[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48123-48127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23213]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facilities

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intention to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to 
construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two 
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF 6) conversion facilities, 
at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. DOE would use the proposed 
facilities to convert its inventory of DUF6 to a more stable 
chemical form suitable for storage, beneficial use, or disposal. 
Approximately 700,000 metric tons of DUF6 in about 57,700 
cylinders are stored at Portsmouth and Paducah, and at an Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee site. The EIS will address potential environmental impacts of 
the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and 
decommissioning of the conversion facilities. DOE will hold public 
scoping meetings near the three involved sites.

DATES: DOE invites public comments on the proposed scope of the 
DUF6 conversion facilities EIS. To ensure consideration, 
comments must be postmarked by November 26, 2001. Late comments will be 
considered to the extent practicable. Three public scoping meetings 
will be held near Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. The scoping meetings will provide the public with an 
opportunity to present comments on the scope of the EIS, and to ask 
questions and discuss concerns with DOE officials regarding the EIS. 
The location, date, and time for these public scoping meetings are as 
follows:

Portsmouth, Ohio: Thursday, November 1, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the Vern 
Riffe Pike County Vocational School,

[[Page 48124]]

175 Beaver Creek Road--off State Route 32, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Paducah, Kentucky: Tuesday, November 6, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the 
Information Age Park Resource Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd., Paducah, 
Kentucky 42001.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Thursday, November 8, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the 
Pollard Auditorium, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 210 
Badger Avenue, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.

ADDRESSES: Please direct comments or suggestions on the scope of the 
EIS and questions concerning the proposed project to: Kevin Shaw, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of 
Site Closure--Oak Ridge Office (EM-32), 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, Maryland 20874, fax (301) 903-3479, e-mail 
DUF6.[email protected] (please use ``NOI Comments'' for 
the subject).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the proposed 
project, contact Kevin Shaw, as above. For general information on the 
DOE NEPA process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 
of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone (202) 
586-4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Background

