[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2239-2242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1196]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of 
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

AGENCY: Department of Energy

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare 
a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.). 
The PEIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of alternative 
strategies for the long-term management and use of 560,000 metric tons 
of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF<INF>6) currently stored in 
cylinders at DOE's three gaseous diffusion plant sites located near 
Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

    This impact statement will support management decisions on depleted 
UF<INF>6 by evaluating the environmental impacts of a range of 
reasonable alternative strategies as well as providing a means for the 
public to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard on this matter. 
This NOI informs the public of the proposal, explains the schedule, 
announces the dates, times, and places for scoping meetings, and 
solicits public comment.

DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues and alternatives related 
to this proposal is addressed, DOE invites comments on the scope of 
this proposed PEIS. Written comments should be postmarked by March 25, 
1996, to ensure consideration. Comments received after this date will 
be considered to the extent practicable.

    Three public scoping meetings will be held to provide information 
and opportunities for discussion of the subject PEIS and to receive 
oral and written comments. The meetings will be held near the storage 
sites located near Paducah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and 
Portsmouth, Ohio. The scoping meetings will be held twice a day, 
beginning at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., at each site to allow for as much 
interaction with the stakeholders as possible. The meetings will be 
held according to the following schedule:

Paducah, Kentucky; February 13, 1996 (Information Age Park Resource 
Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd., Paducah, Kentucky 42001)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; February 15, 1996 (Pollard Auditorium at Oak 
Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 210 Badger Avenue, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee 37831)
Portsmouth, Ohio; February 20, 1996 (Vern Riffe Pike County Vocational 
School, State Route 124, Piketon, Ohio 45661)

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the PEIS and requests for 
copies of referenced material should be directed to: Mr. Charles E. 
Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, Maryland, 20874-1290, (301) 903-4781.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 
of NEPA Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-4600 or 1-
800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The unique properties and value of depleted 
UF<INF>6, such as its high purity and density, as well as the large 
volume (560,000 metric tons) in storage, make it appropriate to 
evaluate, analyze, and decide the fate of this material separately from 
other DOE materials in storage or awaiting disposition. DOE has 
determined that such an action is a major Federal action with 
potentially significant environmental impacts and requires the 
preparation of an EIS in accordance with NEPA. The purpose of this PEIS 
will be to assess the potential impacts of a range of reasonable 
alternative strategies for the long-term management of depleted 
UF<INF>6. A strategy is a set of actions for handling depleted 
UF<INF>6, from its current storage condition at three DOE sites--
Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee--to 
ultimate disposition. These broad strategies focus on material use, 
storage, and disposal. The programmatic impact statement will address 
the potential impacts of the actions that would comprise each strategy. 
DOE will prepare additional tiered, project-specific NEPA documents as 
appropriate.
    The proposed PEIS is the second component of an integrated three-
part program to select a long-term management strategy for depleted 
UF<INF>6 at Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge. The first component of 
the program is an engineering analysis of proposed technologies for 
managing or using the material. This analysis will be based, in part, 
on responses to a request for recommendations for potential uses, 
associated conversion technologies, and management technologies for 
depleted UF<INF>6.
    In November 1994, DOE published two notices in the Federal Register 
to initiate the consideration of alternative strategies for the long-
term management and use of depleted UF<INF>6. The first notice was the 
``Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (UF<INF>6): Request for 
Recommendations'' (59 FR 56324), and the second notice was the 
``Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement: Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management of 
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride at Several Geographic Locations'' (59 FR 
56325). As indicated in the request for recommendations, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory used technical experts to evaluate the 57 
responses to the request for recommendations. The results of these 
evaluations are presented in ``The Technology Assessment Report for the 
Long-Term Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride'' (UCRL-AR-
120372), dated June 30, 1995. Copies of this report are available from 
the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, phone 
(703) 487-4650, or from Mr. Bradley at the address above. Copies are 
also in the DOE reading rooms at the following locations:

DOE Headquarters, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1E-190, 
Washington, D.C. 20585, phone (202) 586-3142;
Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Reading Room, 55 Jefferson 
Circle, Room 112, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, phone (615) 241-4780;
Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 175 Freedom Blvd., 
Kevil, Kentucky 42053, phone (502) 462-2550;
Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 505 West Emmitt 
Avenue, Suite 3, Waverly, Ohio 45690, phone (614) 947-5093.

