[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40619-40629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19798]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched 
Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to implement a 
program to make surplus highly enriched uranium (HEU) non-weapons-
usable by blending it down to low-enriched uranium (LEU), as specified 
in the Preferred Alternative in the Disposition of Surplus Highly 
Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement (HEU Final EIS, 
DOE/EIS-0240, June 1996). DOE will gradually sell up to 85 percent of 
the resulting LEU over time for commercial use as fuel feed for nuclear 
power plants to generate electricity (including 50 metric tons of HEU 
and 7,000 tons of natural uranium that will be transferred to the 
United States Enrichment Corporation), and will dispose of the 
remaining LEU as low-level radioactive waste. This program applies to a 
nominal 200 metric tons of United States-origin HEU that the President 
has declared, or may declare, surplus to defense needs. The purposes of 
this program are to support the United States' nuclear weapons 
nonproliferation policy by reducing global stockpiles of excess 
weapons-usable fissile materials, and to recover the economic value of 
the materials to the extent feasible.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The decisions set forth in this Record of Decision 
(ROD) are effective upon being made public July 29, 1996 in accordance 
with DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing 
Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR Part 1021) and the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508).

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, the separate Cost Comparison for 
Highly Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives, and this ROD are 
available in the public reading rooms identified at the end of this 
Federal Register notice (section VIII of the Supplementary 
Information). Copies of these documents may be obtained by writing to 
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, 
MD-4, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, or by 
calling (202) 586-4513. The 72-page Summary of the HEU Final EIS, the 
Cost Comparison for Highly Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives, 
and this ROD are also available on the Fissile Materials Disposition 
Electronic Bulletin Board/World Wide Web Page at: http://web.fie.com/
htdoc/fed/doe/fsl/pub/menu/any/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the HEU disposition 
program or this ROD contact: Mr. J. David Nulton, Director, NEPA 
Compliance and Outreach, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (MD-
4), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4513.
    For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act 
process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4600 or leave a 
message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Synopsis of Decision

    DOE issued the HEU Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0240) on June 28, 1996. In 
the HEU Final EIS, DOE considered the potential environmental impacts 
of alternatives for a program to reduce global nuclear proliferation 
risks by blending up to 200 metric tons of United States-origin surplus 
HEU down to LEU to make it non-weapons-usable. The resulting LEU could 
either be sold for commercial use as fuel feed for non-defense nuclear 
power plants, or disposed of as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). 
After consideration of the HEU Final EIS, public comments received on 
the Draft EIS, and the conclusions of a Cost Comparison for Highly 
Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives, DOE has decided to implement 
the proposed program as identified in the Preferred Alternative 
contained in the HEU Final EIS. This implementation will involve 
gradually blending up to 85 percent of the surplus HEU to a U-235 
enrichment level of approximately 4 percent for eventual sale and 
commercial use over time as reactor fuel feed, and blending the 
remaining surplus HEU down to an enrichment level of about 0.9 percent 
for disposal as LLW. This would take place over an estimated 15- to 20-
year period.
    Three possible blending technologies may be used: uranyl nitrate 
hexahydrate (liquid) blending, uranium hexafluoride (gas) blending, or 
molten metal blending. Four potential blending facilities may be used: 
DOE's Y-12 Plant at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 
DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina; the Babcock & 
Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Facility in Lynchburg, Virginia; and 
the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Plant in Erwin, Tennessee. As a first 
concrete disposition action consistent with these programmatic 
decisions, DOE will transfer title to 50 metric tons of its surplus HEU 
and 7,000 metric tons of natural uranium from its stockpiles to the 
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), for eventual sale and 
commercial use. This will comply with legislative directions contained 
in the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134, Sec. 3112(c)).

II. Background

    The end of the Cold War has created a legacy of weapons-usable 
fissile materials both in the United States and the former Soviet 
Union. Further agreements on disarmament may increase the surplus 
quantities of these materials. The global stockpiles of weapons-usable 
fissile materials pose a

[[Page 40620]]

danger to national and international security in the form of potential 
proliferation of nuclear weapons and the potential for environmental, 
safety, and health consequences if the materials are not properly 
safeguarded and managed.
    In September 1993, President Clinton issued a Nonproliferation and 
Export Control Policy in response to the growing threat of nuclear 
proliferation. Further, in January 1994, President Clinton and Russia's 
President Yeltsin issued a joint statement between the United States 
and Russia on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
means of their delivery. In accordance with these policies, the focus 
of the U.S. nonproliferation efforts in this regard is five-fold: to 
secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union; to assure safe, 
secure, long-term storage and disposition of surplus weapons-usable 
fissile materials; to establish transparent and irreversible nuclear 
reductions; to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime; and to 
control nuclear exports.
    To demonstrate the United States' commitment to these objectives, 
President Clinton announced on March 1, 1995, that approximately 200 
metric tons of U.S.-origin weapons-usable fissile materials, of which 
165 metric tons are HEU, had been declared surplus to the United 
States' defense needs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Secretary of Energy's Openness Initiative announcement 
of February 6, 1996, declared that the United States has about 213 
metric tons of surplus fissile materials, including the 200 metric 
tons the President announced in March, 1995. Of the 213 metric tons 
of surplus materials, the Openness Initiative indicated that about 
174.3 metric tons (hereafter referred to as approximately 175 metric 
tons) are HEU, including 10 metric tons previously placed under 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. The February 1996 Openness Initiative announcement 
released additional details about the forms and quantities of 
surplus HEU at various locations, and that information is presented 
in Figure 1.3-1 of the HEU Final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disposition of surplus HEU, consistent with the Preferred 
Alternative in the Draft and Final HEU Disposition EIS and the 
decisions described in section VI of this ROD, is consistent with the 
President's policies and complies with the recently enacted USEC 
Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134). The sale of LEU derived from 
surplus HEU is also consistent with the Vice President's Reinventing 
Government initiatives pertaining to sales of unneeded government 
assets.

III. National Environmental Policy Act Process

A. HEU Draft EIS

    On June 21, 1994, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 31985) to prepare a Storage and Disposition of 
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS), including both surplus and 
nonsurplus HEU. DOE subsequently concluded that a separate EIS on 
surplus HEU disposition would be appropriate. Accordingly, DOE 
published a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 17344) on April 5, 
1995, to inform the public of the proposed plan to prepare a separate 
EIS for the disposition of surplus HEU.
    In accordance with a then-applicable DOE regulation implementing 
NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.312, DOE published an implementation plan (IP) for 
the HEU EIS in June 1995. The IP recorded the issues identified during 
the scoping process, indicated how they would be addressed in the HEU 
EIS, and provided guidance for the preparation of the HEU EIS. DOE 
issued the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (HEU Draft EIS, DOE/EIS-0240-D) for 
public comment in October 1995. On October 26, 1995, DOE published a 
Notice of Availability of the HEU Draft EIS in the Federal Register (60 
FR 54867). The Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability 
of the HEU Draft EIS appeared in the Federal Register (60 FR 55021) on 
October 27, 1995, announcing a public comment period from October 27, 
1995 until December 11, 1995. In response to requests from the public, 
DOE on November 24, 1995 published another Notice in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 58056) announcing an extension of the comment period 
until January 12, 1996. Public workshops on the HEU Draft EIS were held 
in Knoxville, Tennessee, on November 14, 1995, and in Augusta, Georgia, 
on November 16, 1995.
    During the public comment period, the public was encouraged to 
provide comments via mail, toll-free fax, electronic bulletin board 
(Internet), and toll-free telephone recording device. By these means, a 
total of 72 organizations and 125 individuals submitted a total of 464 
comments for consideration. In addition, 224 comments were recorded 
from some of the 134 individuals who attended the two public workshops. 
All of the comments received, and the Department's responses to them, 
are presented in Volume II of the HEU Final EIS, the Comment Analysis 
and Response Document. All of the comments were considered in 
preparation of the HEU Final EIS, and in some cases, resulted in 
changes to the document.