    Depleted UF6 results from the process of making uranium 
suitable for use as fuel in nuclear reactors or for military 
applications. The use of uranium in these applications requires 
increasing the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope found in natural 
uranium, which is approximately 0.7 percent (by weight), through an 
isotopic separation process. A U-235 ``'enrichment''' process called 
gaseous diffusion has historically been used in the United States. The 
gaseous diffusion process uses uranium in the form of UF6, 
primarily because UF6 can conveniently be used in the gas 
form for processing, in the liquid form for filling or emptying 
containers, and in the solid form for storage. Solid UF6 is 
a white, dense, crystalline material that resembles rock salt.
    Over the last five decades, large quantities of uranium were 
enriched using gaseous diffusion. ``Depleted'' UF6 
(DUF6) is a product of the process and was stored at the 
three uranium enrichment sites located at Paducah, Kentucky; 
Portsmouth, Ohio; and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP--
formerly known as the K-25 Site) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Depleted 
uranium is uranium that, through the enrichment process, has been 
stripped of a portion of the uranium-235 that it once contained so that 
it has a lower uranium-235 proportion than the 0.7 weight-percent found 
in nature. The uranium in most of DOE's DUF6 has between 0.2 
to 0.4 weight-percent uranium-235.
    DOE has management responsibility for approximately 700,000 metric 
tons (MT) of DUF6 contained in about 57,700 steel cylinders 
at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and ETTP sites, where it has stored such 
material since the 1950s. The characteristics of UF6 pose 
potential health and environmental risks. DUF6 in cylinders 
emits low levels of gamma and neutron radiation. Also, when released to 
the atmosphere, DUF6 reacts with water vapor in the air to 
form hydrogen fluoride (HF) and uranyl fluoride 
(UO2F2), both chemically toxic substances. In 
light of such characteristics, DOE stores DUF6 in a manner 
designed to minimize the risk to workers, the public, and the 
environment.
    In October 1992, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 
issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that DUF6 stored 
at the Portsmouth facility is subject to regulation under State 
hazardous waste laws applicable to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant. The NOV stated that OEPA had determined DUF6 to be a 
solid waste and that DOE had violated Ohio laws and regulations by not 
evaluating whether such waste was hazardous. DOE disagreed with this 
assessment, and, in February 1998, DOE and OEPA reached an agreement. 
This agreement sets aside the issue of whether the DUF6 is 
subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulation and 
institutes a negotiated management plan governing the storage of the 
Portsmouth DUF6. The agreement also requires DOE to continue 
its efforts to evaluate potential use or reuse of the material. The 
agreement expires in 2008.
    In 1994, DOE began work on the Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and 
Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS). The 
DUF6 PEIS was completed in 1999 and identified conversion of 
DUF6 to another chemical form for use or long-term storage 
as part of a preferred management alternative. In the corresponding 
Record of Decision for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted 
Uranium Hexafluoride (ROD) (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided 
to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to depleted uranium 
oxide, depleted uranium metal, or a combination of both. The ROD 
further explained that depleted uranium oxide will be used as much as 
possible, and the remaining depleted uranium oxide will be stored for 
potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, according 
to the ROD, conversion to depleted uranium metal will occur only if 
uses are available.
    During the time that DOE was analyzing its long-term strategy for 
managing the DUF6 inventory, several other events occurred 
related to DUF6 management. In 1995, the Department began an 
aggressive program to better manage the DUF6 cylinders, 
known as the DUF6 Cylinder Project Management Plan. In part, 
this program responded to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB) Recommendation 95-1, Safety of Cylinders Containing Depleted 
Uranium. This program included more rigorous and frequent inspections, 
a multi-year program for painting and refurbishing of cylinders, and 
construction of concrete-pad cylinder yards. Implementation of the 
DUF6 Cylinder Project Management Plan has been successful, 
and, as a result, on December 16, 1999, the DNFSB closed out 
Recommendation 95-1.
    In February 1999, DOE and the Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation entered into a consent order which included a 
requirement for the performance of two environmentally beneficial 
projects: The implementation of a negotiated management plan governing 
the storage of the small inventory (relative to other sites) of all 
UF6 (depleted, low enriched, and natural) cylinders stored 
at the ETTP site, and the removal of the DUF6 from the ETTP 
site or the conversion of the material by December 31, 2009.
    In July 1998, the President signed Public Law (P.L.) 105-204. This 
law directed the Secretary of Energy to prepare ``'a plan to ensure 
that all amounts accrued on the books''' of the United States 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) for the disposition of DUF6 
would be used to commence construction of, not later than January 31, 
2004, and to operate, an on-site facility at each of the gaseous 
diffusion plants at Paducah and Portsmouth, to treat and recycle 
DUF6 consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). DOE responded to P.L. 105-204 by issuing the Final Plan for the 
Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (referred to herein as the 
``'Conversion Plan''') in July 1999. The Conversion Plan describes 
DOE's intent

[[Page 48125]]

to chemically process the DUF6 to create products that would 
present both a lower long-term storage hazard and provide a material 
that would be suitable for use or disposal.
    DOE initiated the Conversion Plan with the announced availability 
of a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) on July 30, 1999, for a 
contractor to design, construct, and operate DUF6 conversion 
facilities at the Paducah and Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant 
sites. Based on comments received on the draft RFP, DOE revisited some 
of the assumptions about management of the DUF6 inventory 
made previously in the PEIS and ROD. For example, as documented in the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, Assessment of Preferred Depleted 
Uranium Disposal Forms (ORNL/TM-2000/161, June 2000), four potential 
conversion forms (triuranium octoxide (U308), 
uranium dioxide (U02), uranium tetrafluoride 
(UF4), and uranium metal) were evaluated and found to be 
acceptable for near-surface disposal at low-level radioactive waste 
disposal sites such as those at DOE's Nevada Test Site and Envirocare 
of Utah, Inc. Therefore, the RFP was modified to allow for a wide range 
of potential conversion product forms and process technologies. 
However, any of the proposed conversion forms must have an assured 
environmentally acceptable path for final disposition.
    On October 31, 2000, DOE issued a final RFP to procure a contractor 
to design, construct, and operate DUF6 conversion facilities 
at the Paducah and Portsmouth plant sites. Any conversion plants that 
result from this procurement would convert the DUF6 to a 
more stable chemical form that is suitable for either beneficial use or 
disposal. The selected contractor would design the conversion plants 
using the technology it proposes and construct the plants. The selected 
contractor also would operate the plants for a five-year period, which 
would include maintaining depleted uranium and product inventories, 
transporting all uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders in Tennessee to 
a conversion plant at Portsmouth, as appropriate, and transporting 
converted product for which there is no use to a disposal site. The 
selected contractor would also prepare excess material for disposal at 
an appropriate site.
    DOE received five proposals in response to the DUF6 
conversion RFP, and DOE anticipates that a contract will be awarded 
during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. Since the site-specific 
NEPA process will not be completed prior to contract award, the 
contract shall be contingent on completion of the NEPA process and will 
be structured such that the NEPA process will be completed in advance 
of a go/no-go decision. (See NEPA Process below.) DOE initiated the 
NEPA review by issuing an Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 
for the DUF6 conversion facilities on May 7, 2001 (66 FR 
23010).