    As a result of the process implemented to date, DOE has considered 
a wide range of potential alternatives. While many of the options 
offered in response to DOE's request for recommendations were already 
known, 

[[Page 2240]]
others contained information on unique technologies and potential uses 
that had not been evaluated previously. DOE officials have considered 
the opinions of the independent technical reviewers on each of the 
recommended options. After the consideration of public comments on the 
scope of the PEIS, DOE will determine which options will be evaluated 
in detail in the impact statement. Based on its initial review, DOE has 
grouped the recommendations into four categories of options: (1) 
Conversion, (2) use, (3) storage, and (4) disposal. DOE intends to 
consider representative options in each category in evaluating the 
environmental impacts of the alternatives.
    The third component of DOE's program is a parallel study of the 
life-cycle costs of each of the management strategy alternatives to be 
evaluated in the EIS. The results of this study, in conjunction with 
those of the impact assessment, will form the basis for making a 
strategy selection from among the alternatives. This decision will be 
documented in the Record of Decision for this PEIS.

Background

    Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element containing 
different isotopes, notably Uranium-238 (U-238) and Uranium-235 (U-
235). In its natural state, uranium occurs as an oxide ore 
(U<INF>3O<INF>8). This oxide ore is concentrated and then fluorinated 
to yield UF<INF>6.
    The ability to use uranium for controlled fission in nuclear chain 
reactions in most nuclear reactors depends on increasing the proportion 
of the U-235 isotope in the material (0.7 percent in natural uranium) 
relative to the proportion of the U-238 isotope through an isotopic 
separation process called enrichment. In this process, a stream of 
UF<INF>6 containing both U-235 and U-238 is divided into separate 
streams--one is increased, or enriched, in its percentage of U-235 
(typically 3.5 percent), and the other reduced, or depleted, in its 
percentage of U-235 (typically 0.25 percent). The enriched UF<INF>6 is 
used for making reactor fuel and historically for making weapons-grade 
uranium. The large-scale enrichment process developed by the United 
States in the 1940's is called ``gaseous diffusion.'' After World War 
II, the process continued at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge 
facilities under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its 
successor agencies, including DOE. On July 1, 1993, responsibility for 
uranium enrichment operations at the Portsmouth and Paducah facilities 
was transferred from DOE to the United States Enrichment Corporation. 
Diffusion plant operations at the Oak Ridge facility ceased in 1985. 
The facility used for diffusion operations at Oak Ridge is no longer 
needed, and DOE plans to decontaminate and decommission the buildings 
and equipment used in the diffusion process.
    A major consequence of the gaseous diffusion process is the 
accumulation of a significant amount of depleted UF<INF>6. This 
material is so named because it is depleted in the percentage of the U-
235 isotope as compared to the original feed material. Most of this 
material, accumulated since the 1940s, is stored at the Paducah and 
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites and at the Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The total amount of depleted UF<INF>6, created prior to 
July 1, 1993, and still the responsibility of DOE, is approximately 
560,000 metric tons. Depleted UF<INF>6 is stored as a solid in a 
partial vacuum in large steel cylinders each containing approximately 
12 metric tons. These are stacked two layers high at the sites in large 
storage areas referred to as ``yards.'' The specifications for these 
cylinders are typically: a capacity of 12 metric tons, a diameter of 48 
inches, a length of 12 feet, and wall thicknesses of \5/16\ of an inch. 
There are approximately 46,500 such cylinders in storage at the three 
sites. About 28,400 cylinders are stored at Paducah, 13,400 at 
Portsmouth, and 4,700 at Oak Ridge.

Purpose of the PEIS

    The purpose of the PEIS is to evaluate the impacts of reasonable 
alternative strategies for depleted UF<INF>6 long-term management and 
use, and to support the selection of a strategy for implementation. The 
alternatives will be analyzed for their potential impacts on the human 
environment, including risks to worker and public health and safety.
    The need to re-examine the current strategy for long-term 
management of depleted UF<INF>6 arises from several factors including 
DOE's current missions and functions; increasing budget pressures; the 
continuing need for good stewardship of resources including materials 
in inventory; and continuing Departmental attention to considerations 
of environment, safety, and health. The increased pressure on the 
Federal budget particularly 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.

Description of Preliminary Alternatives

    Reasonable alternatives (i.e., those that are practical or feasible 
both technically and economically) to be considered in detail in the 
PEIS will represent a range of alternatives for meeting DOE's purpose 
and need. Each alternative is in the form of a strategy. A strategy is 
a set of actions and schedules for depleted UF<INF>6, including 
storage, use and/or disposal. Such actions also may include conversion 
and transportation activities. All alternatives begin with the material 
in storage. Strategies involve the configuration of the proposed 
facilities associated with these actions, including various 
centralization or decentralization options. The time period for the 
analysis would cover approximately 40 years from the Record of 
Decision.
    The following is a preliminary list of six alternatives and the 
actions within each that will be analyzed. The proposed alternatives 
include continuation of the current management plan (the no action 
alternative), two storage alternatives, two use alternatives, and a 
disposal alternative. The conversion processes and other options that 
will be analyzed will be representative of those recommended in 
response to the published request for recommendations. This list of 
alternatives is subject to modifications (additions or deletions) as 
suggested by the public.

