[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40164-40170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19396]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 
Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a geologic 
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, for the disposal of 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, in accordance with 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA) (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 10101 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations that implement the procedural provisions of NEPA 
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE procedures for implementing NEPA 
(10 CFR Part 1021). DOE invites Federal, State, and local agencies, 
Native American tribal organizations, and other interested parties to 
participate in determining the scope and content of the EIS.
    The NWPA directs DOE to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca 
Mountain site in southern Nevada as a potential site for a geologic 
repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste. If the Secretary of Energy determines that the Yucca 
Mountain site is suitable, the Secretary may then recommend that the 
President approve the site for development of a repository. Under the 
NWPA, any such recommendation shall be considered a major Federal 
action and must be accompanied by a final environmental impact 
statement. Accordingly, DOE is preparing this EIS in conjunction with 
any potential DOE recommendation regarding the development of a 
repository at Yucca Mountain.
    The NWPA provides that the environmental impact statement need not 
consider the need for a repository, the alternatives to geologic 
disposal, or alternative sites to the Yucca Mountain site. Therefore, 
this environmental impact statement will evaluate a proposal to 
construct, operate, and eventually close a repository at Yucca 
Mountain. The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives for 
implementing such a proposal in accordance with the NWPA.
    The NWPA also provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
shall, to the extent practicable, adopt DOE's EIS in connection with 
any subsequent construction authorization and license that the 
Commission issues to DOE for a repository. The EIS process is scheduled 
to be completed in September 2000 and is separate from the licensing 
process that would be initiated by any submission of a license 
application by DOE to the Commission in June 2001.
    The EIS will be prepared over a five-year period in conjunction 
with DOE's separate but parallel site suitability evaluation and 
potential license application. DOE is beginning the EIS process early 
to ensure that the appropriate data gathering and tests are performed 
to adequately assess potential environmental impacts, and to allow the 
public sufficient time to consider this complex program and to provide 
input.

DATES: DOE invites and encourages comments and suggestions on the scope 
of the EIS to ensure that all relevant environmental issues and 
reasonable alternatives are addressed. Public scoping meetings are 
discussed below in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. DOE will 
carefully consider all comments and suggestions received during the 
120-day public scoping period that ends on December 5, 1995. Comments 
and suggestions received after the close of the public scoping period 
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this EIS, requests to pre-
register to speak at any of the public scoping meetings, questions 
concerning the proposed action and EIS, or requests for additional 
information on the EIS, should be directed to: Wendy R. Dixon, EIS 
Project Manager, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 101 
Convention Center Drive Suite P-110, MS 010, Las Vegas, NV 89109, 
Telephone: 1-800-967-3477, Facsimile: 1-800-967-0739.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about this EIS, 
please contact Wendy R. Dixon at the address, above. For information on 
DOE's NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, 
Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, 
Telephone: 1-202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

    All interested persons, including Federal agencies, Native American 
tribal organizations, State and local government agencies, public 
interest groups, transportation interests, industry and utility 
organizations, regulators, and the general public are encouraged to 
take part in the EIS scoping process. Because of the anticipated public 
interest and national scope of the program, DOE will provide several 
methods for people to express their views and provide comments, request 
additional information and copies of the EIS, or pre-register to speak 
at the scoping meetings. Comments submitted by any of these means will 
become part of the official record for scoping. 

[[Page 40165]]


Written Comments and Toll-Free Facsimile Number

    Written comments and requests may be mailed or sent by facsimile to 
Wendy R. Dixon at the address or toll-free facsimile number listed 
above

Toll-Free Telephone Line

    All interested parties are invited to record their comments or 
request information on the scope of the EIS by calling a toll-free 
telephone number, 1-800-967-3477. Throughout the public scoping period, 
this number will be staffed between the hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. During other hours, calls 
will be forwarded to an answering machine.

Electronic Mail

    Comments and information requests may be submitted by electronic 
mail to the following Internet electronic mail address: ymp_
[email protected].

Internet

    The public may access the Notice of Intent, request information, 
and provide comments via the World Wide Web at the following Uniform 
Resource Locator address: http://www.ymp.gov, under the listing 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Yucca Mountain Project Home 
Page. When available, the EIS and other selected technical documents 
may also be accessed at this Uniform Resource Locator address.

