FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPMZT

PROGR4MMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME?X

FOR THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OAK RIDGE OPER4TIOSS

IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMEKT PROGK4hl

FOR THE STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSITION OF

POTENTIALLY REUSABLE URANJUh4 MATERIALS

AGEhCY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

ACTION: FINDI?iG OF NO SIGNIFICANT 1~IPAC-I

SUMI\!L4RY: The U. S. DOE has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PE:,4)

(DOE/E?,- 1393), which is incorporated herein by this reference. Tile purpose of the

PEA is in assess potential enJ?ronmental impacts of the implementation of a

comprehek-e management program for potentiaIly reusable ICW enriched uranium

(LEU). norr,:al uranium (NU), and depleted uranium (DU). --l?prosimately 14,200

MTU (h?etric Tons of Uranium) of potentially reusable uranium is located at 15s

sites. DOE has evaluated various optioils for interim centralized storage and interim

consolidated storage at six DOE locations and two commercial sites. Ultimate

disposition !IZS also been evaluated. to the extent practicab!el as part of this

managem 31 program. Based on the results of the impacts analysis reported in the

PEA, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major Federal action that

would significantly affect the quaky of the human environment within the context

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 @EPA). Therefore, preparation

of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary, and DOE is issuing

this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF PEA Ah?) FONST: The PEA and FONSI may be reviewed at, and

copies of the document obtained from:

DOE Information Center

475 Oak Ridge Turnpike

Ozz~kRirlu~ --- ----E’, T~nnas~eg * “*I&A” 37830

Phone: (865) 24 l-4780

U.S. Department of Energy

Carolyne Thomas, Senior Project Manager

Uranium h4anagement Division

Post Office Box 2001

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783 1

Phone: (865) 576-2690

DOE Paducah Environmental Information Center

115 Memorial Drive

Paducah, Kentucky 42201

Phone: (270) 554-6979

02-169(doc)/082102 1

DOE Savannah River Operations Office

Pub1 ic Reading Room

17 1 University Parkway

Aiken, South Carolina 2980 1

Phone: (803) 725-2497

DOE Idaho Operations Office

Public Reading Room

INEEL Technical Library

1776 Science Center Drive

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

Phone: (208) 526-l 244

DOE Portsmouth Environmental Information Cente:

3930 U.S. Koute 23 South, Perimeter Road

Piketon, Ohio 45661

Phone: (740) 289-33 17

DOE Headquarters F01A/Pt1bIic Reading Room

Room lE-190

1000 Independence Avenue. S15;

\Vashington, DC 205 S5

Phone: (302) 5S6-5955

FURTHER INFOFWIATION ON THE NEPA PROCESS: For fur-thftr information on the NEPA

process, contact:

David R. Allen

NEPA Compliance Officer

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 200 1

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783 1

Phone: (S65) 576-04 11

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to implement a comprehensive

management program to safely, efficiently, and effectively manage its potentially reusable low enriched

uranium (LEU), normal uranium (NU), and depleted uranium (DT3>. ?JiZiiiiiiZ niateriais, which are

presently located at multiple sites, would be consolidated by transporting the materials to one or several

storage locations, to facilitate ultimate disposition. Management would include the storage, transport, and

ultimate disposition of these materials.

This action is needed because of DOE’s current missions and functions; increasing budget pressures; the

continuing need for good stewardship of resources, including materials in inventory; and continuing DOE

attention to considerations of environment, safety, and health. Also, increased pressure on the federal

budget requires that DOE take a closer look at materials management in order to ensure maximum cost

effectiveness. This includes an examination of feasible uses of this material, consistent with DOE’S

mission, as well as an examination of management methods that are consistent with environmental

requirements and budgetary constraints. DOE needs to implement a long-term (greater than 20 years)

management plan for its inventory of potentially reusabIe LEU, NU, and DU.

