[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 203 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54260-54264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25978]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-8027]


Decommissioning of Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Uranium Conversion 
Facility in Gore, Oklahoma: Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct a Scoping Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
SUMMARY: The NRC intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the decommissioning of the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's (SFC) 
uranium conversion facility located in Gore, Oklahoma. From 1970 until 
1993, SFC operated a uranium conversion facility at a site located in 
Gore, Oklahoma, under the authority of an NRC license issued pursuant 
to 10 CFR part 40. The main process was the conversion of uranium oxide 
(yellowcake) to uranium hexafluoride. A second process, begun in 1987, 
consisted of the conversion of depleted uranium hexafluoride to uranium 
tetrafluoride.
    SFC supplied formal notice of its intent to seek license 
termination in accordance with 10 CFR 40.42(e) in a letter dated 
February 16, 1993. Based on available information, at least some of the 
identified waste and contamination at the site is known to exceed NRC's 
existing radiological criteria for decommissioning. Therefore, SFC is 
required to remediate the SFC facility to meet the NRC's 
decommissioning criteria, as described in the Site Decommissioning 
Management Plan (SDMP) Action Plan (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13389). In 
the Preliminary Plan for the Completion of Decommissioning of February 
1993, however, SFC identified on-site disposal using the criteria 
developed for uranium mill tailings sites (10 CFR part 40, appendix A), 
as appropriate for the SFC facility because of similarity of materials 
at the mills and at SFC. The uranium mill tailings criteria exceed the 
criteria has generally found acceptable for decommissioning nuclear 
facilities other than uranium mill tailings disposal sites.
    This notice indicates NRC's intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction 
with this proposed action and to conduct a scoping process that will 
include a public scoping meeting. The EIS will consider the licensee's 
proposed approach for onsite disposal along with alternatives. NRC will 
consider the EIS in reaching a decision on the acceptability of the 
licensee's proposed approach.


[[Page 54261]]

DATES: Written comments on matters covered by this notice received by 
March 29, 1996, will be considered in developing the scope of the EIS. 
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments 
received on or before this date. The comment period has been extended 
to allow public consideration of important site characterization 
information, which is expected to be submitted to NRC and other 
agencies in December 1995 and January 1996.
    A public scoping meeting will be held at the Gore High School 
Auditorium in Gore, Oklahoma on November 15, 1995 from 7 to 10 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the matters covered by this notice and/
or the scoping meeting should be sent to: Rules Review and Directives 
Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: 
Docketing and Services Branch. Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on 
Federal workdays.
    The scoping meeting will be held in the auditorium of the Gore, 
Oklahoma High School, Gore, OK on November 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Shepherd, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-
415-6712 or 800-368-5462; fax 301-415-6712; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NRC has the statutory responsibility for protection of public 
health and safety and the environment related to the use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act. 
The NRC believes that one portion of this responsibility is to assure 
safe and timely decommissioning of nuclear facilities which it 
licenses. This responsibility can be partially fulfilled by providing 
guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their sites for 
decommissioning. Decommissioning, as defined in the NRC's regulations 
in 10 CFR 40.4, for example, means to remove nuclear facilities safely 
from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that 
permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of 
the license.
    Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required, in 
existing NRC regulations, to decommission their facilities so that 
their licenses can be terminated. This requires that radioactivity in 
buildings, equipment, soil, groundwater, and surface water resulting 
from the licensed operation be reduced to acceptably low levels that 
allow the property to be released for unrestricted use. Licensees must 
then demonstrate, by a site radiological survey, that residual 
contamination in all facilities and environmental media have been 
properly reduced or eliminated and that, except for any residual 
radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain at the 
site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized 
recipients. Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where 
appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for 
decommissioning.