Scoping Meetings

    DOE will hold 15 public scoping meetings in cities throughout the 
United States to provide and discuss information and to receive 
comments on the scope of this EIS. Table 1 at the end of this Notice 
lists the specific locations, dates, and times for each scoping 
meeting. Persons wishing to speak at any of these meetings can pre-
register up to two days before the meeting by: (1) Calling the toll-
free telephone number 1-800-967-3477, (2) writing to Wendy R. Dixon at 
the address listed above, or (3) sending their request to pre-register 
by facsimile or electronic mail, as identified above.
    Persons wishing to speak who have not registered in advance can 
register at each meeting. These ``walk-in registrants'' will be 
accommodated to the extent practicable, following those persons who 
have pre-registered. Only one spokesperson per organization, group, or 
agency may present comments on its behalf. Oral statements will be 
limited to ten minutes; however, written comments can be of any length 
and submitted any time during the scoping period.
    Each of the 15 public scoping meetings will have either a morning 
or afternoon session, and an evening session. Morning sessions will 
begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12:30 p.m., and afternoon sessions will 
begin at 12:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. Evening sessions will begin at 
6:00 p.m. and end about 10:00 p.m. If additional time is required in 
order to accommodate all speakers wishing to present oral comments, the 
meeting facilitator will consult with the audience and DOE staff and 
determine whether to continue the meeting past the scheduled ending 
time. A court reporter will record all portions of the scoping 
meetings, and transcripts will be prepared and made a part of the 
official record of the scoping process.
    Each session will have an introductory presentation, a question and 
answer period, and a public comment segment. A facilitator will begin 
the introductory presentation of each session by explaining the scoping 
meeting format. DOE staff will provide a brief description (lasting 
approximately 30-45 minutes) of the repository program, the EIS, and 
the scoping process. The question and answer period (lasting 
approximately 45 minutes) will provide members of the public an 
opportunity to ask questions and discuss various aspects of the 
repository and to obtain additional information that may be useful in 
formulating opinions and comments. Each member of the public will be 
allowed five minutes to ask questions. The meeting facilitator may 
allow extra time for additional questions depending on the number of 
people present who have indicated their desire to participate during 
the question and answer period. The meeting facilitator will begin the 
public comment portion of the scoping meeting after the question and 
answer period. At this time, members of the public will provide their 
comments on the scope of the EIS.
    Each public scoping meeting also will have a separate information 
room containing exhibits and informational handouts about the 
repository program and the EIS. DOE and contractor staff will be 
available throughout the day to answer questions in an informal 
setting. A table with blank comment cards will also be available for 
people to privately prepare and submit written comments on the scope of 
the EIS. These comment cards will be included in the formal record of 
each scoping meeting.

Subsequent Document Preparation

    Results of scoping, including the transcripts from the question and 
answer periods and public comment segments, and all other oral and 
written comments received by DOE, will be summarized in the EIS 
Implementation Plan. This Plan will guide the preparation of the EIS, 
and will describe the planned scope and content of the EIS, record the 
results of the scoping process, and contain EIS activity schedules. As 
a ``living document,'' the Implementation Plan may be amended as needed 
to incorporate changes in schedules, alternatives, or EIS content.
    The Implementation Plan will be available to the public for 
information purposes as soon as possible after the close of the public 
scoping process, and before issuing the Draft EIS. The Implementation 
Plan and the transcripts from the public scoping meetings will be 
available for inspection at major DOE facilities and public reading 
rooms in Nevada and across the country, as identified at the end of 
this Notice. Copies of the Implementation Plan, as well as the Draft 
and Final EIS and related comments, will be provided to anyone 
requesting copies of these documents.
    Availability of the Draft EIS for public review, and the locations 
and times of public hearings on the Draft EIS, will be announced in the 
Federal Register and through local media (approximately in the Fall of 
1998). After considering all public comments received on the Draft EIS, 
DOE will prepare and issue a Final EIS, followed thereafter by a Record 
of Decision (approximately in the Fall of 2000).

Background

    Spent nuclear fuel 1 has been and is being generated and 
stored in the United States as part of commercial power generation. The 
accumulation of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactor 
operations in the United States probably will continue for several 
decades. There are 109 operating commercial facilities at 75 sites in 
34 States where spent nuclear fuel is stored. By the year 2035, total 
spent nuclear fuel from power reactors will amount to about 85,000 
metric tons of heavy metal (i.e., metric tons of heavy metal, typically 
uranium, without materials such as cladding, alloy and structural 
materials) (MTHM).