02-l 69(doc)/062 102 2

DOE prepared a PEA to address the proposed action. The comprehensible management program addressed

in this PEA looks at transportation, including preparation of uranium materials for safe shipment. lon_eterm storage, maintenance and disposition. The PEA addresses 14,200 metric tons of uranium (!L~TL‘)

materials thought to be potentially reusable; thus, uranium wastes are not part of the scope. Reusable is

defined as “uranium material having an economically viable disposition path.” The management plan

covers uranium materials that are currently in the form of oxides, metals, and other stable compounds,

and which are located at various sites around the United States. The plan does not include irradiated

material, material in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UT& uranium that is enriched to 20% or greater

in 235U, or uranium enriched in 233U.

Storage would occur until future sale or reuse alternatives are ready for decision-making. DOE evaluated

in the PEA several proposed alternative DOE storage sites: the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

(PORTS) in Ohio; the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in Kentucky; the Y-12 National Securinr

Complex (Y-12) and East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) in Tennessee; the Savannah Ri\Jer Site

(SRS) in South Carolina; and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL‘, in

Idaho. Also considered were western and eastern commercial sites. Approximately 14:200 MTU \+,ould be

stored in either one (centralized) location or several (consolidated) locations based on the pr~.in:it~~ of

sites or the uranium product form. DOE now has potentially reusable uranium materials in 15 II locations

in the United States; however, the vast majority of these materials are located at only a fex;s. sires. Ti~es~

sites have additional uranium materials, which are not part of the Liranium Mana~eme;lt Grc?:;;: I T VT, :C; 1

inventory and not addressed by the proposed action.

DOE proposes to implement a ion,O-term (greater than 20 years) management plan for its i!:\ enti\r\’ 57

potentially reusable LEU, NU, and DU. Uranium materials, which are presently located at multiple sii-cs.

are proposed to be consolidated by transporting the materials to one or several storage locations. to

facilitate ultimate disposition. The management plan would address the packaging and transport of

potentially reusable uranium materials from DOE sites and university loan/lease returns and their receipt

and storage at a site under cognizance of the UMG. This action will also cover material shipment from the

UMG and disposition. A Secretarial Determination is required, under certain circumstances, for uranium

in the UMG inventory to be sold. Twenty years would provide time for additional reviews required for

any future related actions that may be desirable to help accomplish ultimate disposition.

Since disposition of this material is currently undefined, a “bounding” analysis was perfomled to estimate

the potential impacts from commercial processing of this materia1, use of this material in research

activities, provision of this material to other Government agencies, and/or the sale

(international/domestic) of this material upon completion of a Secreterial Determination. Disposition is a

component of each of the action alternatives and impacts wou!d differ based only on differences in

transportation. Some wastes would be produced during this disposition process.

ALTERNATWB: In addition to the proposed action, impacts were evaluated for the no action

alternative. The no action alternative would continue ongoing storage activities at all existing facilities.

This alternative includes the continued storage of uranium materials in existing facilities (DOE and

private). Monitoring and surveillance of the uranium materials at each site would continue, as \J.ouId tlx

handling necessary to continue proper management of these materials, including repackaging if needed.

The uranium inventory would not be dispositioned.

Alternatives analyzed under the proposed action included: Interim Centralized Storage at a Single DOE

Site; Interim Centralized Storage at a Single Commercial Site; Partially Consolidated Storage at Several

DOE Sites; Partially Consolidated Storage at One Western and One Eastern DOE Site; Partial]>

Consolidated Storage at One Western and One Eastern Commercial Site; and Partial]>, Consolidated

Storage by Physical Form.

02- 169(doc)/082102 3

DOE must be able to transfer small quantities (less than 0.1 MTU) from any one of the potential

consolidated or centralized storage sites to a second location (such as a university). This option usas

considered as a component of each alternative under the proposed action. It was not itself a stand-alone

alternative.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

NO ACTION

Under this alternative, the uranium currently stored at the various DOE sites, non-DOE sites, universities,

and other commercial locations would remain at those sites. The uranium is currently in various container

types, including 55gallon steel drums, T-hoppers, half-high boxes, and sea-land containers.