Need for Proposed Action

    From 1970 until 1993, SFC operated a uranium conversion facility at 
a site located in Gore, Oklahoma, under the authority of an NRC license 
issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 40. The main process was the conversion 
of uranium oxide (yellowcake) to uranium hexafluoride. A second 
process, begun in 1987, consisted of the conversion of depleted uranium 
hexafluoride to uranium tetrafluoride. In November 1992, following an 
uncontrolled release of nitrous oxide from the main process, SFC 
notified the NRC that SFC had terminated operations. At this same time, 
SFC stated they would not restart the main process of yellowcake 
conversion, and that SFC would cease all conversion processes by July 
1993.
    During the time of operations, SFC disposed of contaminated 
material in trenches, constructed and utilized numerous settling and 
storage ponds, and spilled radioactive material into the ground 
contaminating surrounding soil and groundwater. In response to concerns 
about the extent of environmental contamination in the early 1990s, SFC 
developed a Facility Environmental Investigation (FEI). The FEI 
provides detailed information about the extent of contamination at the 
facility. SFC is also conducting a comprehensive site characterization 
program to identify existing radiological and chemical contamination in 
partial fulfillment of NRC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) requirements.
    On August 4, 1993, SFC and EPA, Region VI, signed an Administrative 
Order on Consent, establishing a schedule for compliance with Section 
3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. In partial fulfillment of that order, 
SFC is collecting and assessing information on site characteristics. 
SFC is required to submit its site characterization report to EPA in 
December 1995.
    SFC is also conducting additional site characterization in 
fulfillment of NRC's decommissioning requirements. This additional 
information will supplement currently available information described 
in the FEI and other site documents. SFC has committed to provide NRC 
with this additional site characterization information in January 1996.
    NRC and EPA are cooperating in the regulatory review of the 
decommissioning and remediation of the SFC facility. In September 1995, 
the agencies completed a Memorandum of Understanding that describes the 
respective roles and responsibilities of the agencies along with 
procedures for coordination oversight activities.
    The SFC facility has been listed in NRC's Site Decommissioning 
Management Plan (SDMP) because NRC has determined that it warrants 
special NRC oversight to ensure timely and safe decommissioning. The 
SFC facility is contaminated with radioactive materials, including 
depleted and natural uranium. Specifically, the site contains large 
amounts of contaminated soil, unused settling ponds, and burial grounds 
for radioactive waste that may be difficult to decommission. In 
addition, the site has also been listed in the SDMP because there is 
groundwater contamination from onsite wastes and the ability of SFC to 
pay for decommissioning is limited. At least some of the waste is known 
to exceed NRC's existing radiological criteria for decommissioning. 
Therefore, NRC is requiring the licensee to remediate the SFC facility 
to meet the NRC's decommissioning criteria, as described in the SDMP 
Action Plan (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13389).
    In the Preliminary Plan for the Completion of Decommissioning of 
February 1993, however, SFC identified on-site disposal using the 
criteria developed for uranium mill tailings sites (10 CFR part 40, 
appendix A), as appropriate for the SFC facility because of similarity 
of materials at the mills and at SFC. The uranium mill tailings 
criteria exceed the criteria has generally found acceptable for 
decommissioning nuclear facilities other than uranium mill tailings 
disposal sites.
    The NRC has determined that approval of on-site disposal of the 
radioactive waste in excess of NRC decommissioning criteria constitutes 
a major federal action and, therefore, warrants preparation of an EIS 
in accordance with the National 