    \1\ Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a 
nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of 
which have not been separated by reprocessing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 2, 
generated from 

[[Page 40166]]
DOE's national atomic energy defense and research activities, are 
primarily located at DOE's Hanford Reservation, the Savannah River 
Site, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Other spent 
nuclear fuel, either currently in DOE possession or which may come 
under DOE possession, includes material from foreign research reactors, 
approximately 29 domestic university reactors, 5 non-DOE research 
reactors, and 4 ``special case'' reactors at non-DOE locations.

    \2\ High-level radioactive waste is the highly radioactive 
material resulting from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. It 
includes liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any 
solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission 
products in sufficient concentrations and other highly radioactive 
material that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consistent with 
existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1982, in response to the continued accumulation of spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste, Congress passed the NWPA. The 
purpose of the NWPA was to establish geologic repositories that would 
provide reasonable assurance that the public and the environment would 
be adequately protected from the hazards posed by these materials. In 
1987, Congress amended the NWPA and directed DOE to evaluate the 
suitability of only the Yucca Mountain site in southern Nevada as a 
potential site for the first repository. If, based on this evaluation, 
the Secretary of Energy determines that the Yucca Mountain site is 
suitable, the Secretary may then recommend that the President approve 
the site for development of a repository.
    Under the NWPA, DOE is prohibited from emplacing more than 70,000 
MTHM of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the 
first repository until such time as a second repository is in 
operation. The current planning basis calls for 63,000 MTHM of 
commercial spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of in the first 
repository, proposed to be located at the Yucca Mountain site. The 
planning basis also calls for the disposal of 7,000 MTHM equivalent of 
DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in this 
first repository.

Proposed Action

    If the site were found to be suitable, the proposed action would be 
to construct, operate, and eventually close a repository at Yucca 
Mountain for the geologic disposal of up to 70,000 MTHM of commercial 
and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 
Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed 
of in the repository in a subsurface configuration that would ensure 
its long-term isolation from the human environment. Repository 
construction, operation, and closure would be governed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's licensing process.
    Construction would begin if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
authorizes construction of the repository. Surface facilities would be 
designed and constructed to receive, and prepare for disposal, spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that would arrive in 
transportation casks by highway and by rail. Capability to treat or 
package the secondary wastes generated during disposal operations would 
also be provided. Subsurface facilities would be designed and 
constructed for emplacement of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste in disposal drifts. Subsurface facilities would 
primarily include access ramps, ventilation systems, disposal drifts, 
and equipment alcoves.
    Disposal operations would begin once the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission issues a license allowing receipt of spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste. Disposal operations would be expected to 
last up to 40 years, depending on shipment schedules. Disposal drifts 
would continue to be constructed during this time period as necessary. 
Spent nuclear fuel assemblies,3 and canisters containing 
assemblies 4 or vitrified (i.e., solidified) high-level 
radioactive waste 5 would be shipped to the repository in 
transportation casks that meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 
U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for shipping by truck or 
rail 6. The assemblies would be removed from the transportation 
casks, which would be placed back into service after decontamination 
and maintenance or after necessary repairs were completed. Canisters 
and assemblies would be transferred to a ``hot'' cell--a room where 
remotely-controlled equipment would be used to place the material in 
disposal containers. These ``waste packages'' (i.e., assemblies and 
canisters in disposal containers) would be transported underground in a 
transportation vehicle having radiation shielding for worker 
protection. Monitoring equipment, which would either be placed in 
selected drifts or would be mobile remote-sensing devices, would 
monitor performance of waste packages and aspects of the local 
repository geology.

