewhat interesting that the EIS does take kind of a 

24 “sliced bread” approach to income and taxes. They look at one year within preconstruction, one 

25 year in construction, one year of operation, and take a look at what those revenues are, when, 

26 in fact, we would encourage you to look at the length of -- or the lifetime of the facility. That’s all 

27 a cumulative impact. 

28

29 Response: In Section 4.2.12 of the EIS, economic impacts of the proposed EREF are analyzed 

30 on an annual basis during both the construction and operation periods of the proposed facility.

31 These benefits would accrue over the life of the facility. Chapter 7 of the EIS (Benefit-Cost 

32 Analysis) provides the total (i.e., summed over all years of the project) employment, income,

33 and fiscal impacts of the project.

34

35

36 Comment: The following comment recommends that the EIS should consider all sources of air 

37 emissions and determine the contribution of each source to air quality, and that the Final EIS

38 should include information to allow accurate air quality impacts and mitigation measures and 

39 their effectiveness to be determined. 

40

41 [138-03, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

42 Region 10] Air quality may also be impacted due to cumulative impacts from surrounding 

43 activities such as agriculture and fire, herbicides to treat invasive plant species, and continued 

44 management of radioactive materials at nearby Idaho National Laboratory. The EIS should 

45 consider all sources of emissions and determine the contribution of each source to air quality -

46 negative or positive. Because the DEIS does not include refined analysis of emissions from 

47 sources that are utilizing appropriate control technologies and more detailed construction 
I-245

1 activities and schedules (p. 4-12), we recommend that the final EIS include that information so 

2 accurate air quality impacts and mitigation measures and their effectiveness can be determined.

3

4 Response: Air quality impact assessments from preconstruction and construction in the EIS are 

5 based on all preconstruction- and construction-related information currently available. A more 

6 detailed assessment is not possible until a specific construction schedule is developed by AES,

7 and such a schedule will not be available in time for publication of the Final EIS. Nevertheless, 

8 it is the NRC’s expectation that AES will be required to submit such a schedule, at the 

9 appropriate time, to IDEQ and to Bonneville County in pursuit of necessary construction permits 

10 and approvals.

11

12 Ambient air quality for Bonneville County for 2008 was summarized in Section 3.5.3.1 of the 

13 EIS; all values were below their respective NAAQS values. EPA guidance regarding the use of 

14 its AERMOD dispersion model indicates that circumstantial factors such as other sources of air 

15 releases in the region of interest need not be quantified, but should be considered in the 

16 interpretation of the dispersion modeling results (Federal Register [70 FR 68218]). Appropriate 

17 identification and consideration of those other sources of air pollution in the area are provided in 

18 Section 3.5.3. Decisions regarding amendment to Idaho’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

19 might involve installation of a new ambient air quality monitoring station in the area of the 

20 proposed EREF project are outside of the NRC’s authority and, therefore, outside the scope of 

21 the EIS and instead are the province of IDEQ. The NRC staff believes that the expected short 

22 duration of NAAQS exceedance does not argue for a long-term commitment to ambient air 

23 quality monitoring in this area.

24

25

26 Comment: The following comment recommends that the routes for some proposed new 

27 transmission lines be part of their own NEPA process. 

28

29 [197-15, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] It is recommended that the 

30 routes for some proposed new transmission lines be part of its own NEPA process, because of 

31 potential impacts to wildlife and the land.

32

33 Response: In Section 4.3 of the EIS, the impacts of the proposed new 161-kilovolt (kV) line that 

34 would power the proposed EREF are analyzed as cumulative impacts within the ROI of the 

35 facility, and as such, analyzed according to the route currently proposed by AES and Rocky 

36 Mountain Power. Impacts on wildlife and land use are considered in the analysis. The 

37 proposed 161-kV transmission line discussed in the EIS is the only new transmission line for the 

38 proposed EREF of which the NRC is aware.

39

40

41 Comment: The following comment maintains that the assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

42 EIS should include shipments to and storage and production at the offsite fuel fabrication facility.

43

44 [181-17, Roger Turner] Cumulative effects include Fuel Fabrication. The NEPA requires an 

45 assessment of cumulative impacts of this project. This would include additional shipments, 

46 storage and production at the off-site fuel fabrication facility. Please add this process, risks, to 

47 the cumulative evaluation of Areva plant.

48
I-246

1 Response: Impacts at a fuel fabrication facility are beyond the scope of this EIS, which is for 

2 the proposed EREF. Furthermore, the cumulative impacts analysis is concerned with impacts 

3 to resources from actions within a geographic ROI around the proposed EREF. No offsite fuel 

4 fabrication facility is within the ROI for affected resources.

5

6

7 Comment: The following comments express a position that a proposed route for the Mountain 

8 States Transmission Intertie (MSTI) near the proposed EREF is not certain and should not be 

9 included in cumulative impacts.

10

11 [113-11, Ken Miller] Furthermore, the routes for some proposed new transmission lines, 

12 including the proposed Mountain States Transmission Intertie (MSTI), have not been 

13 determined and as such should not be considered as certain future transmission infrastructure.

14

15 [184-19, Kitty Vincent; 191-28, Liz Woodruff] The routes for some proposed new 

16 transmission lines, including the proposed Mountain States Transmission Intertie, have not been 

17 determined and as such should not be considered as certain future transmission infrastructure.

18

19 [193-17, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] My next point is regarding 

20 transmission issues. The routes of some of the proposed new transmission lines, including the 

21 MSTI intertie, have not been determined. Those routes have not been concluded yet in our 

22 state, and thus should not be considered as certain future transmission infrastructure, as they 

23 are currently in the EIS. 

24

25 Response: The preferred route for the MSTI as identified by project developers is within 

26 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the proposed EREF site, and its construction is considered a 

27 reasonably foreseeable action affecting socioeconomics within the ROI. Analyzed actions need 

28 only be reasonably foreseeable to be included in the cumulative impacts analysis.

29

30

31 Comment: The following comments suggest that burying the transmission line to power the 

32 proposed EREF should be considered as an alternative, so as to minimize impacts to wildlife.

33

34 [113-05, Ken Miller] The idea of burying power lines, we believe, needs to be addressed in the 

35 EIS before it’s finalized, because we do believe -- we agree with the Department of Fish and 

36 Game -- that there will continue to be harmful impacts to birds, bats, and other wildlife. This is 

37 especially important given impacts of transmission line construction and operation could also 

38 include wildlife disturbance and mortality. 

39

40 Given all of that, we believe that to exempt the transmission work from – as preconstruction, 

41 and to exempt that from the EIS review needs to be reassessed. 

42

43 [113-12, Ken Miller] The Draft EIS should analyze the benefit of burying any additional 

44 transmission lines to minimize the known harmful impacts to birds, bats, and other wildlife.

45

46 [184-20, Kitty Vincent; 191-29, Liz Woodruff] The draft EIS should also analyze the benefits 

47 of burying any additional transmission lines to minimize the known harmful impacts to birds, 

48 bats and other wildlife. This is especially important given “impacts of transmission line 

49 construction and operation could also include wildlife disturbance and wildlife mortality.” (4-150)

50
I-247

1 [193-18, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] On another point on 

2 transmission, and this is very key, the DEIS should also analyze benefits of bearing any 

3 additional transmission lines, to minimize the known harmful impacts to wildlife in the area. This 

4 is especially important given that impacts of transmission lines will disturb wildlife and cause 

5 wildlife mortality.

