[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