B. Alternatives Considered

    The HEU Final EIS analyzed the No Action Alternative and four 
reasonable alternatives for blending a nominal 200 metric tons of 
surplus HEU down to LEU to make it non-weapons-usable. The surplus HEU 
consists of numerous material forms, including metal (pure and 
alloyed), oxides, unirradiated fuel (including aluminum alloy fuel), 
nitrate solutions, and other forms. The inventory of material declared 
surplus also includes irradiated HEU fuel (the total quantity of which 
remains classified). As discussed in section VI.A of this ROD, below, 
the irradiated fuel is not directly weapons-usable. Thus, the 
irradiated fuel is not within the scope of the HEU Final EIS or this 
ROD unless the HEU is separated from the fission products pursuant to 
other DOE programs (such as stabilization for materials management).
    There are two possible end products from the action alternatives 
considered in the HEU Final EIS: (1) LEU that can be used as commercial 
nuclear reactor fuel feed (at a U-235 enrichment level of about 4 
percent), and (2) LEU that can be disposed of as low-level radioactive 
waste (at a U-235 enrichment level of about 0.9 percent). The HEU Final 
EIS analyzed down-blending of HEU using one or more of three blending 
technologies: uranyl nitrate hexahydrate (UNH) blending, molten metal 
blending, and uranium hexafluoride (UF6) blending.
    The HEU Final EIS analyzed the blending of HEU to LEU at four 
existing U.S. facilities that presently have the capability to 
undertake such activities. Two of them, the Y-12 Plant at the Oak Ridge 
Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site (SRS) 
in Aiken, South Carolina, are DOE facilities that have conducted 
extensive HEU operations in support of nuclear weapons and other DOE 
programs in the past. The other two analyzed facilities are the only 
commercial enterprises in the United States that have licenses from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to engage in HEU operations: the Babcock 
& Wilcox (B&W) facility in Lynchburg, Virginia, and the Nuclear Fuel 
Services, Inc. (NFS) facility in Erwin, Tennessee.
    Each of the analyzed facilities presently has the capability to 
engage in UNH blending, which could be used either for blending for 
commercial use or for blending to waste. Only DOE's Y-12 Plant has the 
capability to conduct

[[Page 40621]]

molten metal blending, which would only be used for blending to waste, 
since the metal product could not be used directly by the commercial 
fuel fabrication industry. The capability to conduct UF6 
conversion and blending does not currently exist at any of the 
facilities. It is nonetheless analyzed in the EIS as a possible 
blending technology that may be added at one or both of the commercial 
facilities, since UF6 is the form in which commercial fuel 
fabricators prefer to receive LEU product, and the two commercial 
facilities have indicated that they may decide to add UF6 
capability by modifying existing facilities.
    Because there are many possible combinations of end-products, 
blending technologies, and blending sites, DOE has formulated several 
representative, reasonable alternatives that are described and assessed 
in Chapters 2 and 4 of the HEU Final EIS. In addition to the No Action 
Alternative (continued storage of surplus HEU), there are four 
alternatives that represent blending different proportions of the 
surplus HEU for commercial use or for disposal as waste, in some cases 
with variations on number and locations of blending sites:
     Alternative 1--No Action (continued storage)
     Alternative 2 (No Commercial Use)--Blend 100% to waste (at 
all 4 sites)
     Alternative 3 (Limited Commercial Use)--Blend 75% to waste 
(at all 4 sites), 25% to fuel (at 2 commercial sites)
     Alternative 4 (Substantial Commercial Use)--Blend 35% to 
waste, 65% to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial sites, the 2 DOE 
sites, or all 4 sites)
     Alternative 5 (Maximum Commercial Use)--Blend 15% to 
waste, 85% to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial sites, the 2 DOE 
sites, or all 4 sites)
    Each of the alternatives involving commercial use of LEU derived 
from surplus HEU (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) include within them the 
transfer of 50 metric tons of surplus HEU and 7,000 metric tons of 
natural uranium from DOE stockpiles to USEC. The alternatives, which 
were formulated to represent reasonable choices within the matrix of 
possible combinations, were unchanged from the HEU Draft EIS to the HEU 
Final EIS.

C. Results of Environmental Analyses

    The environmental analyses in sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of the HEU 
Final EIS estimated that incremental radiological and several other 
impacts for HEU disposition during normal, accident- free operations 
would be low for workers, the public or the environment, and well 
within regulatory requirements, for all alternatives, technologies, and 
sites. Because no new construction would be required, and the blending 
activities that would be conducted for this proposed action are either 
the same as or very similar to operations that have occurred at the 
analyzed facilities in the past, most of the incremental impacts from 
this action at the blending sites would be low. There would be 
increases in electrical energy consumption, fuel needs, and waste 
generation, depending on the site and the alternative. Section III.D, 
below, discusses potential floodplains impacts.
    The transportation analyses in section 4.4 and Appendix G of the 
HEU Final EIS indicate that radiological impacts to the public and 
workers from transportation of materials, under both accident-free and 
accident conditions, would be low. Approximately one to three 
fatalities, depending on the alternative, could occur over the 20-year 
duration of the program, primarily as a result of non-radiological 
impacts from traffic accidents. The facility accident analyses in 
section 4.3 and Appendix E.5 of the HEU Final EIS indicate that the 
maximum credible accident from HEU blending operations, using 
conservative assumptions, could result in latent cancer fatalities to 
workers and members of the public surrounding the facility. However, 
the estimated likelihood of occurrence of such accidents is low, so 
total accident risk (consequences if the accident occurs times 
probability of occurrence) to the public is low.
    An environmental justice analysis was performed (section 4.10 of 
the HEU Final EIS) to assess whether the proposed action or 
alternatives could cause disproportionate adverse health impacts on 
minority or low-income populations residing in communities around the 
candidate blending sites. First, a demographic analysis was performed 
for all of the 1990 Census tracts located within an 80-km (50-mi) 
radius of the candidate sites. Then public health impact analyses were 
performed to assess whether minority or low-income populations would be 
disproportionately affected by facility operations through routine and 
accidental releases of radiation and toxic emissions. Analyses of 
public and occupational health impacts from normal operations showed 
that air emissions and releases would be low and within regulatory 
limits at all candidate sites. The analyses also showed that cumulative 
effects of continuous operation over time would result in low levels of 
exposure to workers and the public. As just discussed, the overall risk 
from maximum postulated accidents is also low. Thus, there would not be 
any disproportionate risk of significant adverse impacts to particular 
populations, including low-income or minority populations, from 
accidents.
    Although the EIS indicates that the projected accident-free 
radiological impacts and overall accident radiological risk from all 
alternatives would be low, section 2.4 of the HEU Final EIS, Comparison 
of Alternatives, shows that there would be some differences in impacts 
among the alternatives, depending on the extent of commercial use vs. 
disposal as waste of the product LEU material. Table 2.4-2 of the EIS, 
Summary Comparison of Total Campaign Incremental Environmental Impacts 
for the Disposition of Surplus HEU for Each Alternative, indicates that 
the Preferred Alternative (85 percent fuel/15 percent waste at four 
sites) generally would result in somewhat lower impacts from accident-
free blending and transportation than would the No Commercial Use 
Alternative (100 percent waste). Blending for commercial use under the 
Preferred Alternative would result in lower impacts than blending to 
waste in the following resource areas: diesel/fuel oil, natural gas, 
coal, and steam consumption; water use and wastewater; radiological 
exposure from normal operations; most waste streams; and transportation 
(under both accident and accident-free conditions). The Maximum 
Commercial Use Alternative would result in higher total impacts than 
the No Commercial Use Alternative for the following resources areas: 
electricity consumed; facility accident consequences (estimated 
accident probability is low); and mixed low-level and hazardous wastes 
generated. The differences among the alternatives are negligible for 
air quality and noise, socioeconomics, and chemical exposure.
    As discussed in section 4.7 of the HEU Final EIS, the avoided 
adverse impacts from displaced uranium mining, milling, conversion, and 
enrichment over time increase the environmental advantage of commercial 
use of LEU derived from surplus HEU. Because LEU fuel feed derived from 
surplus HEU would displace LEU fuel feed derived from virgin uranium, 
the environmental impacts that normally result from the front end of 
the nuclear fuel cycle (mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment) 
would be avoided by using the HEU-derived material instead.