6

7 [191-30, Liz Woodruff] The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in a response to the NRC 

8 dated April 14, reaffirmed the threats transmission lines would pose to wildlife (draft EIS B-26) 

9 and challenges the methodology of sage grouse and lek analysis in the EIS (B-27), 

10 recommends burying transmission lines, and suggests Areva submit to the NRC for review 

11 plans to mitigate for the expected wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been 

12 addressed in this EIS. 

13

14 Response: In Section 4.3 of the EIS, the cumulative impacts of a proposed, above-ground,

15 161-kV transmission line that would serve the proposed EREF are analyzed. Additional 

16 discussion of the potential effects of the transmission line on sage-grouse has been added to 

17 Section 4.3.7. This analysis concludes that the line would have SMALL contributions to 

18 cumulative impacts in all resource areas. However, text regarding monitoring of the 

19 transmission line right-of-way for avian mortality has been added to Section 6.2.2. Because the 

20 line is a small action compared to the proposed EREF, the assessment does not analyze 

21 impacts from alternative line designs. In any event, when evaluating the recommendation of 

22 IDFG to bury the transmission line, AES determined that it was not practical, safe, or standard 

23 utility company practice to bury high-voltage lines, such as the 161-kV line (AES, 2010e).

24

25

26 Comment: The following comments express concern that impacts from the transmission line 

27 should be considered as a direct action (i.e., more fully analyzed) rather than a cumulative 

28 impact. The predominant concern expressed is that impacts to wildlife were not adequately 

29 addressed as a result.

30

31 [015-19, Beatrice Brailsford] The NRC’s exemption authorizing Areva to undertake 

32 preconstruction activities should not include exempting utilities installations, including 

33 transmission lines and associated substations and other utility infrastructure. Installation of 80-

34 foot, 161kv transmission lines should not be considered as having “cumulative” impacts but 

35 rather direct impacts that must be analyzed in the EIS. But EREF could not operate without the 

36 transmission line, which is critical to the proposed action. The NRC therefore errs when it 

37 excludes this transmission line from the proposed action.

38

39 [113-04, Ken Miller] Installation of 80-foot tall, 161-kilovolt transmission lines should not be 

40 considered as having cumulative impacts, as referred to in the EIS, but rather direct impacts 

41 that must be analyzed in the EIS. Contrary to assertions, and this is in the Draft EIS 1-10, that 

42 this transmission line is not considered by the NRC to be part of the proposed action. EREF 

43 could not function without the transmission line, which is critical to the proposed action, and 

44 must be considered for its environmental impacts. 

45

46 The Draft EIS is in error when it suggests at page XLV that “impacts from the construction of a 

47 proposed new 161 KV transmission line, a substation, and substation upgrades for the 

48 proposed EREF are addressed as cumulative impacts in this EIS.” This action is not under 
I-248

1 NRC’s jurisdiction, according to the EIS, and therefore not considered by the NRC to be part of 

2 the proposed action. 

3

4 We don’t believe this is a defensible position. The EIS is replete with positive social and 

5 economic benefits from this project. Erecting 80-foot transmission towers and stringing power 

6 lines between them must be considered for their environmental impacts, just as Idaho’s 

7 Department of Fish and Game suggests. And I’ll skip through this, and the Fish and Game 

8 reference is in an April 14th letter of response to the NRC, which reaffirmed the threats 

9 transmission lines would pose to wildlife. This is on B-26, 27, and 28 in the EIS, and it 

10 challenges the methodology of sage grouse and lek analysis on the EIS. That’s at Draft B-27. It 

11 recommends burying transmission lines, and suggests that AREVA submit to the NRC for 

12 review plans to mitigate for their wildlife impacts.

13

14 [113-10, Ken Miller] On the issue of transmission, the NRC’s ill‐advised exemption that 

15 authorizes Areva to undertake preconstruction activities as not being part of the proposed action 

16 should not include exempting utilities installations, including transmission lines and associated 

17 substations and other utility infrastructure. Installation of 80-foot, 161-kV transmission lines 

18 should not be considered as having “cumulative” impacts but rather direct and immediate 

19 impacts that must be analyzed in the EIS. 

20

21 Contrary to assertions (DRAFT EIS 1-10) that “this transmission line is not considered by the 

22 NRC to be part of the proposed action,” EREF could not function without the transmission line, 

23 which is critical to the proposed action and must be considered for its environmental impacts. 

24 This EIS claims repeatedly that the NRC has no jurisdiction over transmission lines and 

25 therefore new transmission lines should not be considered as part of this EIS. Yet the NRC 

26 claims authority to determine that EREF deserved credit for being a greenhouse gas sink? 

27

28 This is not a defensible position. The EIS is replete with supposed “positive” social and 

29 economic benefits from this project. Erecting transmission towers and stringing power lines 

30 between them MUST be considered for their environmental impacts, just as Idaho’s Department 

31 of Fish and Game suggests. Actually, the installation and operation of this transmission line 

32 have everything to do with the proposed action, and the failure of the NRC to consider these 

33 impacts in the EIS phase cannot be defended, particularly given the acknowledgment by Areva 

34 and NRC that impacts of transmission line construction and operation could also include wildlife 

35 disturbance and wildlife mortality. The proposed transmission line route includes potentially 

36 suitable habitat for sage brush obligate species, including migratory bird species. The Idaho 

37 Department of Fish and Game’s response to the NRC, dated April 14, reaffirmed the threats 

38 transmission lines would pose to wildlife (Draft EIS B-26) and challenges the methodology of 

39 sage grouse and lek analysis n the EIS (Draft B-27), recommends burying transmission lines, 

40 and suggests that Areva submit to the NRC for review plans to mitigate for the expected wildlife 

41 impacts. 

42

43 [150-05, Katie Seevers] In addition to these concerns of effects to the environment, the Idaho 

44 Department of Fish and Game has reaffirmed threats to the transmission lines would pose to 

45 wildlife, which is discussed in the draft EIS, section B-26. With pronghorn antelope, sage 

46 grouse, and excuse me if I pronounce this wrong -- ferruginous hawks, all making their habitat 

47 on the proposed site, wildlife impact should be more closely examined by the NRC. 

48
I-249

1 [153-13, Andrea Shipley] The EREF could not function without the transmission line, which is 

2 critical to the proposed action. It is recommended that the routes for some proposed new 

3 transmission lines be part of its own NEPA process because of potential impacts to wildlife and 

4 the land.

5

6 [197-13, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] The EREF could not 

7 function without the transmission line, which is critical to the proposed action.

8

9 [184-18, Kitty Vincent; 191-27, Liz Woodruff] The NRC’s exemption that authorizes Areva to 

10 undertake preconstruction activities as not part of the proposed action (draft EIS xxvii) should 

11 not include exempting utilities installations, including transmission lines and associated 

12 substations and other utility infrastructure. Installation of 80-foot, 161-kV transmission lines 

13 should not be considered as having “cumulative” impacts but rather direct impacts that must be 

14 analyzed in the EIS. Contrary to assertions (draft EIS 1-10) that “this transmission line is not 

15 considered by the NRC to be part of the proposed action,” EREF could not function without the 

16 transmission line, which is critical to the proposed action.