Normal Operations. Under normal operations, iand use, geolo,g and soils, water resources, cultural

resources, and the infrastructure remain unchanged. Air effluents associated with uranium inventor)

maintenance would be minimal and would remain the same as they are now. Because here is 110 neu

construction and there are no effluents from the stored uranium, plant and animal species would not be

adversely affected and cultural resources would not be impacted. Some continued maintenance of

facilities would be required, and monitoring and surveillance at the current sites would continue. The

socioeconomic impact analysis assumes little or no construction activity and continued uranium

monitoring by current employees. Under these assumptions, there is no change in expenditure or

employment and, consequently, no impact. Even if additional workers were hired for monitoring at each

potential centralized or consolidated storage site, they would represent a minimal increase to the large

number (several hundred thousand) of wage and salary earners present in counties that contain the larger

DOE uranium storage sites. In the absence of important impacts, environmental justice concerns do not

arise.

The 3,900 MTU at the 152 locations other than the six DOE locations would remain at these sites. The

amount at each individual site is very small and -is typically associated with university or other types of

research. No substantial environmental impacts are expected from the continued use and/or storage at

these locations; however, these sites do not have a long-term mission for uranium storage and expect to

ship materials back to DOE when the research work is completed.

FaciIity Accidents. The highest acute consequences to the public or to a co-located worker are due to a

fire or earthquake at PORTS, with aerial dispersion of uranium materia!s, t3’1t are still neg$gib;e. This

result is based on the large amount of uranium materials currently stored at PORTS (4,400 MTU or -3 1%

of the total of 14,200 MTU). Acute radiological and toxicological consequences are negligible at a11 sites.

Accidents at all facilities are expected to cause negligible to low chronic risks to humans and ecological

receptors.

Transportation. There are no transportation activities associated with theno action alternative.

PROPOSED ACTION

Normal operations result in no more than negligible acute or chronic consequences and risk at any site under

any storage alternative or disposition option. Environmental impacts associated with normal operations vary

from alternative to alternative and, occasionally, by site within a given alternative. General handling

accidents result in no more than negligible acute or chronic consequences and risk at any site under any

02-l 69(doc)/082102 4

storage altemarive or disposition option. Chronic human health and ecological consequences and risk are

negligible to Iow for all sites under all alternatives. The highest transportation consequences and risk are for

alternatives that involve moving uranium materials to a western location, either to a commercial site or to

INEEL.

Comparison of Alternatives

When comparing the environmental impacts of the various alternatives, the following emerge as general

trends:

l There were none-to-minor impacts for all of the alternatives considered and negligible-to-low

impacts from the standpoint of facility accidents (fire and seismic) for all the alternatives, while

transportation effects for the alternatives generally reflected the extent of material transport

associated with the alternative being analyzed.

l The greater the centralization or consolidation of the uranium inventory, the greater the potential for

normal operations impacts. Greater centralization or consolidation means that ncu’ storage space has

to be built: which means accompanyin,(J costs and commitment of land, and uranium materials wili

have to be shipped greater distances with increased risk of accidents.

0 The action alternztive with the fewest environmental impacts and that is the least expensive ($7.3M)

is “Interim Partially Consolidated Storage at Several DOE Sites. ” This alternative takes advantage of

the current storage of the majority of these DOE sites already. Thus, construction costs and

associated environmental impacts would be less than other action aIternatives.

a Similarly, the PORTS site would have the fewest environmental impacts and would be the least

expensive ($8.4M) of the DOE facilities considered for interim centraIized storage. It should be

noted that DOE would be committed to using the existing UMG facility at PORTS; therefore other

buildings would not be upgraded and the upgrade costs computed in the PEA for other buildings

would not be spent. Only very minor upgrades to the existing storage facility would be needed.

PDGP and commercial sites would be the most expensive centralized storage.