[[Page 40622]]

In actuality, those front-end environmental impacts have already been 
incurred for the HEU. By making beneficial use of the material rather 
than wasting it, the Department would derive both environmental and 
economic benefit from those sunk costs. The analysis in section 4.7 of 
the HEU Final EIS indicates that the total avoided impacts in terms of 
radiological exposure, nonradiological air quality impacts, and waste 
generation would be greater than those that are projected to result 
from the HEU blending program.
    An unavoidable corollary to the physical environmental advantages 
of commercial use of surplus HEU is the potential socioeconomic 
disadvantage: displacing the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle could 
impact employment in the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and 
enrichment sectors. The analysis in section 4.8 of the HEU Final EIS 
concludes that DOE will be able to avoid causing adverse material 
impacts on those industry sectors, as required by provisions of the 
USEC Privatization Act.

D. Floodplains Impacts

1. Floodplain Assessment
    As required by DOEs regulations on protection of floodplains and 
wetlands (10 CFR Part 1022), the HEU Final EIS assesses whether the 
proposed action would impact or be impacted by the floodplains at the 
involved sites. The proposed action in the HEU Final EIS involves 
blending activities that would be accommodated within existing 
facilities at Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS. The locations of facilities at 
the candidate sites with respect to delineated floodplains are 
presented in the maps shown in Figures 3.3.4-2, 3.4.4-2, 3.5.1-2, and 
3.6.4-1 of the HEU Final EIS, respectively.
    Because HEU blending activities associated with the proposed action 
and its alternatives could be accommodated in existing facilities, no 
positive or negative impacts on floodplains would be expected at any of 
the candidate sites. Similarly, since no new construction activity is 
proposed at any of the candidate sites and blending facilities are not 
located in the vicinity of wetlands, no impacts to wetlands are 
anticipated.
    As discussed in sections 3.3.4 and 3.5.4 of the HEU Final EIS, and 
shown in Figures 3.3.4-2 and 3.5.1-2, blending operations at the Y-12 
Plant and B&W, respectively, would be accommodated in facilities 
located outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. At SRS, the F- or H-
Canyons that could be used for blending also fall outside the 100-year 
floodplains of the Fourmile Branch and the Upper Three Runs Creek (EIS 
Section 3.4.4). The 500-year floodplain limits at SRS are not currently 
delineated. However, the blending alternatives at SRS would not likely 
affect, or be affected by, the 500-year floodplain of either the 
Fourmile Branch or Upper Three Runs Creek because the F- and H-Canyons 
are located at an elevation of about 91 m (300 ft) above mean sea level 
and are approximately 33 m (107 ft) and 64 m (210 ft) above these 
streams and at distances from these streams of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to 1.5 
km (0.94 mi), respectively. The maximum flow that has occurred on the 
Upper Three Runs Creek was in 1990, with a flow rate of about 58 m\3\/s 
(2,040 ft\3\/s). At that time the creek reached an elevation of almost 
30 m (98 ft) above mean sea level. The elevations of the buildings in 
F- and H-Canyons are located more than 62 m (202 ft) above the highest 
flow elevation of the Upper Three Runs Creek. The maximum flow that has 
occurred on the Fourmile Branch was in 1991 with a rate of 
approximately 5 m\3\/s (186 ft\3\/s), and an elevation of about 61 m 
(199 ft) above mean sea level. Elevations of the buildings in F- and H-
Areas are located more than approximately 30 m (101 ft) higher than the 
maximum flow level that has occurred.
    The NFS site is partially located on the 100- and 500- year 
floodplains of the Nolichucky River and Martin Creek (as determined by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate 
Map, January 3, 1985). However, as described in section 3.6.4 of the 
EIS and below, mitigation measures have been and would continue to be 
implemented to reduce potential flooding of the site and the likelihood 
of adverse impacts to site operations.
2. Final Floodplain Statement Of Findings
    The HEU Final EIS includes, in section 4.13.1, a Proposed 
Floodplain Statement of Findings. The Federal Register Notice of 
Availability for the Final EIS (61 FR 33719) stated that DOE would 
accept comments on the proposed statement of findings during a 15-day 
period. The Department received no comments in response to that notice. 
This section of the ROD constitutes the Final Floodplain Statement of 
Findings, as required by 10 CFR 1022.15.
    Four candidate sites, two DOE (Y-12 and SRS) and two commercial 
(B&W and NFS), were considered in the HEU Final EIS as potential sites 
where the proposed action could be implemented. These candidate sites 
were selected for evaluation because they currently have technically 
viable HEU conversion and blending capabilities and could blend surplus 
HEU to LEU for commercial fuel or waste. In addition, the commercial 
sites considered are the only ones in the United States presently 
licensed for the processing of HEU.
    As described above, all facilities except NFS that are proposed to 
be used for this proposed action at the candidate sites would be 
outside the limits of the 100-year floodplain and are at least one foot 
above the 100-year floodplain elevation and, therefore would conform to 
both State and local floodplain requirements.
    The floodplains of the Nolichucky River and Martin Creek at NFS, as 
presented in Figure 3.6.4-1 of the HEU Final EIS, cover approximately 
one-third and two-thirds of the NFS site's northern portion under 100-
year and 500-year floodplain conditions, respectively. Based on the 
Flood Insurance Rate Map and the flood profiles, both published by 
FEMA, floodplain elevations at the NFS site are determined to be 499.5 
m (1639 ft) and 500 m (1640 ft) above mean sea level for the 100-year 
and 500-years floods, respectively. As stated in the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC) Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Special 
Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., 
Erwin Plant, Erwin, Tennessee (August 1991), elevations of the building 
floors are between 500 m (1640 ft) and 510 m (1660 ft) above mean sea 
level. At the time of construction of the plant (1956), there were no 
local, State, or NRC requirements prohibiting construction or operation 
of nuclear facilities in 100- or 500-year floodplains. Presently, the 
State of Tennessee has no requirements pertaining to building in 100- 
or 500-year floodplains. Local standards require that any new 
construction or substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, 
or non-residential structure should have the lowest floor, including 
basement, elevated no lower than one foot above the level of base flood 
(100-year flood) elevation. Because NFS was built prior to 1974, site 
operations are grandfathered, and this local requirement does not apply 
to existing facilities at NFS. NRC, which regulates the NFS site, also 
has no regulations against building or operating nuclear facilities in 
floodplains. Nevertheless, with the widening of the site's culvert, 
upgraded drainage system, rechanneling of the Nolichucky River, and 
rerouting of Martin Creek to enter the Nolichucky River farther 
downstream, the chance of flood levels at the site has been lowered.