17

18 [184-21, Kitty Vincent] The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in a response to NRC dated 

19 April 14, reaffirmed the threats transmission lines would pose to wildlife (draft EIS B-26) and 

20 challenges the methodology of sage grouse and leak analysis in the EIS (B-27), recommends 

21 burying transmission lines, and suggests Areva submit to plans to mitigate for the expected 

22 wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed in this EIS and must be 

23 addressed before any preconstruction activities are allowed or before this EIS review continues. 

24

25 [191-30, Liz Woodruff] The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in a response to the NRC 

26 dated April 14, reaffirmed the threats transmission lines would pose to wildlife (draft EIS B-26) 

27 and challenges the methodology of sage grouse and lek analysis in the EIS (B-27), 

28 recommends burying transmission lines, and suggests Areva submit to the NRC for review 

29 plans to mitigate for the expected wildlife impacts. These concerns do not appear to have been 

30 addressed in this EIS. 

31

32 [193-19, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] Now this is something that’s 

33 considered as a preconstruction impact in EIS, so this isn’t given the weight and the technical 

34 impact review, the small, moderate, and large that you saw.

35

36 But more specifically, in the EIS, in Appendix B, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game affirms 

37 that the threat to transmission lines would be great for wildlife, and they recommend barring 

38 transmission lines and suggest AREVA submit to plans to mitigate for the expected wildlife 

39 impacts. These concerns must be addressed in the EIS, before any preconstruction activities 

40 are allowed. 

41

42 Response: In Section 1.4.1 of the EIS, the reason the NRC staff has analyzed the impacts of 

43 the proposed new 161-kV transmission line, that would serve the proposed EREF, as 

44 cumulative impacts is provided. However, the transmission line is not exempted from the EIS 

45 review. The impacts of this line are analyzed in Section 4.3 as cumulative impacts within the 

46 ROI of the proposed EREF. In addition, the environmental review is not diminished by the fact 

47 that the impacts of the proposed transmission line are considered under cumulative impacts 

48 rather than direct impacts because all impacts within a 16-kilometer (10-mile) ROI of the 
I-250

1 proposed EREF are associated with the facility. Socioeconomic impacts consider additional 

2 actions out to 80 kilometers (50 miles).

3

4 The proposed 161-kV transmission line, while considered by the NRC as preconstruction, is 

5 analyzed under cumulative impacts as a foreseeable action. Because the line is necessary for 

6 operations of the proposed EREF, it is given particular attention in the EIS and its impacts are

7 fully analyzed. The analysis concludes that the proposed transmission line would have SMALL

8 contributions to cumulative impacts, including the cumulative impacts on ecological resources 

9 such as vegetation and birds.

10

11

12 Comment: The following comments express concern that a license extension for the proposed 

13 EREF is likely and that depleted uranium waste will be left on site after the original 30-year 

14 license period.

15

16 [015-05, Beatrice Brailsford] The most domestic part of the proposal is that the waste will, in 

17 fact, stay here. The plant would produce 320,000 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride over its 

18 licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the license to be extended. That waste might 

19 be stored on outdoor concrete pads above the Snake River aquifer until the plant is 

20 decommissioned. 

21

22 It’s worth noting that New Mexico sharply limits how much, and how long waste can stay at the 

23 plant there. The waste has to be treated before it can be disposed of. Two government-owned 

24 treatment plants are under construction, over budget, and behind schedule. Waste the U.S. has 

25 already accumulated will take a combined 43 years to process.

26

27 [015-14, Beatrice Brailsford] The EREF will produce more than 350,000 tonnes of depleted 

28 uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) over its licensed lifetime, and the door is already ajar for the 

29 license to be extended. That waste would be stored in 25,718 cylinders on outdoor concrete 

30 pads above the Snake River Aquifer as long as the plant operates. DUF6 is both radioactive 

31 and chemically toxic and has to be treated before it can be disposed of. The DOE has built two 

32 plants to treat depleted uranium hexafluoride waste the US has already accumulated. That 

33 treatment will take a combined 43 years to process. A private US corporation is seeking a 

34 license for its own treatment plant. The draft EIS cavalierly dismisses any potential bottlenecks 

35 by stating that the waste could simply be sent to the DOE treatment plants before they’re ready 

36 to process it and then their operating lives extended. But it is at least as likely that the DUF6 will 

37 be stored in Idaho for an uncertain length of time above the Snake River Aquifer, a sole source 

38 aquifer for nearly 300,000 people. Storage under these conditions must be fully evaluated under 

39 NEPA.

40

41 [045-01, Joan Drake] I write to oppose the construction of the Areva nuclear power plant. I am 

42 very concerned that the proposed plant would produce an estimated 320,000 tons of depleted 

43 uranium hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime. In view of this, and the fact that its license might 

44 well be extended, indications are that this waste would likely be stored in or near Idaho until the 

45 plant’s decommissioning. Even after its removal and treatment, there is no certain disposal 

46 pathway. The Areva plant should not be licensed until regulations are in place for the 

47 environmentally safe disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium. 

48
I-251

1 [086-03, Paula Jull] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tons of depleted uranium 

2 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste 

3 might be stored in Idaho until the plant was decommissioned. 

4

5 [095-05, Linda Leeuwrik] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium 

6 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste 

7 would likely be stored in Idaho until the plant was decommissioned. Even after it is removed and 

8 treated, there is no certain disposal pathway.

9

10 [097-01, Bryan Martin] So based on the capabilities of those facilities, and what’s going to be 

11 produced here – well, just based on what’s presently in existence, it would take over 22 years to 

12 deconvert all of the existing nuclear waste, leaving at least 22 years of depleted uranium, on site 

13 at Eagle Rock, before anything can be started.

14

15 And so that’s a concern, because then you have 22 years of waste that’s sitting on sites, that 

16 can then be shipped off, you know, as time progresses, but with that type of lag, it suggests that 

17 there will be waste present on site past the scheduled lifespan of the facility, that 30 years. And 

18 so that kind of begs the question of, well, are you expecting this to be a license extension? And 

19 so if that is the case, if that’s kind of implied, that should be something that should be addressed 

20 and discussed within the EIS before it’s finalized.

21

22 [122-01, Kathy O’Brien] I do not want the waste from this plant here in Idaho or anywhere. It is 

23 not clean energy because of the waste both from this plant and from nuclear power plants. 

24 Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium hexafluoride over its licensed 

25 lifetime, and its license might well be extended. All this waste might be stored in Idaho until the 

26 plant was decommissioned. Even after it’s removed and treated, there is no good way to 

27 dispose of it.

28

29 [150-02, Katie Seevers] The draft EIS assumes that the depleted uranium hexafluoride will not 

30 be stored on the site past the license life of the facility. However, it also acknowledges that 

31 Areva may apply for a license extension. I find the lack of a fully developed rule on disposal of 

32 depleted uranium problematic, especially when coupled with the prospect of seismic activity in 

33 the area and the potentiality for a license extension.