    \3\ A fuel assembly is made up of fuel elements held together by 
plates and separated by spacers attached to the fuel cladding.
    \4\ Under one scenario, spent nuclear fuel assemblies would be 
sealed in a multi-purpose canister that would then be inserted into 
separate casks/containers for storage, transportation, and disposal. 
Other canisters are available and include single-purpose systems, 
which require transferring of individual assemblies from one cask/
container to another for storage, transport, and disposal. Another 
alternative would be dual-purpose systems which require storing and 
transporting individual assemblies in one cask and disposing of them 
in another container.
    \5\ Vitrified high-level radioactive waste would be sealed in 
canisters suitable for transport in a truck or train cask.
    \6\ Barges may also be used for intermodal shipments of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from generator sites 
to nearby locations for transfer to truck and rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The closure/post-closure period would begin after the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission amends the license to authorize permanent 
closure. Underground equipment would be removed, repository openings 
would be backfilled and sealed, and the surface facilities would be 
decontaminated, decommissioned, and dismantled or converted to other 
uses. Institutional controls, such as permanent markers and monuments, 
would be designed and constructed to last thousands of years and 
discourage human activities that could compromise the waste isolation 
capabilities of the repository.
    The disposal and closure/post-closure activities would be designed 
and implemented so that the combination of engineered (i.e., waste 
package and any backfill) and natural (geologic system) barriers would 
isolate the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 
combination of barriers would meet a standard to be specified by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which has been entrusted to develop a 
radiation release standard pursuant to Section 801 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 10141 note); individual barriers would 
perform according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, 
including its performance objectives at 10 CFR 60.113. The engineered 
barrier must provide substantially complete containment of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for between 300 and 1,000 
years by using corrosion resistant materials in the waste package.
    Beyond 1,000 years, continued isolation would be assisted by 
features that would limit the rate at which radioactive components of 
the waste would be released. The rate of release would be substantially 
affected by natural conditions, the heat generation rate of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (i.e., thermal load), and 
its rate of heat dissipation. First, different thermal loads would 
affect directly the internal and external waste package temperatures, 
thereby affecting the corrosion rate and integrity of the waste 
package. Second, the heat would affect the geochemistry, hydrology, and 
mechanical stability of the disposal drifts, which in turn would 
influence the flow of groundwater and the 

[[Page 40167]]
transport of radionuclides from the engineered and natural barrier 
systems to the environment. Therefore, the long-term performance of the 
repository would be managed by appropriately spacing the waste packages 
within disposal drifts and the distances between disposal drifts, and 
by selectively placing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste packages to account for their individual heat generation rates.

Alternatives

    DOE has preliminarily identified for analysis in the EIS a full 
range of reasonable implementation alternatives for the construction, 
operation, and closure/post-closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain. 
These implementation alternatives are based on thermal load objectives 
and include High Thermal Load, Intermediate Thermal Load, and Low 
Thermal Load alternatives.
    Under each implementation alternative, DOE will evaluate different 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste packaging and 
transportation options. DOE anticipates that these options would 
produce the broadest range of potential configurations for both surface 
facilities and possible operational and disposal conditions at the 
repository. Evaluation of these options will identify the full range of 
reasonably foreseeable impacts to human health and the environment 
associated with each implementation alternative.

High Thermal Load Alternative

    Under the High Thermal Load implementation alternative, spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed in an 
underground configuration that would generate the upper range of 
repository temperatures while meeting performance objectives to isolate 
the material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency 
standards and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this 
alternative, the emplacement density would likely be greater than 80 
MTHM per acre. This alternative would represent the highest repository 
thermal loading based on available information and expected test 
results.

Intermediate Thermal Load Alternative

    Under the Intermediate Thermal Load implementation alternative, 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed 
in an underground configuration that would generate an intermediate 
range of repository temperatures (compared to the High and Low Thermal 
Load alternatives) while meeting performance objectives to isolate the 
material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency standards 
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this alternative, 
the disposal density would likely range between 40 to 80 MTHM per acre.

Low Thermal Load Alternative

    Under the Low Thermal Load implementation alternative, spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed in an 
underground configuration that would provide the lowest potential 
repository thermal loading (based on available information and expected 
test results) while meeting performance objectives to isolate the 
material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency standards 
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this alternative, 
the disposal density would likely be less than 40 MTHM per acre.

Packaging Options

    As part of each implementation alternative, two packaging options 
would be evaluated. Under Option 1, spent nuclear fuel assemblies would 
be packaged and sealed in multi-purpose canisters at the generator 
sites prior to being transported to the repository in Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission-certified casks. High-level radioactive waste 
also would be packaged and sealed in canisters prior to shipment in 
similar casks. Under Option 2, spent nuclear fuel assemblies (without 
canisters) and sealed canisters of high-level radioactive waste would 
be transported to the repository in Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
certified casks. Under both options, assemblies and canisters with 
intact seals would be removed from the casks and placed in disposal 
containers at the repository.
    DOE recognizes that it is likely that a mix of spent nuclear fuel 
assemblies and canisters (and canister systems) of spent nuclear fuel 
and vitrified high-level radioactive waste would arrive at the 
repository during disposal operations. However, since the specific mix 
is speculative, the above packaging options were chosen to produce the 
broadest range of potential configurations for both surface facilities 
and possible operational and disposal conditions at the repository. 
These options were also selected to reflect the potential range of 
exposures to workers and the public at the generator sites, along 
transportation routes, and at the repository from the packaging, 
transport, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste.