[[Page 40623]]

In addition, warning devices and systems have been placed by the State 
of Tennessee along the river to warn the public and the NFS plant of 
the chance of possible flooding. In addition, NFS and the State of 
Tennessee have emergency action plans to mitigate potential flood 
impacts and protect the public water supply from any possible 
contamination.
    There are two alternatives in addition to no action that could be 
considered to remediate potential flooding of facilities at NFS. One 
would be to use the facilities in the 300 Area at NFS, which is outside 
both the 100- and 500-year floodplain limits, for blending activities. 
Facilities in the 300 Area have building floor elevations of at least 
500.5 m (1642 ft) above mean sea level, which would conform to the 
local requirement of at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain 
and would also fall outside of the 500-year floodplain. The second 
alternative is to eliminate NFS as a candidate blending site. Based on 
the analyses in the HEU Final EIS and on the information in the 
Floodplains Assessment and this Statement of Findings, DOE will, for 
any blending done at NFS on the Department's behalf pursuant to this 
ROD, specify that the work should be done in the 300 Area, and/or that 
measures to mitigate potential flood impacts at NFS will continue.

E. Preferred Alternative

    The Preferred Alternative is identified in the HEU Final EIS as 
Alternative 5, Maximum Commercial Use (four sites), which is:
     To gradually blend down surplus HEU and sell as much as 
possible (up to 85 percent) of the resulting commercially usable LEU 
for use as reactor fuel over time (including 50 metric tons of HEU that 
are to be transferred to USEC over a 6-year period, along with 7,000 
metric tons of natural uranium), using a combination of four sites (Y-
12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) and two possible blending technologies (blending 
as UF6 and UNH); implemented over an approximate 15- to 20-year 
period; with continued storage of the HEU until blend-down occurs; and
     To blend down surplus HEU that has no commercial value 
using a combination of four sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) and two 
blending technologies (blending as UNH and metal); to dispose of the 
resulting LEU as low-level radioactive waste (LLW) pursuant to the 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing, Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS-0200-
D, draft issued in August 1995) (Waste Management PEIS) and associated 
RODs, and any subsequent NEPA documents tiered from or supplementing 
the Waste Management PEIS; implemented over an approximate 15- to 20-
year period; with continued storage of the HEU until blend-down occurs.
    Because some material is in difficult-to-access forms, only about 
65-70% of the nominal 200 metric tons of surplus HEU could be blended 
and made available for commercial use over the next 10-15 years. The 
Department expects that 15-20 years would be needed to bring about the 
disposition of the entire nominal 200 metric tons of surplus HEU 
analyzed in the EIS.

F. Notice of Availability for HEU Final EIS / Basis for Record of 
Decision

    On June 28, 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 33735) a Notice of 
Availability of the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0240), after DOE had 
disseminated approximately 750 copies of the EIS and/or the EIS Summary 
to government officials, states, Indian tribes, and interested groups 
and individuals. A separate DOE Notice of Availability, summarizing the 
HEU Final EIS, appeared in the Federal Register that same day (61 FR 
33719).
    DOE has prepared this ROD in accordance with the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). 
This ROD is based on DOE's Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched 
Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement (the HEU Final EIS). In 
making the decisions announced in this ROD, DOE considered 
environmental impacts and other factors, such as cost considerations 
and public comments received on the HEU Draft EIS.

IV. Cost Analysis

    To assist the Department in reaching a decision on the HEU 
disposition program, a study comparing the expected costs of the 
various disposition alternatives was conducted. The Cost Comparison was 
completed in April 1996, and was disseminated at the beginning of May 
1996 to over 200 individuals who either expressed an interest in the 
cost issue in comments, or attended one of the public workshops on the 
HEU Draft EIS, or requested the study. In addition, the availability of 
the Cost Comparison was noted in the June 28, 1996 Notice of 
Availability for the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (61 FR 33719), along with 
notification that the Department would entertain comments on it during 
a 15- day period. No comments were received.
    The Cost Comparison provides estimates of the potential costs for 
blending HEU by using each of the blending technologies analyzed in the 
HEU EIS (UNH, UF6, and metal blending). It compares the economic 
impact for disposition of the surplus HEU according to the various 
action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) defined in the EIS, 
which are based on different proportions of the material being blended 
for commercial use or for disposal as waste. The report derives the 
following estimated unit costs for the various blending technologies 
and end-products:

Metal blending to 0.9-percent LEU for disposal--$13,900/kg of HEU
UNH blending to 0.9-percent LEU for disposal--$22,900/kg of HEU
UF6 blending to 4-percent LEU for commercial use--$3,200/kg of HEU
UNH blending to 4-percent LEU for commercial use--$5,700/kg of HEU

    Unit costs for blending to waste include estimated disposal costs 
as well as blending costs. The report estimates that the potential 
sales revenue for each kilogram of HEU blended for commercial use is 
$11,700, which is substantially greater than the costs for blending it. 
The cost of ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel derived from down-
blended HEU that is used commercially would be borne by the utility 
purchasers of the fuel pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
    Based on these unit costs and revenues from commercial sales, the 
Cost Comparison concludes that disposition of the entire nominal 200 
metric tons of surplus HEU under the waste option (Alternative 2) would 
cost approximately $3.4 billion. In contrast, disposition of 170 metric 
tons of surplus HEU for commercial use, and disposition of the 
remaining 30 metric tons as waste (the Preferred Alternative) would 
result in a net return of about $340 to $770 million. The analyses 
indicate that, on average, each metric ton of surplus HEU that is 
blended to LEU fuel and sold, rather than blended for disposal as 
waste, would save taxpayers $21 million to $26 million (depending on 
the mix of blending technologies used). The report concludes that it is 
economically attractive to pursue the commercial fuel option to the 
maximum extent possible

[[Page 40624]]

rather than to pursue the waste option exclusively.

V. Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1505.2) require that a Record of Decision 
identify the environmentally preferred alternative(s). The analysis of 
alternatives presented in Chapter 4 and section 2.4 of the HEU Final 
EIS indicates that, even using conservative assumptions (that is, 
assumptions that tend to overestimate risks), all of the action 
alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) would have low radiological 
impacts on the human environment in or around the analyzed blending 
sites during accident-free operations or on workers or the populations 
near the potential transportation routes. However, there are 
differences among the estimated impacts for the various action 
alternatives. As discussed in section III.C. of this ROD, above, except 
for the No Action Alternative, the analyses in the HEU Final EIS 
indicate that the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5, blend 85 
percent to fuel/15 percent to waste at four sites) would generally 
result in the somewhat lower total environmental impacts for many 
resources, including radiological impacts, during accident-free 
operations, and that the risk of accidents would also be low. Thus, the 
environmentally preferable alternative is the Preferred Alternative 
identified in the HEU Final EIS, which, as discussed above, also best 
serves the economic recovery objective, and fully serves the 
nonproliferation objective, of the HEU disposition program.
    The environmental analyses in the HEU Final EIS indicate that the 
radiological, air, hazardous chemical, and socioeconomic impacts on the 
environment during accident-free operations would be low and within 
regulatory standards for all blending technologies. There would be a 
choice of two technologies for each of the two end-products (fuel or 
waste). For surplus HEU that is blended to waste for disposal, either 
UNH blending or molten metal blending could be used. On the whole, the 
data in section 2.2.2 and the analyses in section 4.3 of the HEU Final 
EIS show that molten metal blending would be the environmentally 
preferable blending technology for most resources for blending surplus 
HEU to waste, although molten metal blending would generate more 
process LLW (as opposed to the LEU end-product waste) than would UNH 
blending.
    For surplus HEU that is blended for commercial use as reactor fuel 
feed, either UNH blending or UF6 blending could be used. The data 
in section 2.2.2 and the analyses in section 4.3 of the HEU Final EIS 
show that, on the whole, at the commercial sites, UNH blending would be 
the environmentally preferable blending technology for blending surplus 
HEU for commercial use, although UNH blending would produce greater 
impacts in three resource areas: liquid hazardous waste generated, 
solid nonhazardous waste after treatment, and transportation. In the 
area of potential facility accidents, in particular, UF6 blending 
would result in higher accident consequences because of the possibility 
of a UF6 cylinder breach accident that could release gaseous 
UF6 (both radiologically and chemically toxic) into the 
environment. However, as discussed in section III.C, above, the 
probability of accidents that would release significant quantities of 
material into the environment is estimated to be low. DOE concludes 
that these differences in impacts would not dictate against the use of 
UF6 blending technology for blending surplus HEU for commercial 
use.
    The analyses in section 4.3 of the HEU Final EIS indicate that all 
four of the analyzed blending facilities (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) have 
the capacity to process surplus HEU with low impacts to workers, the 
public, and, for many parameters, the environment during normal 
operations. For the two DOE sites, the generation of waste based on an 
increased usage of utilities represents small increases--less than 5 
percent over current operations. For the two commercial sites, the 
generation of waste based on an increased usage of utilities represents 
increases of over 20 percent, but both facilities have adequate 
capacities to accommodate the increases since neither site is currently 
operating at full capacity. Because the NFS site has not been operating 
recently, it would require a large increase in water usage (166 
percent) and fuel requirements (933 percent) relative to the current 
baseline. However, because the quantity of water and fuel used in the 
past for similar operations is comparable to that which would be used 
for the proposed action, it is anticipated that the increase in these 
requirements can easily be accommodated at NFS. As discussed in section 
III.D, above, the potential for flooding at NFS is another relative 
disadvantage of that facility.
    For postulated facility accidents, there are also differences among 
the sites based on different proximities and concentrations of workers 
and nearby populations, as well as meteorological factors. The analyses 
in section 4.3 of the HEU Final EIS indicate that accident impacts to 
the maximally exposed individual member of the public and to the 
population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) would be lowest at SRS, 
where the involved facilities are in the middle of a very large, 
limited-access, rural site, so the distances to members of the public 
are large. The greatest impacts to the public from accidents would be 
experienced at Y-12 and NFS, at both of which the involved facilities 
are relatively close to site boundaries (in the case of NFS, the site 
is small) and population centers. The postulated accident impacts to 
on-site non-involved workers would be lowest at SRS (because the 
workers are fairly widely dispersed) and NFS (because there are 
relatively few workers on the site). The non-involved worker impacts 
would be highest at B&W, which has a relatively large workforce in 
close proximity to the blending facility. However, as noted in section 
III.C, above, the probabilities of serious accidents at all sites are 
low.
    The environmental justice analysis shows that the SRS site has a 
substantial minority and low-income population in surrounding census 
tracts (more than 25 percent minority and low-income in most census 
tracts, and more than 50 percent minority in several). However, the 
impacts to surrounding populations are projected to be low for all 
sites, and lowest for SRS, so there would be no disproportionate 
adverse impacts on minority populations.
    In summary, the analyses in the HEU Final EIS indicate that the 
environmentally preferable blending facility would be SRS. However, 
since the impacts at all sites are expected to be low during normal 
operations for many parameters (including radiological impacts), well 
within regulatory limits, and since overall risks associated with 
potential accidents are low, DOE concludes that environmental 
differences among the sites would not serve as a basis for choosing 
among them. Each of the facilities would be capable of blending up to 
the entire inventory of surplus HEU without significant adverse 
environmental impacts, and use of a combination of facilities can 
facilitate mission accomplishment.

VI. Decisions

A. Programmatic Decisions

    DOE has decided to implement a program to make surplus HEU non-
weapons-usable by blending it down to LEU, as specified in the 
Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5, site variation c [all four 
sites]) in the HEU Final EIS.

[[Page 40625]]

As defined in section 1.4.2 of the HEU Final EIS, the Preferred 
Alternative is:
     To gradually blend down surplus HEU and sell over time as 
much as possible (up to 85 percent) of the resulting commercially 
usable LEU for use as reactor fuel feed, (including 50 metric tons of 
HEU to be transferred to USEC over a 6-year period 2); using a 
combination of four sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS), and two possible 
blending technologies (blending as UF6 and UNH); over an 
approximate 15-to 20-year period; with continued storage of the surplus 
HEU until blend-down occurs; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 2\  The transfer of 50 metric tons of HEU and 7,000 metric 
tons of natural uranium from DOE stockpiles to USEC is specifically 
mandated by section 3112(c) of Public Law 104-134. Both of those 
transfers are components of the Preferred Alternative and this 
decision. The delivery to commercial end users of the surplus 
uranium transferred to USEC could not begin before 1998 pursuant to 
the statute. Although the transfer of 7,000 metric tons of natural 
uranium from DOE to USEC is not part of the HEU disposition program, 
it is part of the same transaction as the transfer of 50 metric tons 
of HEU, so the environmental impacts of that transfer are assessed 
in section 4.9 of the HEU Final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To blend down surplus HEU that has no potential commercial 
value; using a combination of four sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS), and 
two blending technologies (blending as UNH and metal); to dispose of 
the resulting LEU as LLW pursuant to Record(s) of Decision associated 
with the Waste Management PEIS and any other relevant site- or project-
specific NEPA reviews 3; over an approximate 15-to 20-year period; 
with continued storage of the surplus HEU until blend-down occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 3\ For purposes of analysis of transportation impacts in the 
HEU EIS, the LLW facility at DOE's Nevada Test Site (NTS) was 
assessed as a representative site for disposal of LLW from the HEU 
disposition program. The possibility that this material may be 
received at the NTS facility is also reflected in the NTS Site-Wide 
EIS (DOE/EIS-0243, draft published January 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because a portion of the surplus HEU is in forms, such as weapons 
components, that would require considerable time to make available for 
blending, it is anticipated that no more than 70 percent of the current 
surplus HEU could be blended down and commercialized in the near term 
(over the next 10-to 15-year period).
    The preferred site variation is to use all four of the analyzed 
sites. For purposes of analysis in the EIS, it was assumed that the 
blending operations would be divided evenly among the four facilities 
(25 percent to each) under this site variation. However, as noted in 
section 2.1.2 of the HEU Final EIS, the defined alternatives and site 
variations were not intended to represent exclusive choices among which 
the decisionmaker must choose, but rather were proffered to define a 
spectrum of reasonable alternatives. While the Department considers it 
likely that each of the four analyzed blending facilities will be used 
for part of the surplus HEU disposition program, it is highly unlikely 
that the work would be so evenly divided, and there is no intent to 
seek such a distribution. Section 4.5.6 of the HEU Final EIS explains 
how impacts would change over the life of the campaign if the exact 
fuel/waste ratio or division among sites were different. Because the 
HEU Final EIS analyzes the impacts of site variations for the Preferred 
Alternative that would involve blending 0, 25, 50, and 100 percent of 
the surplus HEU at each of the sites, and concludes that expected 
impacts would be low for many parameters (including radiological 
impacts) during normal operations and within regulatory limits for each 
site even if that site were to blend 100 percent of the inventory, the 
impacts at any site from any possible distribution of the blending work 
among the facilities would be low for many parameters (including 
radiological impacts) during normal operations, and would be bounded by 
the analyses in the EIS.
    As noted in sections 1.3 and 1.4.2 of the HEU Final EIS, decisions 
about the timing and details of specific disposition actions (which 
facility or process to use) might be made in part by DOE, by other 
government agencies, by USEC, by a private successor to USEC, or by 
other private entities acting as marketing agents for DOE. In the case 
of the 50 metric tons of surplus HEU that is being transferred to USEC 
as part of this decision (see below), the choice of blending sites for 
that work will be made by USEC or its private, corporate successor. The 
quantities and other characteristics of additional specific ``batches'' 
of surplus HEU and the exact time and blending sites at which such 
batches would be subject to disposition are unknown at this time, and 
would depend on a number of factors, including the rate of weapons 
dismantlement; the timing and rate at which any additional HEU may be 
declared surplus; market conditions; legislative restrictions on 
delivery to commercial end users (see Public Law 104-134); and 
available throughput capacities and unrelated workloads at the blending 
facilities. (See section VI.B.2, below, for a discussion of a possible 
transfer of ``off-spec'' surplus HEU material to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority.) Competitive bidding procedures--including both the 
commercial and DOE facilities (the latter under their ``Work for 
Others'' programs)--as well as facility availability and other business 
considerations are likely to be key components of disposition actions. 
DOE is preparing an HEU Disposition Plan, which will be available 
shortly following publication of this ROD, that will provide additional 
information concerning specific disposition actions that are expected 
to commence during the next several years, as well as describe an 
approach to other future, specific actions. The ultimate distribution 
of blending work among the four facilities will be determined in 
multiple individual decisions by multiple decisionmakers, based largely 
on business and facility availability considerations, over a period of 
up to 15-20 years.
    This programmatic decision does not include within it the choice of 
blending technologies for specific batches of HEU. The HEU Final EIS 
analyses indicate that all three of the analyzed technologies (UNH, 
UF6, and metal blending) could be used. As in the case of facility 
selection, the choices of blending technologies are expected to be made 
largely on the basis of business and technical considerations, and may 
be made by DOE, USEC, USEC's corporate successor, or other 
entities.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 4\  The UF6 blending technology will not even be 
available unless the potential commercial blenders make the business 
decisions to deploy it. If UF6 blending capability is not 
developed, all blending for commercial use would use the UNH 
process. If new blending facilities or processes are proposed in the 
future, additional NEPA review would be conducted, as appropriate, 
either by DOE or in connection with NRC licensing proceedings for a 
commercial facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A portion of DOE's surplus HEU inventory is in various forms of 
irradiated HEU fuel (the total quantity of which remains classified) 
from the Department's nuclear weapons, naval nuclear propulsion, or 
nuclear energy research programs. The irradiated fuel is not directly 
weapons- usable, is under safeguards and security, and poses no 
proliferation threat. DOE is not proposing to process the irradiated 
fuel to separate the HEU for down-blending as part of this decision. 
There are no current or anticipated DOE plans to process irradiated 
fuel solely for the purposes of extracting HEU. However, activities 
associated with the irradiated fuel for purposes of stabilization, 
facility cleanup, treatment, waste management, safe disposal, or 
environment, safety, and health reasons could result in the separation 
of HEU in weapons-usable form that could pose a proliferation threat 
and thus be within the scope of this EIS. Under the Preferred 
Alternative