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to a more 
stable chemical form for storage, use, or disposal. This need follows 
directly from the decision presented in the August 1999 ``Record of 
Decision for Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium 
Hexafluoride,'' namely to begin conversion of the DUF6 
inventory as soon as possible.
    This EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of 
constructing, operating, maintaining, and decontaminating and 
decommissioning DUF6 conversion facilities at the Portsmouth 
and Paducah sites, as well as other reasonable alternatives. The EIS 
will aid decision making on DUF6 conversion by evaluating 
the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives, as 
well as providing a means for public input into the decision making 
process. DOE is committed to ensuring that the public has ample 
opportunity to participate in this review.

Relation to the DUF6 PEIS

    This EIS represents the second level of a tiered environmental 
review process being used to evaluate and implement the DUF6 
management program. Tiering refers to the process of first addressing 
general (programmatic) matters in a PEIS followed by more narrowly 
focused (project level) environmental review that incorporates by 
reference the more general discussions. The DUF6 PEIS, 
issued in April 1999, was the first level of this tiered approach.
    The DUF6 PEIS addressed the potential environmental 
impacts of broad strategy alternatives, including analyses of the 
impacts of: (1) Continued storage of DUF6 at DOE's current 
storage sites; (2) technologies for converting the DUF6 to 
depleted U3O8, UO2, or uranium metal; 
(3) long-term storage of depleted U3O8 and 
UO2 for subsequent use or disposal; (4) long-term storage of 
DUF6 in cylinders at a consolidated site; (5) use of 
depleted UO2 and uranium metal conversion products; (6) 
transportation of materials; and (7) disposal of depleted 
U3O8 and UO2 at generic disposal 
sites. The results of the PEIS analysis, as well as supporting 
documentation, will be incorporated into this EIS to the extent 
appropriate.
    The ROD for the DUF6 PEIS declared DOE's decision to 
promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable 
chemical form. This tiered EIS will address specific issues associated 
with the implementation of the DUF6 PEIS ROD.

Preliminary Alternatives

    Consistent with NEPA implementation requirements, this EIS will 
assess the range of reasonable alternatives regarding constructing, 
operating, maintaining, and decontaminating and decommissioning 
DUF6 conversion facilities. The following preliminary list 
of alternatives is subject to modification in response to comments 
received during the public scoping process.
    Preferred Alternative: Under the preferred alternative, two 
conversion facilities would be built: one at the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant site and another at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant site. The cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site near Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee, would be transported to Portsmouth for conversion. 
The conversion products (i.e., depleted uranium as well as fluorine 
components produced during the conversion process) would be stored, put 
to beneficial uses, or disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility. 
This alternative is consistent with the Conversion Plan, which DOE 
submitted to Congress in July 1999, in response to Public Law 105-204. 
Subalternatives to be considered for the preferred alternative include:
     Conversion technology processes identified in response to 
the final RFP for DUF6 conversion services, plus any other 
technologies that DOE believes must be considered.
     Local siting alternatives for building and operating 
conversion facilities within the Paducah and Portsmouth plant 
boundaries.
     Timing options, such as staggering the start of the 
construction and operation of the two conversion facilities.
    One Conversion Plant Alternative: An alternative of building and 
operating only one conversion facility at either the Portsmouth or the 
Paducah site will be considered. This plant could differ in size or 
production capacity from the two proposed for Portsmouth and Paducah. 
Technology and local siting subalternatives will be considered as with 
the preferred alternative.
    Use of Existing UF6 Conversion Capacity Alternative: DOE 
will consider using already-existing UF6 conversion