34

35 [153-06, Andrea Shipley; 197-06, Andrea Shipley, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance; 

36 184-08, Kitty Vincent] The draft EIS assumes that depleted uranium hexafluoride will not be 

37 stored on site beyond the licensed life of the facility. But it also acknowledges Areva may apply 

38 for a license extension. As a matter of fact, Areva plans to ask federal regulators for permission 

39 to alter the normally required procedure as it ends the manufacturing of nuclear fuel in Virginia 

40 because the company would still use the site for other nuclear activities. (Gentry, The News & 

41 Advance © Copyright 2009). So, what’s next for the Idaho facility if an extension is approved? 

42 The NRC must discuss the length of an extension and whether cumulative waste storage would 

43 be allowed.

44

45 [175-04, Ellen Thomas] Areva’s plant would produce 320,000 tonnes of depleted uranium 

46 hexafluoride over its licensed lifetime, and its license might well be extended. There is no 

47 certain disposal pathway.

48
I-252

1 [191-12, Liz Woodruff] The draft EIS assumes that depleted uranium hexafluoride will not be 

2 stored on site beyond the licensed life of the facility. But the draft EIS also acknowledges that 

3 Areva may well apply for a license extension. The NRC must discuss the length of a potential 

4 extension and whether or not cumulative waste storage would be allowed.

5

6 [192-02, Lisa Young] I’m concerned about many different issues surrounding this facility’s 

7 Environmental Impact Statement, but today I’ll focus on the storage of depleted uranium 

8 hexafluoride waste on site, and the future transportation and storage off site. While the proposal 

9 commits to removing all of the depleted uranium waste from the site, after decommissioning, the 

10 question still lingers. What if they receive a license extension? It’s important to analyze the 

11 environmental impact that the storage of this waste on site, beyond the timeline currently 

12 implicated by the proposal, as this is a very real possibility and could result in very different 

13 analyses of the storage of the waste on site. 

14

15 [192-08, Lisa Young] I am concerned about many different issues surrounding this facility’s 

16 environmental impact statement, but in the comments that follow I will focus on the storage of 

17 depleted uranium hexafluoride waste on-site, and the future transportation and storage of that 

18 waste off-site. While the proposal commits to removing all of the depleted uranium waste from 

19 the site after decommissioning, the question still lingers: what if they receive a license 

20 extension? It’s important to analyze the environmental impact of the storage of this waste on21 site beyond the timeline currently implicated by the proposal, as this is a very real possibility, 

22 and could result in very different analyses of the storage of the waste on-site.

23

24 Response: AES’s license for the proposed EREF, if granted by the NRC, would be for a period 

25 of 30 years for construction and operation of the proposed facility. Any extension of the license 

26 would require a separate licensing action by the NRC and a separate environmental review at 

27 the time of the application for license extension. 

28

29

30 I.5.26 Mitigation

31

32 Comments on mitigation measures can be found in the Section I.5 subsections specific to the 

33 applicable resource areas.

34

35 I.5.27 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs

36

37 Comment: The following comment asks why the Draft EIS references NRC Regulatory Guide 

38 Revision 1 rather than Revision 2.

39

40 [066-06 Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 4. 

41 Several places in the draft EIS reference NRC reg guide 4.15 revision 1 (1979). Please explain 

42 why the NRC does not reference revision 2 (2007).

43

44 Response: The NRC acknowledges that Revision 2 (2007) of Regulatory Guide 4.15 should 

45 have been the proper reference. The reference list of Chapter 6 (Section 6.3) and the text of 

46 Sections 6.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.8 of the EIS has been revised accordingly.

47

48
I-253

1 Comment: The following comment requests clarification in the EIS concerning how AES will tie 

2 into the appropriate monitoring networks to the maximum extent possible in order to better 

3 delineate INL impacts from impacts of the proposed EREF, as well as understanding the 

4 broader regional impacts.

5

6 [066-07, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 5. 

7 The DEQ INL Oversight program works in conjunction with the INL (DOE and contractors) to 

8 monitor soils, air quality, ground water and surface water through a complex monitoring system. 

9 DEQ requests clarification in the EIS concerning how AES will tie into the appropriate 

10 monitoring networks to the maximum extent possible in order to better delineate INL impacts 

11 from AES impacts as well as understanding the broader regional impacts. 

12

13 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment. However, the staff finds that the 

14 actions AES has committed to taking with regard to monitoring of soils, air, groundwater, and 

15 surface water will be sufficiently protective of the environment. These actions are described in 

16 Chapter 6 of the EIS (Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Program).

17

18 When NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and 

19 environmental mitigation and monitoring measures beyond those proposed as part of the 

20 license application is limited to those with a reasonable nexus to providing protection for 

21 radiological health and safety and common defense and security. The NRC can, however, 

22 require that the proposed facility be built in accordance with the submitted application, including 

23 mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by the applicant that are not specifically required 

24 by or directly related to NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have the ability to hold 

25 licensees to key mitigation and monitoring measures committed to in their applications and 

26 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

27

28

29 Comment: The following comment questions the locations of some of the deep groundwater 

30 sampling locations on the proposed EREF site, and requests an explanation for why there are 

31 no groundwater sampling wells in the southwest (SW) or south-southwest (SSW) sectors of the 

32 monitoring locations map. 

33

34 [066-10, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality]

35 Chapter 6: pp, 6-3, Figure 6-1. Many of the deep groundwater sampling locations are too close 

36 to the facility to ensure detection at depth. Additionally, it is generally accepted that the 

37 groundwater flows in a southwesterly direction. Please explain why there are not groundwater 

38 sampling wells in the SW or SSW sectors of the monitoring locations map. 

39

40 Response: Groundwater sampling wells are located on the proposed EREF property on the 

41 basis of the predominant groundwater flow direction, which is from the northeast to the 

42 southwest in the vicinity of the proposed EREF. Several of the groundwater sampling points 

43 (wells) shown on Figure 6-1 in the EIS, indicated by the number 6, are located in the southwest 

44 (downgradient) sector; these are mainly deep wells, but include one shallow well to monitor 

45 perched groundwater near the facility. Two wells are located to the northeast (upgradient) of 

46 the facility to provide sampling control points. The IDEQ has a statewide network of wells it 

47 monitors to evaluate the overall quality of groundwater throughout the State to meet the 

48 objectives of the State’s Ground Water Quality Protection Act. Any monitoring outside of the 
I-254

1 proposed EREF property boundary, therefore, would occur under the aegis of the State’s 

2 groundwater quality monitoring program. Section 6.1.5 of the EIS has been revised to include 

3 this information.

4

5

6 Comment: The following comment requests clarification on whether any gross alpha or beta 

7 measurement over 10 percent of the listed U (uranium) value will be analyzed further, or if there 

8 are specific criteria based on a gross alpha beta screening that will trigger the analysis. 

9

10 [066-11, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 9. 

11 Chapter 6: pp. 6-4, Table 6-2 states “Isotopic analyses for uranium isotopes (238U, 236U, 

12 235U, and 234U) would commence whenever gross alpha and gross beta activities indicate that 

13 an individual radionuclide could be present in a concentration >I0 percent of the specified 

14 concentrations in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20.” Please clarify whether any gross 

15 alpha or beta measurement over 10% of the listed U value will be analyzed further, or if there 

16 are specific criteria based on a gross alpha beta screening that will trigger the analysis. 