Continue Current Management Plan (No Action)

    Under the ``no action'' alternative, cylinder management activities 
(handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue, 
consistent with the current management plan. These management 
activities include actions needed to meet safety and environmental 
requirements.

Storage

    Two storage alternatives are proposed for consideration in the 
impact statement. These are continued storage beyond 2020 as UF<INF>6 
and as an oxide. Storage for up to 40 years will be analyzed.
Storage as UF<INF>6
    This alternative considers storing depleted UF<INF>6 in one of 
three types of storage facilities. The steps in the alternative include 
repackaging as necessary to meet the requirements of the storage 
facility designs and transport to the storage facility(s). The storage 

[[Page 2241]]
alternatives include (1) storage in yards, (2) storage in enclosed 
buildings, and (3) deep underground retrievable storage (such as a 
mine). In cases where the storage facility is located off site, the 
impact statement will examine the transportation impacts associated 
with moving the material from its current location.
Storage as an Oxide
    The steps in this storage alternative include: transport of the 
depleted UF<INF>6 to a conversion facility, conversion to an oxide form 
(either U<INF>30<INF>8 or UO<INF>2), and transport of the oxide to a 
storage facility. The potential storage facilities are: (1) Buildings, 
(2) below-ground cement vaults, and (3) deep underground retrievable 
storage (such as a mine). In addition to the oxide, the conversion 
technology could produce an additional product(s) (such as hydrogen 
fluoride). The alternative analysis will include an assessment of the 
impacts associated with the transport of that product to either a 
disposal site or to a user.

Use of Depleted Uranium

    Strategies that focus on the use of depleted uranium normally 
include conversion of the UF<INF>6 to another chemical form, usually 
oxide or metal. The basic steps in a use alternative are: (1) Transport 
of the depleted UF<INF>6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2) 
conversion of the depleted UF<INF>6 to another chemical form, (3) 
transport of this new material to a fabrication plant, (4) fabrication 
of the end product, and (5) transport of this product to the user. 
Conversion processes leading to uranium oxide and depleted uranium 
metal generate additional products including calcium fluoride and 
hydrogen fluoride, which may either be sold or disposed of as waste. 
The impacts associated with transporting these additional products will 
be included in the assessment of the use alternatives.
    In the use alternatives, the conversion products (oxides, metals, 
etc.) would be manufactured into other forms. Of the uses proposed in 
response to the request for recommendations, the production of 
radiation shielding, from either oxide or metal, will be analyzed as a 
representative dense-material use alternative. Other dense-material 
applications include using depleted uranium metal in industrial 
counterweights, energy storage flywheels, or as munitions. Impacts 
associated with other dense-material would be generally bounded by the 
consideration of the more general radiation shielding application. 
Should the dense-material use alternative be selected in DOE's Record 
of Decision, DOE will prepare additional tiered NEPA analysis as 
appropriate concerning this alternative and specific dense-material 
uses.
    Although suggested as a use alternative, enriching and converting 
this material into fuel feed for existing commercial reactors or 
advanced reactors (including breeder reactors) is not a reasonable 
alternative and will not be analyzed in detail in the PEIS. While 
technologically feasible, enrichment would be a lengthy and expensive 
process which would continue to generate additional depleted UF<INF>6. 
This alternative is unreasonable for a number of reasons including: 
Duration, cost-effectiveness, current and anticipated commercial market 
prices, current and anticipated market demand, the lack of current and 
anticipated demand by DOE's Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, and the 
generation of additional depleted UF<INF>6 for further disposition. 
However, the PEIS will analyze long-term storage, and the impacts from 
the use of stored material as a fuel source, if subsequently proposed, 
would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documentation.

Radiation Shielding from Metal

    Once converted, the metal would be packaged and transported to a 
fabrication plant where uranium metal shielding components could be 
manufactured. The impacts associated with off-site transport of the 
metal and the manufacturing process will be part of the assessment. The 
impacts of the uses of the final products will be assessed in a general 
way consistent with public access to the manufactured product.

Radiation Shielding from Oxide

    The steps in this alternative are identical to those described 
previously except that the conversion technology produces oxide rather 
than metal. The oxide (in the form of depleted UO<INF>2) would be 
transported to a fabrication plant where a concrete material containing 
uranium could be manufactured. The transport of the oxide material off 
site and the manufacture of the concrete and the container will be 
included in the impact assessment. The impact of the use of the 
concrete material for shielding will be included in the assessment.