[[Page 54262]]
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's implementing requirements 
in 10 CFR part 51. Concentrations of uranium, at the site exceed NRC's 
current criteria for allowing release of sites for unrestricted use. 
These criteria are listed in NRC's Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup 
of SDMP Sites (57 FR 13389, April 16, 1992). As described in the Action 
Plan, the criteria are applied on a site-specific basis with emphasis 
on residual contamination levels that are as low as is reasonably 
achievable.
    Consequently, if NRC approved on-site disposal of the radioactive 
material, land use restrictions or other institutional controls may be 
necessary to ensure long-term protection of the public and the 
environment. NRC expects that SFC would have to apply for and obtain an 
exemption from NRC's present requirements because NRC's current 
requirements for decommissioning do not allow for land use restrictions 
(see definition of Decommissioning in 10 CFR 40.4).
    In addition to the issues discussed above that fall under NRC's 
jurisdiction, there are other environmental issues associated with 
decommissioning the SFC facility that are regulated by other agencies, 
including the EPA, which has regulatory authority over hazardous wastes 
and releases at the facility. The scoping process and EIS will not only 
aid NRC in reaching decisions about the decommissioning of the SFC 
facility, but should also be useful to EPA in discharging its duties.

Description of Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the construction of a facility to isolate 
contained materials in an engineered on-site cell and the development 
of site specific remediation criteria for contamination left in place.

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

    Under the NEPA, all Federal agencies must consider the effect of 
their actions on the environment. Section 102(1) of NEPA requires that 
the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be 
interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth 
in NEPA. It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies incorporate 
consideration of environmental issues into their decision-making 
processes. NRC regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR 
part 51. To fulfill NRC's responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC intends 
to prepare an EIS that will analyze the environmental impacts of the 
proposed action, as well as environmental impacts of alternatives to 
the proposed action and the costs associated with both the proposed 
action and the alternatives. All reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action will be analyzed. The scope of the EIS includes 
consideration of both radiological and non-radiological impacts 
associated with the alternative actions.
    This notice announces the NRC's intent to prepare an EIS. The 
principal intent of the EIS is to provide a document describing 
environmental consequences that will be available to the Agency's 
decision makers in reviewing the licensee's remediation proposal and 
future decommissioning plan for the SFC facility.

The Scoping Process

    The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51 contain requirements 
for conducting a scoping process prior to preparation of an EIS. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, whenever the NRC determines that an EIS 
will be prepared by NRC in connection with a proposed action, NRC will 
publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register stating that an EIS 
will be prepared and conduct an appropriate scoping process. In 
addition, this scoping process may include the holding of a public 
scoping meeting.
    NRC also describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, the content of the notice of 
intent and requires that the notice describe the proposed action and 
also, to the extent that sufficient information is available, possible 
alternatives. In addition, the notice of intent is to describe the 
proposed scoping process, including the role of participants, whether 
written comments will be accepted, and whether a public scoping meeting 
will be held. In accordance with Secs. 51.26 and 51.27, the proposed 
action and possible alternative approaches are discussed below. The 
role of participants in the scoping process for this EIS includes the 
following:
    (1) Participants may attend and provide oral discussion on the 
proposed action and possible alternatives at the public scoping meeting 
at the Gore High School, Gore Oklahoma, on November 15, 1995, from 7 to 
10 p.m.
    (2) The Commission will also accept written comments on the 
proposed action and alternatives from the public. Written comments 
should be submitted by March 29, 1996, and should be sent to: Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch. Hand deliver 
comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. This comment has been extended 
compared with the normal duration of such comment periods to allow 
consideration of additional site characterization information that is 
expected to be available in December 1995 and January 1996.
    According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process is to be used to 
address the topics which follow. Participants may make written 
comments, or verbal comments at the scoping meeting, on the following 
(current preliminary NRC staff approaches with regard to each topic are 
included for information):
    (a) Define the proposed action to be the subject of the EIS. The 
proposed action is the construction of a facility to isolate 
radioactive materials in an engineered on-site disposal cell and the 
development of site specific remediation criteria for contamination 
left in place at the SFC facility in Gore, Oklahoma.
    (b) Determine the scope of the EIS and the significant issues to be 
analyzed in depth. The NRC is proposing to analyze the costs and 
impacts associated with the proposed action and alternative 
decommissioning approaches. The following proposed outline for the EIS 
reflects the current NRC staff view on the scope and major topics to be 
dealt with in the EIS:

Proposed Outline: Environmental Impact Statement

Abstract

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
    1.1  Background
    1.2  Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
    1.3  Description of Proposed Action
    1.4  Approach in Preparation of the Draft EIS
    1.5  tructure of the Draft EIS
2. Alternatives including the Proposed Action
    2.1  Factors Considered in Evaluating Alternatives
    2.2  Alternatives
    2.3  Regulatory Compliance
3. Affected Environment
    3.1  Introduction
    3.2  Description of the SFC facility
    3.3  Land Use
    3.4  Geology/Seismicity
    3.5  Meteorology and Hydrology
    3.6  Ecology
    3.7  Socioeconomic Characteristics
    3.8  Radiation
    3.9  Cultural Resources
    3.10  Environmental Justice
    3.11  Other Environmental Features
4. Decommissioning Alternatives Analyzed and Method of Approach for 
the Analysis 

[[Page 54263]]

    4.1  General Information on Approach and Method of Analysis of 
Decommissioning Alternatives
    4.2  Alternatives Considered--each of the alternatives represent 
alternate decommissioning approaches.
    (a) Alternative 1, On-site isolation of radioactive waste in an 
engineered disposal cell and development of site specific 
remediation criteria (Licensee's proposed alternative) This 
alternative would also likely include land use restrictions and/or 
other institutional controls to prevent or reduce potential 
intrusion into the waste and to monitor the long-term effectiveness 
of the disposal and take mitigative measures as necessary to protect 
the public and environment.
    (b) Alternative 2, Disposal of radioactive waste at an off-site, 
licensed facility. All radioactive wastes above release criteria, 
including sludge, uranium compounds in the ground, contaminated 
equipment and structures, scrap materials, and exhumed wastes would 
be packaged and shipped to a licensed disposal facility.
    (c) Alternative 3, Disposal at new off-site facility. Disposal 
of radioactive wastes at an alternate, licensed disposal site 
authorized in accordance with the NRC's requirements.
    (d) Alternative 4, Above grade, retrievable storage on-site. All 
radioactive wastes, in excess of release criteria, would be packaged 
and stored in a retrievable form in an above grade facility. 
Institutional controls would continue to apply during the storage 
period until the waste is removed for disposal.
    (e) Alternative 5, No Action. This alternative is mandated by 
NEPA and will identify the impacts of no remediation at the 
facility.
    4.3  Method of Analysis of Alternatives
    (a) Define a range of alternatives;
    (b) Evaluate the alternative decommissioning approaches with 
respect to: (1) The incremental impact to workers, members of the 
public, and the environment, both radiological and nonradiological, 
resulting from each alternative, and (2) the costs associated with 
each alternative. Evaluations of impacts and costs are contained in 
Sections 5 and 6 below;
    (c) Perform a comparative evaluation of the decommissioning 
approaches based on the impacts and costs of each alternative from 
4.3(b).
5. Environmental Consequences, Monitoring, and Mitigation
    5.1  Construction and Remediation Consequences
    5.2  Monitoring Programs
    5.3  Mitigation Measures
    5.4  Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
    5.5  Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and 
Long-Term Productivity
    5.6  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
6. Costs and Benefits Associated with Decommissioning Alternatives
    6.1  General
    6.2  Quantifiable Socioeconomic Impacts
    6.3  The Benefit-Cost Summary
    6.4  Staff Assessment
7. List of Preparers
8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies of 
the Draft EIS
9. References
Appendix A--RESERVED FOR COMMENTS ON DEIS
Appendix B--Results of Scoping Process