0 Excess Latent Cancer Fatalities (LCF!) due to transportation and traffic fatalities are minimal for all

alternatives but greatest for the interim storage at the single site alternatives. The increase in excess

LCFs to the public from radiological exposures during transportation is less than one for all

alternatives.

a Western sites would tend to have slightly higher trafic fatalities associated with them than eastern

ones due to the larger volumes of uranium materials to be shipped over greater distances.

0 Commercial sites would have slightly greater impacts than DOE sites (except for PGDP) when

comparing similar alternatives (interim centralized storage at a single DOE site versus a single

commercial site and interim partially consolidated storage at two DOE sites versus two commercial

sites).

Interim Centralized Storage at a Single Commercial Site Alternative. Considering the combination of

normal operations, facility accidents and transportation, the “Interim Centralized Storage at a Single

Commercial Site” alternative and the PGDP site for “Interim Consolidated Storage at a Single DOE Site”

alternative have the greatest potential for environmental impacts. For normal operations, the western and

eastern commercial sites and PGDP have equal impact potential. Any of these sites would have 305

first-year construction workers, 14 new permanent workers, $12.2M in new construction costs, and seven

02-169(doc)/082102 5

acres of land commitment and habitat disturbance. Facility accidents \Jfould resuit in negligible to low acute

and chronic risks.

Interim Centralized Storage at a Single DOE Site. Impacts are very similar to the single commercial

site alternative discussed above; however, there are some differences in impacts among the DOE sites.

Because PORTS has sufrpicient existing storage space, normal operations impacts, including

socioeconomics, would be minimal at this site. Upgrading existing buildings at PORTS would not result

in commitments of land or destruction of wildlife habitat that would be necessary at all other DOE sites.

Due to the very small amount of uranium storage space at PGDP, the impacts of normal operations would

be almost identical to interim centralized storage at a single commercial site as noted above.

Interim Partially Consolidated Storage at Two Commercial Sites. Because none of the 14,200 MTU

uranium inventory is now at these commercial sites, the normal operations impacrs ascnriated with this

Jtclnativt: are very similar to those for the “Interim Centralized Storage at a Single Commercial Site”

alternative, except that environmental impacts would be shared by the two sites.

Interim PartiaIly Consolidated Storage at Two DOE Sites. Environmental impacts from normal

operations would tend to be less than from consolidation at two commercial sites. because some of the

uranium inventory is already at INEEL and PORTS. Thus, less construction-related inlpacts would

result. Human health and ecological risks from facility accidents \tTould bf: the same as for

ConsoIidation at two commercial sites.

Interim Partially Consolidated Storage at SeveraI DOE Sites. Because most of the uranium

inventory would remain at the six prime DOE locations and only the 3,900 hll3-J at 152 other sites

would be relocated, the normal operations impacts would be substantially less than all the other action

alternatives. Additional space requirements, and the impacts associated with construction of this space,

would be sharply reduced when compared to the other action alternatives. This alternative most closely

resembles the No Action alternative.

CUMULATMZ IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are impacts associated with the proposed action when combined with other past,

present, or reasonably foreseeable future impacts. There are no significant impacts associated with the

proposed action under normal operations. When the negligible-to-minor environmental and

socioeconomic impacts associated with normal operations (construction of new storage facilities, facilities

upgrades, and daily maintenance and surveillance) and any nf t!~ action 2!temxivcs aie added to tie

baseline environment, cumulative impacts are minor.

For facility accidents, the potential for negligible to low acute consequences and risk, due to either storage

area fires or seismic events, exists for the “Interim Centralized Storage at a Single DOE Site” alternative

and “Interim Centralized Storage at a Single Commercial Site.” Under a major seismic event scenario

sufficient to mobilize uranium oxide into the environment, it is reasonable to assume that other material

releases and other risks would be posed to workers at the site. Therefore, risks from uranium oxides

would be one of several environmental and health risks that workers at the sites would face. For other

accidents and other forms of uranium materials, the acute and chronic human health risk and ecological

risk are negligible or low.