[[Page 40626]]

and this decision, DOE would blend such recovered HEU to LEU.5 To 
provide a conservative analysis presenting maximum potential impacts, 
the HEU Final EIS includes such HEU (currently in the form of 
irradiated fuel) in the material to be blended to LEU, as if such HEU 
had been separated from the irradiated fuel pursuant to health and 
safety, stabilization, or other non-defense activities. However, such 
HEU may actually remain in its present form (without the HEU ever being 
separated) and be disposed of as high level waste in a repository or 
alternative pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 5\ For example, weapons-usable HEU is anticipated to be 
recovered from dissolving and stabilizing targets and spent fuel at 
SRS pursuant to the analysis and decisions in the Final EIS (October 
1995) and RODs (December 1995 and February 1996) on the Interim 
Management of Nuclear Materials at SRS.
    \ 6\ If HEU currently in irradiated fuel remains in its current 
form, it would be managed pursuant to the analyses and decisions in 
the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement (April 1995) and 
the associated RODs (60 FR 28680, June 1, 1995, amended by 61 FR 
9441, March 8, 1996), and subsequent, project- specific or site-
specific NEPA documentation. Such spent fuel could be disposed of as 
high level waste in a repository pursuant to the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.). DOE is in the process of 
characterizing the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada as a potential 
repository for disposal of spent fuel pursuant to that Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Basis for Decisions

    DOE has concluded that the Preferred Alternative identified in the 
HEU Final EIS would best serve the purpose and need for the HEU 
disposition program for several reasons. In terms of the fundamental 
nonproliferation objective, DOE considers all of the action 
alternatives (2 through 5) to be roughly equivalent in terms of serving 
that objective. Both 4-percent LEU in the form of commercial spent 
nuclear fuel and 0.9-percent LEU oxide for disposal as LLW--and any 
allocation between them--are considered highly proliferation-resistant 
material forms, because both reprocessing of commercial spent fuel (to 
separate the roughly 1 percent of plutonium it contains), and re-
enrichment of the 0.9-percent LEU to make HEU again, are 
technologically difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
    In terms of the economic recovery objective of the program, that 
objective is best served by the Maximum Commercial Use Alternative. 
Commercial use would reduce the amount of blending that would be 
required for disposition (a 14 to 1 blending ratio of blendstock to HEU 
as opposed to 70 to 1 for waste) and minimize Government waste disposal 
costs that would be incurred if all (or a greater portion of) the 
material were blended to waste. The sale of LEU derived from surplus 
HEU would yield returns on prior investments to the Federal Treasury. 
As noted in section IV of this ROD, the Cost Comparison for Highly 
Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives indicates that the Preferred 
Alternative could save as much as $4 billion compared to the blend-to-
waste alternative. Under the best case, the proceeds from commercial 
sales of 85 percent of the inventory could actually more than pay for 
the entire HEU disposition program, including the blending and disposal 
of the 15 percent that would still need to be disposed of as waste, and 
yield $340 million to $770 million in net revenues. (As noted above, 
however, this degree of commercialization may not ultimately be 
achieved.)
    Finally, as discussed in section III.C of this ROD, the analyses in 
the EIS indicate that the Preferred Alternative would have somewhat 
lower overall environmental impacts than the other action alternatives. 
The Maximum Commercial Use Alternative would generate smaller 
quantities of radioactive waste requiring disposal than would the No 
Commercial Use Alternative. Adverse environmental impacts from uranium 
mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment would be avoided by using 
this material rather than virgin uranium to produce nuclear fuel. 
Making beneficial use of the LEU derived from surplus HEU would derive 
some environmental benefit (when compared to the blend-100-percent-to-
waste alternative) in return for the environmental costs that were 
expended in making the HEU in the first place, thus conserving non-
renewable natural resources.
    The Maximum Commercial Use Alternative would, as discussed in 
section 4.8 of the HEU Final EIS, displace some uranium mining, 
milling, conversion, and enrichment. However, in light of the provision 
in the USEC Privatization Act that requires DOE to determine that its 
sales of uranium would not have adverse material impacts on those 
industries, and the rate at which DOE expects to be able to make 
surplus HEU available for disposition, serious, long-lasting impacts on 
those industry sectors is not anticipated. Mitigation of any such 
impacts, as required by the USEC Privatization Act, is discussed in 
section VII of this ROD, below.
    An indirect impact of the Preferred Alternative would be the 
creation of spent nuclear fuel (through the use of commercial LEU fuel 
derived from surplus HEU in power reactors). However, since the LEU 
nuclear fuel derived from surplus HEU would replace nuclear fuel that 
would have been created from newly mined uranium without this action, 
there would be no additional spent fuel that would not otherwise be 
generated. The domestic spent fuel would be stored, and potentially 
disposed of in a repository or other alternative, pursuant to the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), with 
appropriate associated NEPA review.
    With respect to the ultimate disposal of LLW material, certain DOE 
LLW is currently disposed of at commercial facilities, and other DOE 
LLW is stored or disposed of at DOE sites. A location where LLW derived 
from DOE s surplus HEU can be disposed of has not been designated. 
Disposal of DOE LLW would be pursuant to DOE's Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement for Managing, Treatment, Storage, and 
Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS-0200-D, draft 
issued in August 1995) (Waste Management PEIS) and associated ROD(s), 
any subsequent NEPA documents tiered from or supplementing the Waste 
Management PEIS, and any applicable project- or site-specific NEPA 
reviews (such as the NTS Site-Wide EIS, currently in preparation). 
Waste material derived from surplus HEU would be required to meet LLW 
acceptance criteria of DOE's Office of Environmental Management. No LLW 
would be transferred to any LLW facility until completion of the Waste 
Management PEIS (or other applicable project or site-specific NEPA 
documentation) and would be in accordance with decisions in the 
associated RODs. Additional options for disposal of LLW may be 
identified in other documents.
    Continued storage of surplus HEU prior to blending may be required 
for some time. The storage, pending disposition (for up to 10 years) of 
surplus HEU at the Y-12 Plant (where most of the HEU is stored or 
destined to be stored), is analyzed in the Environmental Assessment for 
the Proposed Interim Storage of Enriched Uranium Above the Maximum 
Historical Storage Level at the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE/
EA-0929, September 1994) (Y-12 EA). Impacts from storage, as analyzed 
in the Y-12 EA, are summarized and incorporated by reference in the HEU 
Final EIS (see section 4.2). Should storage of surplus HEU pending 
disposition be required beyond 10 years, it would be done pursuant to 
and