    (c) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not 
significant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior 
environmental review. The NRC has not yet eliminated any nonsignificant 
issues. However, NRC is considering elimination of the following issues 
from the scope of this EIS because they have been previously analyzed 
in a previous Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-
0586) and included in an earlier rulemaking (53 FR 24018, June 28, 
1988): (i) planning necessary to conduct decommissioning operations in 
a safe manner; (ii) the time period in which decommissioning should be 
completed; and (iii) whether facilities should not be left abandoned, 
but instead remediated to appropriate levels. In addition, requirements 
were recently imposed in a separate rulemaking regarding timeliness of 
decommissioning for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees (58 FR 4099, 
January 13, 1993). NRC also proposed establishing radiological criteria 
for decommissioning, which are supported by a draft generic 
environmental impact statement (NUREG-1496; 59 FR 43700, August 22, 
1994).
    (d) Identify any Environmental Assessments or EISs which are being 
or will be prepared that are related but are not part of the scope of 
this EIS. An Environmental Assessment on the timeliness of 
decommissioning has been prepared as part of a separate rulemaking on 
decommissioning timeliness (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994). NRC has 
developed a GEIS (NUREG-1496) to support a rulemaking to establish 
generic radiological criteria for decommissioning (59 FR 43200, August 
22, 1994). In addition, NRC is presently developing EIS's for 
decommissioning projects involving proposals for onsite disposal at 
sites owned by Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation at Cambridge, Ohio 
and Newfield, New Jersey; by Babcox and Wilcox at Parks Township, 
Pennsylvania; and by the U.S. Army at Jefferson Proving Ground, 
Indiana.
    (e) Identify other environmental review or consultation 
requirements related to the proposed action. NRC will consult with 
other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies that have jurisdiction 
over the SFC site decommissioning. For example, NRC has already been 
coordinating its reviews of decommissioning actions at the SFC facility 
with EPA Region VI, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geologic Survey. NRC anticipates 
continued consultation with these and other agencies, as appropriate, 
during the development of the EIS.
    (f) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation 
of environmental analysis and the Commission's tentative planning and 
decision making schedule. NRC intends to prepare and issue for public 
comment a draft EIS in early to mid 1997. The comment period would be 
for 90 days. The final EIS is scheduled for publication in fall of 
1997. This schedule may be impacted by the availability and adequacy of 
site information. Subsequent to completion of the final EIS, the NRC 
would review and act on a license amendment from the licensee 
requesting authorization for decommissioning the site, including the 
decommissioning plan as required in 10 CFR Sec. 40.42(c)(2).
    (g) Identify cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, assignments 
and schedules. The EPA will be invited to be a cooperating agency in 
this EIS, as will the U.S. Corps of Engineers that is responsible for 
property adjacent to SFC. The Cherokee Nation, the U.S. Geological 
Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and agencies of the State 
of Oklahoma will also be invited to participate as cooperating 
agencies. Specific assignments and schedules will be identified after 
agency commitments are received and completion of scoping.
    (h) Describe the means by which the EIS will be prepared. NRC will 
prepare the draft EIS according to the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. 
Specifically, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71, the draft EIS will 
consider comments submitted to NRC as part of the scoping process and 
will include a preliminary analysis which considers and balances the 
environmental and other effects of the proposed action and the 
alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 
and other effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical, 
and other benefits of the proposed action.
    The EIS will be prepared by the NRC staff and an NRC contractor. 
NRC is arranging a project with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to 
provide technical assistance in the preparation of the EIS. In 
addition, NRC anticipates requesting specific information from the 
licensee to support preparation of the EIS. Any information received 
from the licensee 

[[Page 54264]]
related to the EIS will be available for public review, unless the 
information is protected from public disclosure in accordance with NRC 
requirements in 10 CFR Sec. 2.790.
    In the scoping process, participants are invited to speak or submit 
written comments, as noted above, on any or all of the areas described 
above. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the conclusion of the 
scoping process, NRC will prepare a concise summary of the 
determinations and conclusions reached, including the significant 
issues identified, and will send a copy to each participant in the 
scoping process.

    Dated at Rockville, MD., this 13th day of October 1995.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael F. Weber,
Chief, Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch, Division of Low-
Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-25978 Filed 10-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P