Due to a small increase in vehicular traffic to transport uranium materials, there would be a slight increase

in traffic accidents and fatalities on the nation’s highways. These cumulative impacts would be very

02-I 69(doc)/082 102 6

minor in comparison to the baseline. Likewise, exposures of the public and ;I\ <I Ti:erS dLlril1,~ Llraj]jTL;~

transport would increase very slightly the risks of LCFs.

At some time in the future, the uranium inventory would be eventually disposirioneii. I’arious disposition

options including commercial processing and domestic sales of the entire inventq. disposition of limited

quantities (50 MTU) at research facilities, disposition of 2,500 MTU to other go\‘ermxent agencies, and

foreign sales of 4,050 MTU may occur. Impacts’associated with these options are considered as a part of

each of the interim storage alternatives. In addition, potential cumulative impacts (such as temporq

storage costs, new construction, and additional labor) could occur should an exisring ixventory of uranium

materials be increased at any of these disposition option locations.

SRS. There is a large inventory (-19,000 MTU) of uranium, mostiy oxides, at the SRS, M*hich is not psrr

of the UMG inventory. For an accident risk perspective, cumulative impacts could ‘0s important at SRS

(due principally to this existin,,0 non-UMG uranium oxide inventory). Cen~raiized storage would aciti

I 1,300 MTU to the 2,400 MTU already included in the Uh4G inventory.

In addition, up to seven acres of site habitat at SRS ;isould be devoted 10 IX-L; ;~~:-._;:rLl~~iGn. 1k31110\~iJ~~

these acres from current use. This acreage, when considered from a total sile yerqxcti\.e. lx.ould be 2

minimal cumulative impact since portions of SRS are undergoing remediatiq?:: :‘: +einrz dedicated ::,

greater environmental uses.

PDGP. The PDGP site would need the largest amotin’: of new construction !:i:l:Z!;!g sel'en acres cf

permanent habitat disruption. This disruption would occur at a site und~r~~~i:?~ sround-disturbi:!,

remediation efforts, which also affect wildlife habitat: albeit of low quality in K~X zcses. Because of 111~

small workforce at PDGP, direct construction-related increases in employmen? \l:~b:::i be greatest at this

site. Due to declining DOE employment at the site, howe\rer, the overall curnulzi\ e :xlpact \?Jould like]!.

be temporary but beneficial for the regional economy.

PORTS. The PORTS site has an existing inventory of uranium materials. Should the approximateI>

9,800 MTU of additional inventory evaluated in this EA be added to the existins inventory, then the

potential for cumulative impacts due to accidental releases would increase. Since PORTS currently has

sufficient existing storage space for the 14,200 MTU, the site has the lowest potential for cumulative

impacts due to construction/renovation. However, as noted, DOE would be committed to using the

existing UMG storage facility and upgrades to other building for uranium storage for this program would

not occur.

INEEL. Like the PDGP site, INEEL would require substantia! ~WJ CCX~~:C~C~ *ccit!i associated

permanent habitat disruption. This seven acre commitment would occur at a hi$:ly developed site

undergoing other ground disturbances associated with remediation. This site also 1~s uranium inventor!

that is not part of the proposed action so cumulative impacts from accidental releases ET= possible.

Y-12 and ETTP. The two sites at Oak Ridge would also require a Colnmilmei;: of land for neA

construction. Even though there are also other uranium inventories in Oak Ridse. 111s ?Il\rsicaI separation

of the two sites lessens the potential for cumulative impacts due to accidental rele=ise_;.

DETERMINATION: Based on the findings in this PEA, DOE has determineci that none of the

alternatives under the proposed action to implement a long-term (greater than 20 years‘) management plan

for its inventory of potentially reusable LEU, NU, and DU have potentialI>* significant adverse

environmental impacts; thus the proposed action does not constitute a major federal action that would

significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the contexT of the National

Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.

02-l 69(doc)/082 102 7

U.S. Department of Energ

Oak Ridge Operations

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

02-l 69(doc)/082102

S