[[Page 48126]]

capacity at commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facilities in lieu of 
constructing one or two new conversion plants. DOE is evaluating the 
feasibility of using existing conversion capacity, although no 
expression of interest has been received from such facilities.
    No Action Alternative: Under the ``no action'' alternative, 
cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and 
maintenance) would continue the ``status quo'' at the three current 
storage sites indefinitely, consistent with the DUF6 
Cylinder Project Management Plan and the consent orders, which include 
actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements.
    Where applicable under the alternatives listed above, 
transportation options, such as truck, rail, and barge, will be 
considered for shipping DUF6 cylinders to a conversion 
facility and conversion products to a storage or disposal facility. 
Also, for each technology alternative, alternatives for conversion 
products, including storage, use, and disposal at one or more disposal 
sites, will be considered. Further, DOE would appreciate comments 
regarding whether there are additional siting alternatives for one or 
more new conversion facilities that should be considered.

Identification of Environmental and Other Issues

    DOE intends to address the following environmental issues when 
assessing the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives in 
this EIS. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the 
scoping process. DOE invites comment from the Federal agencies, Native 
American tribes, state and local governments, and the general public on 
these and any other issues that should be considered in the EIS:
     Potential impacts on health from DUF6 
conversion activities, including potential impacts to workers and the 
public from exposure to radiation and chemicals during routine and 
accident conditions for the construction, operation, maintenance, and 
decontamination and decommissioning of DUF6 conversion 
facilities.
     Potential impacts to workers and the public from exposure 
to radiation and chemicals during routine and accident conditions for 
the transportation of DUF6 cylinders from ETTP to one of the 
conversion sites.
     Potential impacts to workers and the public from exposure 
to radiation and chemicals during routine and accident conditions for 
the transportation of conversion products that are not beneficially 
used to a low-level waste disposal facility.
     Potential impacts to surface water, ground water, and soil 
during construction activities and from emissions and water use during 
facility operations.
     Potential impacts on air quality from emissions and from 
noise during facility construction and operations.
     Potential cumulative impacts of the past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable future actions (including impacts resulting from 
activities of the United States Enrichment Corporation).
     Potential impacts from facility construction on 
historically significant properties, if present, and on access to 
traditional use areas.
     Potential impacts from land requirements, potential 
incompatibilities, and disturbances.
     Potential impacts on local, regional, or national 
resources from materials and utilities required for construction and 
operation.
     Potential impacts on ecological resources, including 
threatened and endangered species, floodplains, and wetlands.
     Potential impacts on local and DOE-wide waste management 
capabilities.
     Potential impacts on local employment, income, population, 
housing, and public services from facility construction and operations, 
and environmental justice issues.
     Pollution prevention, waste minimization, and energy and 
water use reduction technologies to reduce the use of energy, water, 
and hazardous substances and to mitigate environmental impacts.
    DOE received comments on the Advance Notice of Intent from the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OHEPA). TDEC commented that the 
EIS should provide an adequate platform for coordination of 
environmental issues between DOE, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 
without additional agreements if certain specified topics were explored 
in detail in the EIS. TDEC's comments emphasized issues related to the 
transportation of the ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth. OHEPA's comment 
concurred in TDEC's comment that the EIS should coordinate 
environmental issues between DOE, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 
especially emergency management issues associated with the 
transportation of the ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth.