Transportation

    As part of each implementation alternative, two national 
transportation options and three regional (i.e., within the State of 
Nevada) transportation options would be evaluated. These options would 
be expected to result in the broadest range of operating conditions 
relevant to potential impacts to human health and the environment.
    In a national context, the first option would consist of shipping 
all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by truck, from 
the generator site to the repository.
    The second national option would consist of shipment by rail, 
except from those generator sites (as many as 19) that may not have 
existing capabilities to load and ship rail casks. For such sites, the 
spent nuclear fuel would be transported by truck to the repository, or 
to a facility near the nuclear power plant where it would be 
transferred to rail cars for shipment to the repository.
    In a regional context, there are three transportation options: two 
of these options apply to shipments that would arrive in Nevada by 
rail, and the third applies to shipments that would arrive in Nevada by 
legal weight truck.7

    \7\ A legal weight truck consists of a tractor, semi-trailer, 
and loaded cask, with a maximum gross weight of 80,000 pounds.
    The first regional transportation option would consist of several 
rail corridors to the repository. The rail corridor option would 
involve identifying and applying siting criteria, based on engineering 
considerations (e.g., topography and soils), potential land use 
restrictions (e.g., wilderness areas and existing conflicting uses), 
and any other factors identified from the scoping process.
    The second regional transportation option would involve the use of 
heavy haul truck 8 routes to the repository. The heavy haul option 
would include the construction and use of an intermodal transfer 
facility to receive shipments that would arrive in Nevada by rail; the 
intermodal transfer facility would be located at the beginning of the 
heavy haul route. The heavy haul option would include any need to 
improve the local transportation infrastructure.

    \8\ A heavy haul truck consists of a tractor, semi-trailer, and 
loaded cask, with a gross weight in excess of 129,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third regional transportation option would involve legal weight 
truck shipments directly to the repository. Under this option, a 
transfer facility would not be required.

No Action

    The No Action alternative would evaluate termination of site 

[[Page 40168]]
    characterization activities at Yucca Mountain and the continued 
accumulation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at 
commercial storage sites and DOE facilities. Spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste would continue to be managed for the 
foreseeable future at existing commercial storage sites and DOE 
facilities located in 34 States. The No Action alternative, although 
contrary to the Congressional desire to provide a permanent solution 
for isolation of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste, provides a baseline against which the implementation 
alternatives can be compared.
    At the Yucca Mountain site, the surface facilities, excavation 
equipment, and other support facilities would be dismantled and removed 
for reuse or recycling, or would be disposed of in solid waste 
landfills. Disturbed surface areas would be reclaimed and excavated 
openings to the subsurface would be sealed and backfilled.
    At commercial reactors, spent nuclear fuel would continue to be 
generated and stored in either water pools or in canisters, until 
storage space at individual reactors becomes inadequate, at which time 
reactor operations would cease. DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste would continue to be managed at three primary 
sites--the Hanford Reservation, Savannah River Site, and the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory.