17

18 Response: Should a sample exhibit a gross alpha or beta measurement over 10 percent of the 

19 listed uranium value in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20, the concentrations of the four 

20 specific uranium isotopes would be determined. There are no other screening criteria that will 

21 trigger the isotopic analysis (AES, 2010d).

22

23

24 Comment: The following comment presents recommendations and questions regarding air 

25 quality monitoring.

26

27 [066-12, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality]

28 Chapter 6: pp. 6-6, Lines 10. , & Fig 6-1, pp. 6-3 describes the environmental monitoring sites. 

29 DEQ has the following recommendations and questions:

30

31 • There should be an air sampling site on the west side of the property which is nearest the 

32 INL.

33

34 • There should be an air sampling site between the facility and Hwy 20 to the south. 

35

36 • The air sampling site on the southern fence of the facility is off-set to the SW and is 

37 approximately 2 km from the road. This may not be a good indicator of off-site public 

38 dose impact at the road and should be relocated. 

39

40 • The wind rose for the nearest meteorological tower at MFC on pp. C-9 shows winds from 

41 the SW and SSW to the NE are the predominate direction and magnitude, yet the only 

42 sampling planned in the NE and ENE sectors are one TLD and two groundwater 

43 samples collectively. Please explain why are there no air, soil, or vegetation samples in 

44 the sectors where impacts are most likely to be observed. 

45

46 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment. However, the staff finds that the 

47 actions AES has committed to taking with regard to monitoring of soils, air, groundwater, and 
I-255

1 surface water will be sufficiently protective of the environment. These actions are described in 

2 Chapter 6 of the EIS (Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Program).

3

4 When NRC reviews a proposed action, its ability to impose additional requirements and 

5 environmental mitigation and monitoring measures beyond those proposed as part of the 

6 license application is limited to those with a reasonable nexus to providing protection for 

7 radiological health and safety and common defense and security. The NRC can, however, 

8 require that the proposed facility be built in accordance with the submitted application, including 

9 mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by the applicant that are not specifically required 

10 by or directly related to NRC’s regulations. Thus, the NRC does have the ability to hold 

11 licensees to key mitigation and monitoring measures committed to in their applications and 

12 subsequently incorporated in the NRC license directly or by reference.

13

14

15 Comment: The following comment requests that the NRC define “sectors” in the cited sentence 

16 in Chapter 6, on page 6-9, line 40 of the Draft EIS.

17

18 [066-13, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 11. 

19 Chapter 6: pp. 6-9, Line 40 states “Samples would be collected quarterly from each sector at 

20 locations near the Owner Controlled Area fence line.” Please define the “sectors”. 

21

22 Response: The sectors, shown on Figure 6-1 of the EIS, are the areas identified with the 

23 16 compass directions centered on the proposed EREF. This has been added to the text of 

24 Section 6.1.6.

25

26

27 Comment: The following comment requests clarification of information regarding 

28 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in the cited sentence in Chapter 6, on page 6-10, lines 

29 6–8, and in Figure 6-1 of the Draft EIS. 

30

31 [066-14, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 12. 

32 Chapter 6: pp. 6-10, Lines 6-8 states “The environmental TLDs would be placed at the Owner 

33 Controlled Area fence line near the UF6 storage cylinders. In addition, two TLDs would be 

34 placed at offsite locations for control purposes”. This implies that TLDs are only placed near the 

35 storage pads, but Fig 6-1 shows a network of 15 TLDs at the fence on all sides of the facility. 

36 Please explain which description is correct. 

37

38 Response: No implication was intended. TLDs would be placed along the entire fence line. 

39 The text in Section 6.1.7 has been revised to state, “The environmental TLDs would be placed 

40 along the Owner Controlled Area fence line.”

41

42

43 Comment: The following comment recommends a change to the cited sentence in Chapter 6, 

44 on page 6-10, lines 11-12 of the Draft EIS.

45

46 [066-15, Toni Hardesty, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality] 13.

47 Chapter 6: pp. 6-10, Lines 11-12 states “The TLD along the fence line would provide a 

48 combined reading of background as well as above background readings associated with the 
I-256

1 UF6 cylinders.” DEQ recommends this statement be changed to read “...provide a combined 

2 reading of background as well as any above background readings associated with plant 

3 operations and cylinder handling and storage. 

4

5 Response: The text in Section 6.1.7 in the EIS has been changed as recommended.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment expresses caution regarding the potential accumulation of 

9 radioactivity elsewhere in the environment resulting from effluent releases from the proposed 

10 EREF that are within regulatory limits

11

12 [087-03, Dennis Kasnicki] Comment 2b: Regardless of releases to the environment that are 

13 within legal release limits, watch out for this contamination accumulating somewhere. Once, a 

14 sewage treatment plant near Nuclear Fuel Services (Erwin, TN) had accumulated a sufficient 

15 amount of HIGH enriched uranium to warrant an HEU license, and the NRC actually considered 

16 licensing that sewage treatment plant as an option! 

17

18 Response: The NRC acknowledges the comment regarding the potential accumulation of 

19 radioactivity in the environment resulting from effluent releases from the proposed EREF that 

20 are within regulatory limits. Such accumulations would be monitored and addressed through 

21 the environmental measurements and monitoring program described in Chapter 6 of the EIS.

22

23

24 Comment: The following comment requests that monitoring data relating to wildlife and plants 

25 be provided electronically to the IDFG within one year of collection. 

26

27 [089-01, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Ecological 

28 Monitoring: The Department appreciates and supports the improvements in monitoring protocols 

29 resulting from our previous consultation with AES and their contractors. The DEIS documents 

30 the ecological monitoring program that would be carried out in accordance with generally 

31 accepted monitoring protocols of the Department. Under the program, data would be collected, 

32 recorded, stored, and analyzed. We request that monitoring data relating to wildlife and plants 

33 be provided electronically to the Department within one year of collection and will pursue 

34 discussion with AES for this coordination. 

35

36 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that the IDFG will pursue discussion with AES for this 

37 request and coordination.

38

39

40 Comment: The following comment asks for clarification of what “anomalous” ecological 

41 monitoring results might be and what appropriate efforts would be taken to reconcile them. 

42

43 [089-02, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Ecological 

44 Monitoring: The DEIS states on page 6-18 lines 4-6, Procedures would be established, as 

45 appropriate, for data Collection, storage, analysis, reporting, and corrective actions. Actions 

46 would be taken as necessary to reconcile anomalous results (AES, 2010a). We are unsure what 

47 “anomalous” results might be and what efforts to reconcile them would be appropriate. Please 

48 clarify this issue. 

49
I-257

1 Response: Generally accepted monitoring practices would be expected to include the 

2 evaluation of data collection and analysis methods and determinations regarding necessary 

3 corrective actions. Anomalous results would be expected to include those that would appear 

4 unlikely based on other results of the ecological monitoring program. Potential actions could 

5 include, for example, modifications of data collection methods.

6

7

8 Comment: The following comment requests that a statement be inserted in the ecological 

9 monitoring section of Chapter 6 of the EIS, regarding the need to obtain appropriate permits 

10 from IDFG or the FWS to handle, transport, or release wildlife, in order to conduct capture and 

11 releases. 