NEPA Process

    The EIS for the proposed project will be prepared pursuant to the 
NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality 
NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (10se CFR part 1021). Following the publication of this 
Notice of Intent, DOE will hold scoping meetings, prepare and 
distribute the draft EIS for public review, hold public hearings to 
solicit public comment on the draft EIS, and publish a final EIS. Not 
less than 30 days after the publication of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the final EIS, DOE may 
issue a ROD documenting its decision concerning the proposed action.
    In addition to the above steps, DOE is considering environmental 
factors in selecting a contractor for the conversion services through 
the procurement process, including preparation of an environmental 
critique and an environmental synopsis pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.216. The 
environmental critique evaluates the environmental data and information 
submitted by each offeror and is subject to the confidentiality 
requirements of the procurement process. DOE also is preparing a 
publicly available environmental synopsis, based on the environmental 
critique, to document the consideration given to environmental factors 
in the contractor selection process. The environmental synopsis will be 
filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and will be 
incorporated into the EIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.216(i), since 
the NEPA process will not be completed prior to contract award, the 
contract will be structured to allow the NEPA review process to be 
completed in advance of a go/no-go decision.

Related NEPA Reviews

     Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 
Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted 
Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0269, April 1999);
     Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive 
and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS-0200-F, May 1997);
     Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ EIS-0240, June 1996);
     Environmental Assessment for the Refurbishment of Uranium 
Hexafluoride

[[Page 48127]]

Cylinder Storage Yards C-745-K, L, M, N, and P and Construction of a 
New Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinder Storage Yard (C-745-T) at the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky (DOE/EA-1118, July 1996);
     Environmental Assessment for DOE Sale of Surplus Natural 
and Low Enriched Uranium (DOE/EA-1172, October 1996);
     Environmental Assessment for the Lease of Land and 
Facilities within the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee (DOE/EA-1175, 1997);
     Notice of Intent for Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Disposition of Scrap Metals (DOE/EIS-0327) (66 FR 36562, 
July 12, 2001).

Scoping Meetings

    The purpose of this Notice is to encourage early public involvement 
in the EIS process and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope 
of the EIS, including the issues and alternatives it would analyze. DOE 
will hold public scoping meetings near Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, 
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to solicit both oral and written 
comments from interested parties. Oral and written comments will be 
considered equally in the preparation of the EIS. See DATES above for 
the times and locations of these meetings.
    DOE will designate a presiding officer for the scoping meetings. 
The scoping meetings will not be conducted as evidentiary hearings, and 
there will be no questioning of the commentors. However, DOE personnel 
may ask for clarifications to ensure that they fully understand the 
comments and suggestions. The presiding officer will establish the 
order of speakers. At the opening of each meeting, the presiding 
officer will announce any additional procedures necessary for the 
conduct of the meetings. If necessary to ensure that all persons 
wishing to make a presentation are given the opportunity, a time limit 
may be applied for each speaker. Comment cards will also be available 
for those who would prefer to submit written comments.
    DOE will make transcripts of the scoping meetings and other 
environmental and project-related materials available for public review 
in the following reading rooms:

DOE Headquarters, Freedom of Information Reading Room, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1 E-190, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 
(202) 586-3142.
Oak Ridge/ DOE, Public Reading Room, 230 Warehouse Road, Suite 300, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee 37831. Telephone: (865) 241-4780.
Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information Center, Berkley Centre, 115 
Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, Telephone: (270) 554-6979.
Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 3930 U.S. Route 23, 
Perimeter Road, Piketon, OH 45661. Telephone: (740) 289-3317.

    Information is also available through the project web site at 
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium and on the DOE NEPA web site at http://www.tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa.
    The EIS will also contain a section summarizing the nature of the 
comments received during the scoping process and describing any 
modification to the scope of the EIS in response to the scoping process 
comments.

EIS Schedule

    The draft EIS is scheduled to be published by June 2002. A 45-day 
comment period on the draft EIS is planned, which will include public 
hearings to receive oral comments. Availability of the draft EIS, the 
dates of the public comment period, and information about the public 
hearings will be announced in the Federal Register and in the local 
news media.
    The final EIS for the DUF6 Conversion Facilities is scheduled for 
January 2003. A ROD would be issued no sooner than 30 days after the U. 
S. Environmental Protection Agency notice of availability of the final 
EIS is published in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of September, 2001.
Steven V. Cary,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 01-23213 Filed 9-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P