Environmental Issues To Be Examined in the EIS

    This EIS will examine the site-specific environmental impacts from 
construction, operation, and eventual closure of a repository for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Transportation-related impacts of the alternatives 
will also be analyzed. Through internal discussion and outreach 
programs with the public, DOE is aware of many environmental issues 
related to the construction, operation, and closure/post-closure phases 
of such a repository. The issues identified here are intended to 
facilitate public scoping. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive 
or to predetermine the scope of the EIS, but should be used as a 
starting point from which the public can help DOE define the scope of 
the EIS.
     Radiological and non-radiological releases. The potential 
effects to the public and on-site workers from radiological and 
nonradiological releases;
     Public and Worker Safety and Health. Potential health and 
safety impacts (e.g., injuries) to on-site workers during the 
unloading, temporary surface storage, and underground emplacement of 
waste packages at Yucca Mountain;
     Transportation. The potential impacts associated with 
national and regional shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste from reactor sites and DOE facilities to the Yucca 
Mountain site will be assessed. Regional transportation issues include: 
(a) technical feasibility, (b) socioeconomic impacts, (c) land use and 
access impacts, and (d) impacts of constructing and operating a rail 
spur, a heavy haul route, and/or a transfer facility;
     Accidents. The potential impacts from reasonably 
foreseeable accidents, including any accidents with low probability but 
high potential consequences;
     Criticality. The likelihood that a self-sustaining nuclear 
chain reaction could occur and its potential consequences;
     Waste Isolation. Potential impacts associated with the 
long-term performance of the repository;
     Socioeconomic Conditions. Potential regional (i.e., in 
Nevada) socioeconomic impacts to the surrounding communities, including 
impacts on employment, tax base, and public services;
     Environmental Justice. Potential for disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations;
     Pollution Prevention. Appropriate and innovative pollution 
prevention, waste minimization, and energy and water use reduction 
technologies to eliminate or significantly reduce use of energy, water, 
hazardous substances, and to minimize environmental impacts;
     Soil, Water, and Air Resources. Potential impacts to soil, 
water quality, and air quality;
     Biological Resources. Potential impacts to plants, 
animals, and habitat, including impacts to wetlands, and threatened and 
endangered species;
     Cultural Resources. Potential impacts to archaeological/
historical sites, Native American resources, and other cultural 
resources;
     Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and 
implementing alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions;
     Potential irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 
resources.
    Under the No Action alternative, potential environmental effects 
associated with the shutdown of site characterization activities at 
Yucca Mountain will be estimated. Potential environmental effects from 
the continued accumulation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste at commercial reactors and DOE sites will be 
addressed by summarizing previous relevant environmental analyses and 
by performing new analyses of representative sites, as appropriate. At 
the Yucca Mountain site, the potential environmental consequences from 
the reclamation of disturbed surface areas, and the sealing of 
excavated openings following the dismantlement and removal of 
facilities and equipment, will be quantified. These analyses would be 
similar in level of detail to the analyses of the implementing 
alternatives. At the commercial reactor and DOE sites, the potential 
environmental consequences will be addressed in terms of risk to the 
environment and the public from long-term management of spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In addition, the loss of storage 
capacity, the need for additional capacity, and their potential 
consequences to continued reactor operations, will be described.

Consultations With Other Agencies

    The NWPA requires DOE to solicit comments on the EIS from the 
Department of the Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 10134(a)(1)(D)). DOE also intends to consult with the 
Departments of the Navy and Air Force and will solicit comments from 
other agencies, the State of Nevada, affected units of local 
government, and Native American tribal organizations, regarding the 
environmental issues to be addressed by the EIS.

Relationship to Other DOE NEPA Reviews

    DOE is preparing or has completed other NEPA documents that may be 
relevant to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program 
and this EIS. If appropriate, this EIS will incorporate by reference 
and update information taken from these other NEPA documents. These 
documents (described below) are available for inspection by the public 
at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room (1E-190), Forrestal 
Building, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. and will be 
made available in Nevada at locations to be announced at the public 
scoping meetings. These documents include the following:
     Environmental Assessment, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada 
Research and 