12

13 [089-03, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Ecological 

14 Monitoring: Page 6-18 lines 20-22, Measures would be taken to release any entrapped wildlife. 

15 While the Department supports this measure, please insert the statement: Appropriate permits 

16 to handle, transport or release wildlife will be obtained from IDFG or USFWS to conduct capture 

17 and releases. 

18

19 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment. Section 6.2.2 of the EIS states that the 

20 ecological monitoring program would be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the 

21 IDFG and FWS. However, the staff finds that the actions AES has committed to taking with 

22 regard to ecological monitoring, as described in Section 6.2.2, will be sufficiently protective of 

23 the environment. It is the responsibility of the applicant, AES in this case, to obtain all required 

24 Federal, State, and local permits and approvals for the project.

25

26

27 Comment: The following comment requests that certain text be inserted in the cited sentence in 

28 Chapter 6, on page 6-18, lines 44–46 of the Draft EIS.

29

30 [089-04, Sharon Kiefer, on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game] Ecological 

31 Monitoring: On page 6-18 lines 44-46, Data collected for the ecological monitoring program 

32 would be recorded on paper and/or electronic forms. These data would be kept on file for the life 

33 of the proposed facility (AES. 20/0). Please insert and will be provided to IDFG annually (as 

34 mentioned above). 

35

36 Response: The NRC staff acknowledges this comment. However, the staff finds that the 

37 actions AES has committed to taking with regard to ecological monitoring, as described in 

38 Section 6.2.2, will be sufficiently protective of the environment. The NRC staff acknowledges 

39 that the IDFG will pursue discussion with AES for this request and coordination, as stated in its 

40 Comment Number 089-01 above.

41

42

43 Comment: The following comment deals with the monitoring of emissions (radiological and 

44 ambient air) and taking corrective action if air quality standards are not met. Also, the comment 

45 points out that there is no monitoring station close to the proposed facility site.

46

47 [138-04, Christine Reichgott, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

48 Region 10] Since the project area and surrounding areas may include sensitive populations 
I-258

1 such as the elderly and children, it will also be important to monitor emissions (radiological and 

2 ambient air) and take corrective action if air quality standards are not met. Proposed monitoring 

3 strategies should be tailored to local conditions because localized air quality impacts can be 

4 substantial, even though area-wide and/or long term monitoring may show compliance with air 

5 quality standards. The draft EIS indicates that monitoring data from a distant monitoring station 

6 in Pocatello, for example, may not represent accurate air emission at the project site. Further, 

7 there is no monitoring station close to the proposed facility site (p. 4-16).

8

9 Response: As discussed in Section 3.13 of the EIS, information available to the NRC does not 

10 indicate the presence of sensitive populations in the vicinity of the project. Given that air quality 

11 impacts are expected to be localized and agricultural activities will continue in the vicinity of the 

12 proposed EREF, no populations would appear to be at risk from short-duration, construction13 related impacts on air quality, especially since all construction activities would proceed under

14 the auspices of IDEQ-issued permits and Bonneville County-approved mitigation strategies. 

15 Decisions regarding amendment to the SIP that might involve installation of a new ambient air 

16 quality monitoring station in the project area are outside of the NRC’s authority and the scope of 

17 the EIS and instead are the province of IDEQ. The expected short duration of NAAQS 

18 exceedance does not argue for a long-term commitment to ambient air quality monitoring in this 

19 area.

20

21

22 Comment: The following comment requests that the applicant include air monitoring and 

23 reporting plans that are specific to the operations of the proposed facility. 

24

25 [027-16, Sara Cohn] We request that the applicant include air monitoring and reporting plans 

26 that are specific to the operations of the proposed facility. These plans should include guidance 

27 for public alerts, immediate containment, responsible parties, etc., should air releases be 

28 detected.

29

30 Response: The IDEQ operating permit to be obtained by AES would specify that procedures 

31 will be in place to guarantee the expected performance of the air filter systems through rigorous 

32 monitoring, inspection, and maintenance programs and that responses to monitoring data would 

33 be in accordance with applicable IDEQ regulations. 

34

35

36 I.5.28 Benefit-Cost Analysis

37

38 Comment: The following comments deal with the benefits and costs of the proposed EREF

39 project. 

40

41 [025-06, Hon. Sue Chew] Furthermore, it is my opinion that this uranium enrichment project is 

42 unnecessary and exposes the citizens of Idaho to a potential harm that cannot be offset by the 

43 proposed benefits of such a program.

44

45 [039-01, Kreg Davis] Much has been said about how small money is compared to safety, and 

46 we certainly would all agree with that. However, I would object to the minimization of the 

47 importance of jobs, and jobs in the State of Idaho as it’s been characterized. In the last several, 

48 couple of years, 18 months, particularly, there’s been a major economic downturn that has hit 
I-259

1 this state. No one knows more, how more important it is, a job is, than somebody who is losing 

2 it. I’ve been a first-hand witness of what it’s like for people to lose their job, and I would hope 

3 that no one in this room would minimize that in comparison to those people. Certainly still agree 

4 with the safety issue. I would like to thank everyone here for the opportunity to speak in support 

5 of the AREVA-proposed uranium enrichment plant.

6

7 [040-04, Collin Day] But there’s just no need to take risks and gamble with things like the 

8 aquifer that, you know, supplies drinking water to some 300,000 people, because 500 people 

9 need jobs. I just--I don’t see the point in that. 

10

11 [067-03, Mike Hart] With respect to the need, I, looking at global warming, I know there are 

12 obviously impacts of nuclear energy, but the reality is, seven generations from now I think they 

13 won’t be worrying as much about depleted uranium as they will be about depleted glaciers, 

14 depleted ice caps, and nuclear energy has a significant benefit. It’s not without its warts, it’s not 

15 without its impacts, but there is “no free lunch” when it comes to energy.

16

17 You can conserve, but we do use energy. It is used globally, whether this is a French company, 

18 whether it’s used locally, or nationally, the reality is its carbon-free, and that carbon-free 

19 resource is something that is very precious, and until we have alternative technologies that can 

20 produce significant usable quantities of electricity, nuclear is a very positive step in between 

21 now and a carbon-free future.

22

23 [068-04, Anne Hausrath] My husband and I raised our children in Idaho. We are very much 

24 concerned about the current economic climate for their generation, and we believe there’s a 

25 responsibility of all of us to provide for that. I don’t believe that this plant is adequate -- that the 

26 economic is adequate justification for that.

27

28 [074-02, Don Howard] ...what concerns me most is two things. One is economic impact that 

29 Idaho does need. But the waste from the uranium we don’t need. And I would say that the 

30 economic--we need the economic boost that this will bring to the State of Idaho. But I say at 

31 what cost to Idaho?

32

33 [088-01, Stan Kidwell] Areva’s plant will do more harm than good to Idaho. Any jobs that 

34 would be gained would not counter the damage, both fiscally and environmentally, that would be 

35 done to Idaho. 

36

37 [095-01, Linda Leeuwrik] I would like to voice my very strong opposition to the uranium 

38 enrichment facility that the French company Areva is proposing to build not far from where I live 

39 in South East Idaho. This facility would provide no real benefit or advantage to Idaho, instead 

40 only leaving the waste for us to contend with for many years to come -- contaminating our land 

41 and our water supply and negatively impacting our wildlife.