[[Page 40627]]

consistent with the ROD associated with the Department's Storage and 
Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement or tiered NEPA documents.

C. Specific Action Decisions

1. Transfer of HEU and Natural Uranium to USEC
    As a first concrete disposition action pursuant to the programmatic 
decisions described in section VI.A of this ROD, above, DOE has decided 
to transfer title to 50 metric tons of surplus HEU and 7,000 metric 
tons of natural uranium to USEC for gradual sale and commercial use. In 
addition to serving the objectives of the HEU disposition program, 
these transfers are consistent with the Fiscal Year 1996 Federal 
Budget, and are specifically mandated by the USEC Privatization Act 
(Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 3112(c)(1)).
    Specifics concerning the timing of deliveries and the 
characteristics and locations of material to be delivered to USEC (or 
to blending contractors that USEC selects) are to be established in a 
separate DOE/USEC Memorandum of Agreement pertaining to the transfers. 
USEC or its corporate successor will make decisions concerning where 
and when blending of the 50 metric tons of HEU being transferred will 
occur, what technologies will be used, and when and how the resultant 
LEU will be marketed (consistent with the USEC Privatization Act). It 
is anticipated that USEC will utilize one or both of the commercial 
blending facilities for down-blending, that the first transfers of HEU 
will occur before the end of 1996, and that they will continue for 
about six years. Under the USEC Privatization Act, USEC (or its 
corporate successor) may not deliver this material for commercial end 
use prior to 1998, and there are quantitative limits on annual 
deliveries to end users (Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 3112(c)(2)).
    The transfer of 7,000 metric tons of natural uranium to USEC is not 
part of the HEU disposition program. However, since it is part of the 
transaction transferring 50 metric tons of HEU, the impacts of the 
transfer are assessed in section 4.9 of the HEU Final EIS. This 
material is in the form of UF6, and is part of a larger quantity 
of UF6 that is in storage at DOE's Portsmouth (Ohio) and Paducah 
(Kentucky) Gaseous Diffusion Plants, which are currently being leased 
to USEC for uranium enrichment operations. The most likely disposition 
of the 7,000 metric tons of natural uranium is eventual use as 
feedstock for enrichment to nuclear power plant fuel, the usual 
business of the enrichment plants. If it is so used, and follows the 
typical path of such uranium, it would probably be enriched to about 2 
percent U-235 at the Paducah Plant, then transported to the Portsmouth 
Plant for additional enrichment to an appropriate commercial material, 
generally about 4 percent. From there the enriched UF6 would be 
transported to a commercial fuel fabrication plant for conversion and 
fabrication of nuclear fuel. The analysis in section 4.9 of the HEU 
Final EIS indicates that the environmental impacts from enrichment and 
transportation of this material would be negligible. Commercialization 
of the 7,000 metric tons of natural uranium by USEC is regulated by the 
same USEC Privatization Act limits as described in the preceding 
paragraph for commercialization of the 50 metric tons of HEU.
2. Down-Blending of ``Off-Spec'' Materials at SRS
    A significant portion of the surplus HEU inventory, including most 
of the approximately 22 metric tons of surplus HEU that is currently 
located at the SRS site, is in various forms of off-specification or 
``off-spec'' material which, when blended down, would not meet standard 
U.S. commercial nuclear fuel specifications for content of the uranium 
isotopes U-234 and/or U-236.7 As noted in section 2.1.1 of the HEU 
Final EIS, such off-spec material might nonetheless be commercially 
used as reactor fuel feed under certain circumstances, which might 
involve blending to somewhat higher enrichment levels, and NRC license 
amendments for reactors that would use the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 7\ The quantities of the various surplus HEU material forms 
located at SRS remain classified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE had previously decided, in two RODs pursuant to the Interim 
Management of Nuclear Materials at Savannah River Site Final EIS (DOE/
EIS-0220, October 1995)(IMNM EIS), to use the H-Canyon and/or F-Canyon 
and associated facilities at SRS for down-blending, as part of its 
interim stabilization activities under the IMNM EIS, for UNH solutions 
(60 FR 65300, December 19, 1995), and Mark-16 and Mark-22 (irradiated) 
fuels (61 FR 6633, February 21, 1996). These materials are part of the 
inventory of surplus HEU. The IMNM RODs stated that these HEU materials 
would be blended down to LEU and then either oxidized using the FA-Line 
in the F-area at SRS, or stored as LEU solutions pending decisions on 
ultimate disposition.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 8\ As discussed in section 2.2.3.3 of the HEU Final EIS, due 
to criticality issues, the FA-Line is not capable of oxidizing 
material at commercial enrichment levels (4-5 percent), so that 
facility would not be used for oxidation of the commercial material. 
Rather, these LEU solutions will be stored at SRS until other 
arrangements can be made for oxidation of commercial-enrichment 
material. There are several options for providing for solidification 
of UNH solutions at commercial enrichment levels at SRS, although 
none is being proposed by DOE at this time. One option being 
considered is construction of a private, commercial facility on land 
leased from DOE at SRS. Such a private facility would need to be 
licensed by the NRC, and would be accompanied by appropriate NEPA 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the materials noted above, there is also off-spec 
unirradiated aluminum alloy HEU reactor fuel material located at SRS 
and Y-12. Pursuant to this HEU ROD, DOE has decided that the 
unirradiated HEU reactor fuel will also be down-blended at the F-Canyon 
and/or H-Canyon and associated facilities at SRS, and will eventually 
be sold for commercial use, if possible. The ability of SRS facilities 
to withstand earthquakes is currently being reviewed. No surplus HEU 
from decisions made in this HEU ROD would be introduced into the 
canyons or blended in the canyon facilities until completion of the 
seismic review. The HEU down-blending activities at SRS pursuant to 
this decision will occur during a relatively limited period, subject to 
facility operations and availability.
    The SRS canyon facilities, with their large chemical processing and 
separations capabilities, are capable of processing these off-spec 
materials. Commercial blending facilities are reluctant to handle these 
materials because of the resultant contamination of their facilities 
with undesirable uranium isotopes. The UNH blending facilities at the 
Y-12 Plant are also not considered likely candidates for blending of 
such off-spec material, as their processing capacity and chemical 
separation capabilities are much lower than the SRS canyon facilities, 
and may be needed for future defense programs activities.
    The USEC Privatization Act (Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 3112(e)(1)) 
provides that DOE may transfer off-spec uranium to a Federal agency 
without resale or transfer to another entity. Pursuant to the Act, DOE 
may pursue discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a 
Federal agency that operates several nuclear power plants, to try to 
reach agreement on a demonstration of the use of off-spec LEU derived 
from surplus HEU that would be down-blended at SRS.