[[Page 40169]]
Development Area, Nevada, DOE/RW-0073, 1986.
     Environmental Assessment for a Monitored Retrievable 
Storage Facility, DOE/RW-0035, 1986.
     Environmental Impact Statement for a Multi-Purpose 
Canister System for the Management of Civilian and Naval Spent Nuclear 
Fuel. The Notice of Intent was published on October 24, 1994 (59 FR 
53442). The scoping process for this EIS has been completed and an 
Implementation Plan is being prepared. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be 
issued for public review in late 1995.
     Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement [Final EIS issued 
April 1995 (DOE/EIS-0203-F); Record of Decision (60 FR 28680-96, June 
1, 1995)]. This EIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences 
of managing DOE's inventory of spent nuclear fuel over the next 40 
years. The Nevada Test Site was considered but was not selected as a 
DOE spent nuclear fuel management site.
     Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (formerly Environmental Management Programmatic EIS). A 
revised Notice of Intent was published January 24, 1995 (60 FR 4607). 
This Programmatic EIS will address impacts of potential DOE waste 
management actions for the treatment, storage, and disposal of waste. 
The Draft EIS is scheduled to be issued for public review in September 
1995.
     Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Nuclear 
Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor 
Spent Nuclear Fuel [Notice of Intent published October 21, 1993 (58 FR 
54336)]. The draft EIS was issued for public review in March 1995 (DOE/
EIS-0218D). This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of 
the proposed policy's implementation. Under the proposed policy, the 
United States could accept up to 22,700 foreign research reactor spent 
nuclear fuel elements over a 10-15 year period.
     Environmental Impact Statement on the Transfer and 
Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium (formerly part of the 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Long-Term Storage and 
Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials). The Notice of Intent 
was issued April 5, 1995 (60 FR 17344). This EIS will address 
disposition of DOE's surplus highly enriched uranium to support the 
President's Nonproliferation Policy. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be 
issued in September 1995.
     Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Storage 
and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials [Notice of Intent 
published June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31985)]. This Programmatic EIS will 
evaluate alternatives for long-term storage of all weapons-usable 
fissile materials (primarily plutonium and highly enriched uranium 
retained for strategic purposes--not surplus) and disposition of 
surplus weapons-usable fissile materials (excluding highly enriched 
uranium), so that risk of proliferation is minimized. The Nevada Test 
Site is a candidate storage site.
     Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement. A revised Notice of Intent was published October 28, 
1994 (59 FR 54175), and the Draft Programmatic EIS was issued in March 
1995 (60 FR 14433, March 17, 1995). Public hearings on the Draft 
Programmatic EIS were held in April 1995, and a Final Programmatic EIS 
is scheduled for October 1995. This EIS addresses how to best assure an 
adequate tritium supply and recycling capability. The Nevada Test Site 
is an alternative site for new tritium supply and recycling facilities.
     Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement. A Notice of Intent was published June 
14, 1995 (60 FR 31291). A prescoping workshop was held on May 19, 1995, 
and scoping meetings are scheduled to be held during July and August 
1995. This Programmatic EIS will evaluate proposed future missions of 
the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program and potential 
configuration (facility locations) of the nuclear weapons complex to 
accomplish the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program missions. 
The Nevada Test Site is an alternative site for potential location of 
new or upgraded Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program 
facilities.
     Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada 
Test Site [Notice of Intent published August 10, 1994 (59 FR 40897)]. 
This EIS will address resource management alternatives for the Nevada 
Test Site to support current and potential future missions involving 
defense programs, research and development, waste management, 
environmental restoration, infrastructure maintenance, transportation 
of wastes, and facility upgrades and alternative uses. The public 
scoping process has been completed, and the Implementation Plan was 
issued in July 1995. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be issued for public 
review in September 1995.
     Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation 
of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components 
[Notice of Intent published May 23, 1994 (59 FR 26635); an amended 
Notice of Intent published June 23, 1995 (60 FR 32661)]. This EIS will 
address the potential environmental impacts of the continued operation 
of the Pantex Plant, which includes near- to mid-term foreseeable 
activities and the nuclear component storage activities at other DOE 
sites associated with nuclear weapon disassembly operations at the 
Pantex Plant. The Nevada Test Site is being considered as an 
alternative site for relocation of interim plutonium pit storage.

Public Reading Rooms

    Copies of the Implementation Plan, and the Draft and Final EISs, 
will be available for inspection during normal business hours at the 
following public reading rooms. DOE may establish additional 
information locations and will provide an updated list at the public 
scoping meetings.

Albuquerque Operations Office, National Atomic Museum, Bldg. 20358, 
Wyoming Blvd., S.E., Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM 87117. 
Attn: Diane Leute (505) 845-4378
Atlanta Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 730 
Peachtree Street, Suite 876, Atlanta, GA 30308-1212. Attn: Nancy Mays/
Laura Nicholas (404) 347-2420
Bartlesville Project Office/National Institute for Petroleum and Energy 
Research, Library, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 220 Virginia Avenue, 
Bartlesville, OK 74003. Attn: Josh Stroman (918) 337-4371
Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, BPA-C-KPS-1, 905 
N.E. 11th Street, Portland, OR 97208. Attn: Sue Ludeman (503) 230-7334
Chicago Operations Office, Document Dept., University of Illinois at 
Chicago, 801 South Morgan Street, Chicago, IL 60607. Attn: Seth Nasatir 
(312) 996-2738
Dallas Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 1420 
Mockingbird Lane, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75247. Attn: Gailene Reinhold 
(214) 767-7040
Fernald Area Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Information Room, 
FERMCO, 7400 Willey Road, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Attn: Gary Stegner 
(513) 648-3153
Headquarters Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Room 1E-190, Forrestal 
Bldg., 