42

43 [128-05, Bob Poyser] Third. AREVA has, and will continue to incorporate sustainability 

44 features, including the use of lead-certified building standards as a part of the overall effort to 

45 ensure that we deploy our best efforts in creating a facility that is environmentally benign and 

46 respects the site conditions.

47

48 [130-02, Park and Sharon Price] The benefits of this project substantially outweigh the 

49 potential small or moderate impacts identified in the draft EIS.

50
I-260

1 We strongly support your preliminary conclusions that this project deserves to move forward.

2

3 [147-04, Joey Schueler] I am in opposition to the Eagle Rock Uranium enrichment plant being 

4 put in Idaho Falls, Idaho! Although I understand the positive incentive arguments for the 

5 proposed plant, the arguments against the plant far outweigh the rather short term positive 

6 benefits. I think careful consideration should be given to each of the fifteen points I listed below 

7 when deciding whether to take this action. I also doubt many Idahoans know about this action 

8 and should be brought to a larger table of discussion. 

9

10 [177-01, Hon. T.J. Thomson] As a Boise City Council Member, I am dedicated to safeguarding 

11 tax payer dollars to assure that every penny spent is spent wisely. Outside of keeping this city 

12 safe, fiscal responsibility is my highest priority. Every city project must be highly scrutinized to 

13 assure we are getting the very best product available. And so, with fiscal stewardship in mind, I 

14 ask that you exercise caution as you move forward with the Areva Plant. Considering the large 

15 amount of state and federal tax dollars that will be invested into the plant, it is vital you assure 

16 taxpayers that all costs regarding the management and disposal of waste are included in your 

17 long-term budgeting process. 

18

19 [182-04, Brianna Ursenbach] On balance, it is readily apparent, then, that this facility will not 

20 be beneficial, so no amount of negative environmental impact, degradation, is acceptable. In 

21 conclusion, this facility is not needed, not wanted, and cannot be licensed. 

22

23 [193-23, Liz Woodruff, on behalf of the Snake River Alliance] So in conclusion, radioactive 

24 waste poses an unacceptable risk to our state. You heard that the NRC has a cost-benefit 

25 analysis. Well, based on our read and the reading of our members, and other Idahoans, it’s very 

26 clear that the costs of this facility are far greater than the benefits, to our public safety, to our 

27 water, to our air, to our land, to wildlife habitat. And this definitely outweighs the hypothetical 

28 and very risk assertion by the NRC, that we need uranium enrichment. 

29

30 AREVA’s proposed Eagle Rock enrichment facility will store radioactive waste at the sole 

31 source aquifer for 300,000 people. It will impact sensitive species, require the transport of 

32 radioactive materials, impair a national monument in Idaho, support destruction of a historic site, 

33 devour billions of dollars in state and federal largesse to meet a hypothetical need that does not 

34 yet exist, and obliterate farmland that is potentially protected by the Federal Government. 

35

36 We are here to say this is simply not worth the risks, and new evaluations on the draft EIS are 

37 needed, specifically around preconstruction and transmission issues, and until that time, this 

38 facility should not be licensed. 

39

40 Response: The results of the benefit-cost analysis presented in Chapter 7 of the EIS show that 

41 the benefits of the facility outweigh the costs. Although there are potential impacts the costs of 

42 which cannot be quantified – impacts to air, water quality, or ecology, for example – these 

43 impacts would be SMALL or SMALL-to-MODERATE, and would be unlikely to affect the 

44 outcome of the benefit-cost analysis.

45

46
I-261

1 I.5.29 Editorial Comments

2

3 Comment: The following comments identify typographical errors noted in the Draft EIS.

4

5 [228-01, Jim Kay] The word lightning is misspelled as lightening. (Table 3-10, Storm Events in 

6 the Vicinity of the Proposed EREF Site, Page 3-26)

7

8 [228-02, Jim Kay] There is a typo in DEIS Table 3-15 in the row “Volcanic earthquakes” under 

9 the column “Hazard Level.” The focal depth should be 2.5 mi versus 2.5 ft. (Table 3-15, Hazards 

10 Associated with Basaltic Volcanism on the ESRP, Page 3-41)

11

12 [228-03, Jim Kay] There are typos on the emission factors. The value 2560 should be 2.560 

13 and the value 10,292 should be 10.292. (Table 4-7, NRC’s Estimated Emissions of Criteria 

14 Pollutants Resulting from Operations at the Proposed EREF, Page 4-24)

15

16 [228-04, Jim Kay] A D/Q value (2.43 x 10-7) is presented in the first full paragraph with units of 

17 kg per square meters. The units for D/Q values are 1 over square meters (1/m2). (Section 

18 4.2.4.2, Facility Operation, Generation and Release of Non-Criteria Chemical Pollutants Related 

19 to EREF Operations, Page 4-27)

20

21 [228-05, Jim Kay] The DEIS specifies that the Retention Basins ...each would have a storage 

22 capacity of about 83,000 cubic meters (76 acre-feet)... should be 67 acre-feet. (Section 4.2.6.2, 

23 Facility Operation, Cylinder Storage Pads Stormwater Retention Basin, Page 4-40, Line 15)

24

25 [228-06, Jim Kay] In the 1st bullet, “apply water twice daily to....” should be twice daily (when 

26 needed) for consistency with DEIS page 5-6, Ecological Resources. (Table 5-1, Summary of 

27 Mitigation Measures Identified by AES for Preconstruction and Construction Environmental 

28 Impacts, Air Quality Page 5-3)

29

30 Response: The EIS has been reviewed and appropriate revisions have been made as noted in 

31 the comments. 

32

33

34 I.6 References

35

36 (AES, 2009a) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. Letter from Sam Shakir (President and CEO, 

37 AES) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 23. “Subject: Revision 1 to 

38 License Application for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility,” ADAMS Accession 

39 No. ML091210557.

40

41 (AES, 2009b) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. Letter from Sam Shakir (President and CEO, 

42 AES) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated June 17. “Subject: Request for 

43 Exemption from 10 CFR 70.4, 10 CFR 70.23(a)(7), 10 CFR 30.4, 10 CFR 30.33(a)(5), 10 CFR 

44 40.4, and 10 CFR 40.32(e) Requirements Governing ‘Commencement of Construction.’” 

45 ADAMS Accession No. ML091770390.

46

47 (AES, 2009c) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. Letter from Jim Kay (Licensing Manager, 

48 AES) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 15. “Subject: Response to 
I-262

1 Request for Additional Information – AES Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Exemption Request 

2 Related to Commencement of Construction (TAC L32730).” ADAMS Accession 

3 No. ML092920169.

 4 

5 (AES, 2010a) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

6 Environmental Report, Rev. 2.” Bethesda, Maryland. April. 

 7 

8 (AES, 2010b) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility Integrated

9 Safety Analysis.” Revision 2.

10

11 (AES, 2010c) AREVA Enrichment Service, LLC. Letter from J.A. Kay (Licensing Manager, AES) 

12 to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 19, 2010. “Subject: Treatment Plan for 

13 Historic Site MW004 and Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts.” 

14

15 (AES, 2010d) AREVA Enrichment Service, LLC. Email from J.A. Kay (Licensing Manager, AES) 

16 to S. Lemont (NRC) dated December 17, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML103630599.

