Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2239

Department of Energy Organization Act

(Public Law 95–91), and rules and

regulations issued in implementation of

those Acts.

Further information regarding this

Advisory Board may be obtained from

Rachel Murphy Samuel at (202) 586–

3279.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18,

1996.

JoAnne Whitman,

Deputy Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–1197 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Alternative Strategies for the LongTerm 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 (UF6)

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 UF6

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

UF6, 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 UF6. A strategy

is a set of actions for handling depleted

UF6, 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 UF6 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

UF6.

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 UF6. The first notice

was the ‘‘Management of Depleted

Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6): 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,
2240 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

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 lifecycle 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

(U3O8). This oxide ore is concentrated

and then fluorinated to yield UF6.

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 UF6 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

UF6 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 UF6.

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 UF6, created prior to July 1,

1993, and still the responsibility of

DOE, is approximately 560,000 metric

tons. Depleted UF6 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 UF6 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 UF6 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 UF6, 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 UF6 and as an oxide.

Storage for up to 40 years will be

analyzed.

Storage as UF6

This alternative considers storing

depleted UF6 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 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 UF6 to

a conversion facility, conversion to an

oxide form (either U308 or UO2), 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 UF6 to another

chemical form, usually oxide or metal.

The basic steps in a use alternative are:

(1) Transport of the depleted UF6 from

storage to a conversion facility, (2)

conversion of the depleted UF6 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 UF6. This

alternative is unreasonable for a number

of reasons including: Duration, costeffectiveness, 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 UF6 for further disposition.

However, the PEIS will analyze longterm 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 UO2)

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 UF6

This alternative analyzes the impact

of the disposal of depleted UF6 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 UF6

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

UF6 to an oxide form (either U3O8 or

UO2) 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 UF6 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 UF6 at DOE’s storage sites, (2)

technologies for converting the depleted

UF6 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
2242 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

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 UF6 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 UF6

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

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Department

of Energy/Los Alamos National

Laboratory

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) notice

is hereby given of the following

Advisory Committee meeting:

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Los

Alamos National Laboratory.

DATES: Tuesday, February 13, 1996: 6:30

pm–9:30 pm; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm

(public comment session).

ADDRESSES: San Ildefonso Gym, Route 5,

San Ildefonso, New Mexico 87501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Lisa Roybal, EMSSAB, Los Alamos

National Laboratory, Northern New

Mexico Community College, 1002 Onate

Street, Espanola, NM 87352, in New

Mexico call (800)753–8970, or out-ofstate call (505)753–8970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Board

The purpose of the Advisory Board is

to make recommendations to DOE and

its regulators in the areas of

environmental restoration, waste

management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

Tuesday, February 13, 1996

6:30 PM Call to Order and Welcome

7:00 PM Input from the Public

8:00 PM DOE/LANL Environmental

Restoration Briefing

8:30 PM Sub-Committee Reports

9:30 PM Adjourn

Public Participation

The meeting is open to the public.

Written statements may be filed with

the Committee either before or after the

meeting. Individuals who wish to make

oral statements pertaining to agenda

items should contact Ms. Lisa Roybal, at

the telephone number listed above.

Requests must be received 5 days prior

to the meeting and reasonable provision

will be made to include the presentation

in the agenda. The Designated Federal

Official is empowered to conduct the

meeting in a fashion that will facilitate

the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes

The minutes of this meeting will be

available for public review and copying

at the Freedom of Information Public

Reading Room, 1E–190, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585 between

9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday–Friday,

except Federal holidays. Minutes will

also be available by writing to Herman

Le-Doux, Department of Energy, Los

Alamos Area Office, 528 35th Street, Los

Alamos, NM 87185–5400.

Issued at Washington, DC on January 19,

1996.

Rachel M. Samuel,

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee

Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–1069 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Mixed Waste Focus Area

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Idaho

Operations Office.