[[Page 40170]]
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. Attn: Gayla 
Sessoms (202) 586-5955
Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Public Reading Room, 1776 Science Center 
Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83402. Attn: Brent Jacobson (208) 526-1144
Kansas City Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 
911 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Kansas City, MO 64106. Attn: Anne Scheer 
(816) 426-4777
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management National Information 
Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 760, Washington, D.C. 20024. 
Attn: Paul D'Anjou (202) 488-6720
Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 
55 South Jefferson Circle, Room 112, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8510. Attn: 
Amy Rothrock (615) 576-1216
Oakland Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 
EIC, 8th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Room 700N, Oakland, CA 94612-5208. 
Attn: Laura Noble (510) 637-1762
Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bldg. 922/
M210, Receiving Department, Building 166, Cochrans Mill Road, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. Attn: Ann C. Dunlap (412) 892-6167
Richland Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 
100 Sprout Rd., Room 130 West, Mailstop H2-53, Richland, WA 99352. 
Attn: Terri Traub (509) 376-8583
Rocky Flats Field Office, Front Range Community College Library, 3645 
West 112th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80030. Attn: Nancy Ben (303) 469-
4435
Savannah River Operations Office, Gregg-Graniteville Library, 
University of S. Carolina-Aiken, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 
29801. Attn: James M. Gaver (803) 725-2889
Southeastern Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Legal Library, 
Samuel Elbert Bldg., 2 South Public Square, Elberton, GA 30635-2496. 
Attn: Joel W. Seymour/Carol M. Franklin (706) 213-3800
Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading 
Room, 1 West 3rd, Suite 1600, Tulsa, OK 74103. Attn: Marti Ayers (918) 
581-7426
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Management Office, U.S. Dept. of 
Energy, SPRPMO/SEB Reading Room, 900 Commerce Road East, New Orleans, 
LA 70123. Attn: Ulysess Washington (504) 734-4243
Yucca Mountain Science Centers
    Yucca Mountain Science Center, U.S. 95--Star Route 374, Beatty, NV 
89003. Attn: Marina Anderson (702) 553-2130
    Yucca Mountain Science Center, 4101-B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas, NV 
89107. Attn: Melinda D'ouville (702) 295-1312
    Yucca Mountain Science Center, 1141 South Hwy. 160, Pahrump, NV 
89041. Attn: Lee Krumm (702) 727-0896

                       Table 1.--Scoping Meetings                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Location of scoping meeting                Dates/times \1\          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pahrump Community Center, 400 N.     Tuesday, August 29, 1995, morning/ 
 Hwy. 160, Pahrump, NV 89048.         evening sessions.                 
Boise Centre on the Grove, 850 W.    Wednesday, September 6, 1995,      
 Front St., Boise, ID 83702.          morning/evening sessions.         
Lawlor Events Center, University of  Friday, September 8, 1995, morning/
 Nevada-Reno Campus, Reno, NV 89667.  evening sessions.                 
University of Chicago, Downtown MBA  Tuesday, September 12, 1995,       
 Center, 450 N. Cityfront Plaza       morning/evening sessions.         
 Drive, Chicago, IL 60611.                                              
Cashman Field, 850 Las Vegas Blvd.   Friday, September 15, 1995, morning/
 North, Las Vegas, NV 89101.          evening sessions .                
Denver Convention Complex, 700 14th  Tuesday, September 19, 1995,       
 Street, Denver, CO 80202.            afternoon/evening sessions.       
Sacramento Public Library, 828 I     Thursday, September 21, 1995,      
 Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.        afternoon/evening sessions.       
Arlington Community Center, 2800     Tuesday, September 26, 1995,       
 South Center Street, Dallas, TX      afternoon/evening sessions.       
 76004.                                                                 
Caliente Youth Center, Highway 93,   Thursday, September 28, 1995,      
 Caliente, NV 89008.                  morning/evening sessions.         
Hilton Inn, 150 West 500 South,      Thursday, October 5, 1995,         
 Salt Lake City, UT 84111.            afternoon/evening sessions.       
Maritime Institute of Technology     Wednesday, October 11, 1995,       
 and Graduate Studies, 5700           morning/evening sessions.         
 Hammonds Ferry Rd., Linthicum                                          
 (near Baltimore), MD 21090.                                            
Russell Sage Conference Center, 45   Friday, October 13, 1995, afternoon/
 Ferry St., Troy (Albany), NY 12180.  evening sessions.                 
Georgia International Convention     Tuesday, October 17, 1995, morning/
 Center, 1902 Sullivan Road,          evening sessions.                 
 College Park (Atlanta), GA 30337.                                      
Penn Valley Community College, 3201  Friday, October 20, 1995, afternoon/
 S.W. Trafficway, Kansas City, MO     evening sessions.                 
 64111.                                                                 
Tonopah Convention Center, 301       Tuesday, October 24, 1995, morning/
 Brougher, Tonopah, NV 89049.         evening sessions.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Session times are as follows: Morning (8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.),       
  Afternoon (12:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.), Evening (6:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.).     

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 1st day of August, 1995.
Peter N. Brush,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-19396 Filed 8-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P