17

18 (AES, 2010e) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. Letter from J.A. Kay (Licensing Manager, 

19 AES) to Sharon W. Kiefer (Assistant Director-Policy, IDFG) dated December 7, 2010, “Subject: 

20 Response to IDFG Comments to NRC Related to the EREF Transmission Line.” ADAMS 

21 Accession No. ML103420579.

22

23 (BLM, 2008) U.S. Bureau of Land Management. “National Environmental Policy Act 

24 Handbook.” H-1790-1, January. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

25 Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/NEPS.Par.1442.File.dat/h1790-1-2008-1.pdf> (Accessed 

26 January 28, 2011). 

27

28 (Cameco, 2010) Cameco Corporation. “Blind River”. <http://www.cameco.com/fuel_and_

29 power/refining_and_conversion/blind_river/>. (Accessed November 30, 2010). ADAMS 

30 Accession No. ML103510443. 

31

32 (CEQ, 1997) Council on Environmental Quality. “Considering Cumulative Effects under the 

33 National Environmental Policy Act.” Executive Office of the President. 

34 <http://nepa.energy.gov/nepa_documents/TOOLS/GUIDANCE/Volume1/4-11.1-ceq-cumulative35 effects.pdf> (Accessed January 28, 2011). 

36

37 (CEQ, 2010) Council on Environmental Quality. Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

38 Departments and Agencies from N.H. Sutley (Chair, CEQ), dated February 18. “Subject: Draft 

39 NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas 

40 Emissions.” <http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_

41 NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_02182010.pdf>. (Accessed December 3, 2010). ADAMS Accession 

42 No. ML103510433. 

43

44 (DOE, 2001) U.S. Department of Energy. “Radioactive Waste Management Manual.” DOE 

45 M 435.1-1, Change 1. June.

46
I-263

1 (DOE, 2002) U.S. Department of Energy. Letter from W.J. Magwood, IV (U.S. Department of

2 Energy) to M.J. Virgilio (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated July 25. ADAMS

3 Accession No. ML022350130.

4

5 (DOE, 2004a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for

6 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

7 Paducah, Kentucky site.” DOE/EIS-0359. June.

8

9 (DOE, 2004b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

10 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

11 Portsmouth,Ohio Site.” DOE/EIS-0360. June.

12

13 (DOE, 2007a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Draft Supplementary Analysis for Locations to

14 Dispose of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE’s Inventory of 

15 Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride.” DOE/EIS-0359-SAI and DOE/EIS-0360-SAI. March.

16

17 (DOE, 2007b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplement

18 Analysis for Locations to Dispose of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated 

19 from DOE’s Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride,” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 63, 

20 pp. 15869-15871, April 3.

21

22 (IAEA, 2010a) International Atomic Energy Agency. “Nuclear Power Reactors in the World.”

23 IAEA-RDS-2/30, Reference Data Series No. 2, Vienna. July.

24

25 (IAEA, 2010b) International Atomic Energy Agency. “Latest News Related to PRIS and the 

26 Status of Nuclear Power Plants.” November 22. <http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/>.

27 (Accessed November 22, 2010). ADAMS Accession No. ML103510448.

28

29 (Idaho SHPO, 2010) Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. Letter from S. Pengilly (Idaho 

30 Deputy SHPO) to J. Kay (AREVA) dated November 26, 2010. “Re: Geotechnical Borings at the 

31 Proposed Twin Buttes Substation within Cultural Resource Site 10BV246 (MW004), Eagle Rock 

32 Enrichment Facility, Bonneville County, Idaho.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110240061.

33

34 (ISAC, 2006) Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee. “Conservation Plan for the Greater 

35 Sage-Grouse in Idaho.” ADAMS Accession No. ML 101800045.

36

37 (NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Review Guidance for 

38 Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG-1748. Division of Waste 

39 Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. August. ADAMS Accession 

40 No. ML03254081.

41

42 (NRC, 2005) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Commission Memorandum and Order 

43 CLI-05-05, Docket No. 70-3103-ML. January, 18.

44

45 (NRC, 2009) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Staff Requirements – SECY-08-0147 –

46 Response to Commission Order CLI-05-20 Regarding Depleted Uranium.” Commission Staff 

47 Requirements Memorandum SRM-SECY-08-0147. March 18.

48
I-264

1 (NRC, 2010a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Summary of Existing Guidance That May 

2 Be Relevant for Reviewing Performance Assessments Supporting Disposal of Unique Waste 

3 Streams Including Significant Quantities of Depleted Uranium.” Agreement State Letter FSME4 10-030. April 13.

5

6 (NRC, 2010b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Eagle 

7 Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho.” Docket No. 70-7015, AREVA 

8 Enrichment Services, LLC, NUREG-1951, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

9 September. ADAMS Accession No. ML102710296.

10

11 (NRC, 2010c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from D. Dorman (U.S. Nuclear 

12 Regulatory Commission) to G. Harper (AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC) dated March 17.

13 “Subject: Approval of AREVA Enrichment Services LLC Exemption Request Related to 

14 Requirements Governing Commencement of Construction (TAC L32730).” ADAMS Accession 

15 No. ML093090152.

16

17 (NRC, 2010d) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from G. Jaczko (U.S. Nuclear 

18 Regulatory Commission) to J. Spratt, Jr. (U.S. House of Representatives) dated August 25. 

19 ADAMS Accession No. ML10200056.

20

21 (Spratt et al., 2010) Letter from J.M. Spratt, Jr., J. Fortenberry, A. Carson, A. Schiff, B. Foster, 

22 and D. Lamborn (U.S. House of Representatives) to G. Jaczko (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

23 Commission) dated June 30, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML101870023.

24

25 (WCRM, 2010) Western Cultural Resources Management, Inc. Letter from J. Sigler (WCRM) to 

26 K. Reid (Idaho Deputy SHPO) dated November 17, 2010. “Re: To Summarize Western 

27 Cultural Resource Management’s Data Recovery Activities for the Eagle Rock Enrichment 

28 Facility Project Located in Bonneville County, Idaho.” ADAMS Accession No. ML103280087.
7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dales)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC. proVide Division. Office or Region. U.S. Nuclear Regulalory Commission. and mailing address; if conlractor.

provide name and mailing address.)

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC. type "Same as above"; if contractor. provide NRC Division. Office or Region. U.S. Nuclear Regulalory Commission.

and mailing address.)

Same as 8 above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 70-7015

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for

a license to construct, operate, and decommission the proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (ERE F) near Idaho Falls

in Bonneville County, Idaho. If licensed, the proposed facility would enrich uranium for use in commercial nuclear fuel for

power reactors. Feed material would be non-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). AES would employ a gas centrifuge

process to enrich uranium up to 5 percent uranium-235 by weight, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6

million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The proposed EREF would be licensed in accordance with the provisions

of the Atomic Energy Act. Specifically, an NRC license under Title 10, "Energy," of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70 would be required to authorize AES to possess and use special nuclear material, sourcematerial, and byproduct material at the proposed EREF site.

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and the NRC regulations for implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 51). This EIS evaluates the potential

environmental impacts of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives.

12. KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases thai will assist researchers in loealing Ihe report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

EIS for the Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho

Uranium Enrichment Facility

NUREG-1945

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

EREF

AREVA Enrichment Services LLC

AES

AREVA

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

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

OFFICIAL BUSINESS