Disposal of Depleted UF<INF>6

    This alternative analyzes the impact of the disposal of depleted 
UF<INF>6 in the oxide form in three different disposal facility 
configurations. Because it is chemically stable and insoluble, the 
oxide form would likely be the most appropriate form for permanent 
disposal. In this scenario, the material would be disposed of as a low-
level radioactive waste.
    The steps in the disposal alternative are: (1) Transport of the 
depleted UF<INF>6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2) conversion 
to oxide, (3) transport of the oxide to a disposal facility, and (4) 
disposal. The conversion of the depleted UF<INF>6 to an oxide form 
(either U<INF>3O<INF>8 or UO<INF>2) would be accomplished using the 
technology assessed as part of alternatives described previously. After 
conversion, the material would be appropriately packaged and 
transported to a disposal facility. The facility designs analyzed in 
the alternative include drums placed in: (1) Engineered trenches, (2) 
below-ground concrete vaults, and (3) mines. Both bulk disposal of the 
depleted UF<INF>6 and grouted disposal forms will be considered. Bulk 
disposal consists of placing the oxide directly in the drums. Grouted 
disposal requires fixing the oxide in a cement-type medium. General 
facility configurations will be assessed for both humid and arid 
hypothetical locations to provide the full range of potential impacts. 
Transportation impacts associated with moving the low-level waste 
material will be assessed for locations in both the Eastern and Western 
United States.
    As with the other alternatives that include a conversion step, 
byproducts are produced. The transport of these additional materials 
will be included in the assessment.

Identification of Environmental Issues

    This EIS is the first level of a tiered environmental assessment 
process. Tiering refers to the process of first addressing general 
(programmatic) matters in a broad PEIS followed by more narrowly 
focused (project level) environmental documentation that incorporates 
by reference the more general discussions. At this first level, the 
PEIS addresses the potential impacts of broad strategy alternatives, 
including analyses of the general impacts of (1) the current management 
program for depleted UF<INF>6 at DOE's storage sites, (2) technologies 
for converting the depleted UF<INF>6 to other chemical forms, (3) 
storage for subsequent use or disposal, (4) transportation of 
materials, and (5) disposal. The environmental impacts of the transport 
of materials along specific routes, impacts from the siting of any 
specific facilities, or the use of specific technologies will be 
assessed in future NEPA documents, as appropriate. These subsequent 
documents are the ``project 

[[Page 2242]]
level'' documents and are the second level of the tier.
    The second level document(s) would address specific siting issues, 
construction and operation decisions, and the impacts of transport 
between identified origins and destinations. As this PEIS supports the 
selection of a general strategy, the range of impact areas to be 
considered will focus on those appropriate to this level of decision. 
The impact analysis will consider, for each alternative, the physical, 
chemical, and radiological health and safety risks to workers and to 
the public of material storage, conversion, transportation, use, and 
disposal. Potential impacts to air quality and noise levels, water 
quality, waste disposal capacity, biotic resources, and socioeconomic 
factors associated with these activities will be assessed. 
Environmental justice issues will be considered as appropriate for this 
level of decision. Cumulative impacts of strategy-related actions and 
other actions at the three DOE sites will be assessed.

Related and Other DOE NEPA Documentation

    Consistent with tiering, should the depleted UF<INF>6 strategy 
selection result in site-specific actions, additional NEPA documents 
would be prepared to consider the specific impacts on the site and 
vicinity from any proposed action. Such analyses would address 
additional site-specific issues such as historic resources, threatened 
and endangered species, critical environmental resources, floodplain, 
and land use. The results of specific analyses conducted as part of 
other Departmental EISs will be incorporated as appropriate.

Invitation to Comment

    DOE will conduct a full and open process to define the scope of the 
PEIS. DOE will hold public scoping meetings at the sites that may be 
affected by the proposed action in order to discuss issues and to 
receive oral and written comments on the scope of the impact statement. 
These meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to present 
comments, ask questions, and discuss concerns with DOE officials. The 
public will be encouraged to comment on the content of the proposed 
action, the proposed alternatives, and the range of impacts to be 
considered including cumulative effects. Oral and written comments will 
be considered equally in the preparation of the document.
    The scoping meetings will allow opportunity for the public to 
provide comments on the alternative strategies being considered by DOE. 
These scoping meetings build upon six public information forums held 
during the request for recommendations comment period and the 
completion of the technology assessment phase. At those forums, the 
public provided recommendations for technologies to be considered and 
comments on the factors used to evaluate the recommendations.

    The scoping meetings will consist of an explanation of the depleted 
UF<INF>6 management program, as well as interactive workshops to 
examine the alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS. 
Background information and fact sheets will be made available to the 
public prior to the scoping meetings, upon request. (Requests should be 
sent to Mr. Charles E. Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290; (301) 903-4781.) 
These materials, along with posters, demonstrations, and technical 
experts, will be present at each of the scoping meetings to provide as 
much information as possible to the participants.
    Information on the meeting dates and locations, as well as related 
materials, can be obtained through the address above. Information is 
also available through the information and resource centers located 
near the sites. Contact Mr. Charles E. Bradley at the address above for 
more information.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of January 1996.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-1196 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P