[[Page 40628]]

3. Other Future Actions
    DOE has no other concrete surplus HEU disposition actions under 
specific contemplation at this time. DOE has decided that, when 
additional HEU blend-down actions for either commercial use or for 
disposal as waste are developed in the future, they could involve the 
use of all four of the analyzed blending facilities. The commercial 
facilities (B&W and NFS) are considered to be available for such 
activities immediately. The SRS facilities may also be available for 
blending some of the HEU. The Y-12 facilities are currently not 
operational. Under DOE Order 425.1, Startup and Restart of Nuclear 
Facilities, DOE must successfully complete an Operational Readiness 
Review addressing operational health and safety issues prior to restart 
of the Y-12 facilities. HEU operations are expected to resume at Y-12 
in 1998. Thus, all four of the facilities would potentially be 
available, and could be used for portions of the HEU down-blending, in 
the timeframes that additional disposition actions might develop.
    DOE is preparing an HEU Disposition Plan, which will be available 
shortly after publication of this ROD, that will provide additional 
information concerning specific disposition actions that are expected 
to commence during the next several years, as well as describe an 
approach to other future, specific actions. The plan will be updated 
periodically based on industry response and program progress.

VII. Avoidance/Minimization of Environmental Harm

    As discussed in section III.C. above, implementation of the 
decisions reached in this ROD will result in low environmental and 
health impacts during normal operations. However, DOE will take all 
reasonable steps to avoid or minimize harm, including the following:
     DOE will use current safety and health programs and 
practices to reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation exposure as 
low as reasonably achievable.
     DOE will meet appropriate waste minimization and pollution 
prevention objectives consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 
1990. As discussed in section 2.3 of the HEU Final EIS, segregation of 
activities that generate radioactive and hazardous wastes will be 
employed, where possible, to avoid the generation of mixed wastes. 
Treatment to separate radioactive and non-radioactive components will 
be employed to reduce the volume of mixed wastes. Where possible, 
nonhazardous materials will be substituted for those that contribute to 
the generation of hazardous or mixed waste. Waste streams would be 
treated to facilitate disposal as nonhazardous wastes, where possible. 
In addition to following such practices at its own facilities, DOE will 
seek to include comparable requirements in any contracts with 
commercial facilities.
     Consistent with the requirement of the USEC Privatization 
Act (Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 3112(d)(2)(B)), DOE will determine, before 
making sales of LEU derived from HEU for commercial use, whether such 
sales would have adverse material impacts on the domestic uranium 
mining, conversion, or enrichment industries, taking into account other 
DOE sales of uranium and the sales of uranium under the Russian HEU 
Agreement and the Suspension Agreement. Such determinations may be made 
on a periodic basis (for example, for all contemplated sales over a 
certain period), as opposed to a sale-by-sale basis. (No such 
determination is required under the USEC Privatization Act for the 
initial transfer of 50 metric tons of HEU and 7,000 metric tons of 
natural uranium to USEC, as provided in section VI.B. of this ROD, or 
to transfers to other government agencies [such as TVA] of off-spec 
material.)

VIII. DOE Public Reading Rooms

    Copies of the HEU Final EIS, the Cost Comparison for Highly 
Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives, and this ROD, as well as 
technical data reports and other supporting documents, are available 
for public review at the following locations:

Department of Energy Headquarters, Freedom of Information Reading 
Room, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 
20585, Attn: Carolyn Lawson, 202-586-6020
Albuquerque Operations Office, Technical Vocational Institute, 525 
Buena Vista, SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, Attn: Russ Gladstone 
(contractor), 505-224-3286, Elva Barfield (DOE), 505-845-4370
Nevada Operations Office, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Public Reading Room, 2753 South Highland Dr., P.O. Box 
98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, Attn: Janet Fogg, 702-295-1128
Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Public 
Reading Room, 200 Administration Road, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 
37831-8501, Attn: Amy Rothrock, 615-576-1216
Richland Operations Office, Washington State University, Tri-Cities 
Branch Campus, 300 Sprout Road, Room 130 West, Richland, WA 99352, 
Attn: Terri Traub, 509-376-8583
Rocky Flats Office, Front Range Community College Library, 3645 West 
112th Avenue, Westminister, CO 80030, Attn: Dennis Connor, 303-469-
4435
Savannah River Operations Office, Gregg-Graniteville Library, 
University of South Carolina-Aiken, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, 
SC 29801, Attn: Paul Lewis, 803-641-3320, DOE Contact: Pauline 
Conner, 803-725-1408
Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, c/o Los 
Alamos Community Reading Room, 1450 Central, Suite 101, Los Alamos, 
NM 87544, Attn: LANL Outreach Manager, 505-665-2127
Chicago Operations Office, Office of Planning, Communications & EEO, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 9800 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 
60439, Attn: Gary L. Pitchford, 708-252-2013
Amarillo Area Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Amarillo College, 
Lynn Library/Learning Center, P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, TX 79178, 
Attn: Karen McIntosh, 806-371-5400
U.S. DOE Reading Room, Carson County Library, P.O. Box 339, 
Panhandle, TX 79068, Attn: Tom Walton (DOE), 806-477-3120, Kerry 
Cambell (contractor), 806-477-4381
Sandia National Laboratory/CA, Livermore Public Library, 1000 S. 
Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, Attn: Julie Casamajor, 510-
373-5500

IX. Conclusion

    DOE has decided to implement a program to make surplus HEU non-
weapons-usable by blending it down to LEU, and gradually selling as 
much of it as possible for commercial use over time, as specified in 
the Preferred Alternative in the HEU Final EIS, and including the 
mitigation activities identified in section VII. This programmatic 
decision is effective upon being made public, in accordance with DOE's 
regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Sec. 1021.315). The goals of this 
program are to support the United States' nuclear weapons 
nonproliferation policy by reducing global stockpiles of excess fissile 
materials so that they may never be used in weapons again, and to 
recover the economic value of the material to the extent feasible. This 
program will demonstrate the United States' commitment to its 
nonproliferation goals, as specified in the President's 
Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy of 1993, and provide an 
example for other nations, where stockpiles of surplus HEU may be less 
secure from potential theft or diversion than those in the United 
States, to encourage them to take similar actions. The impacts on the 
environment, workers, and the public from implementing this HEU 
disposition program are estimated to be low for most parameters 
(including radiological impacts) during normal

[[Page 40629]]

operations, and well within applicable regulatory limits.
    The decision process reflected in this Notice complies with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., July 29, 1996.
Hazel R. O'Leary,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-19798 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P