[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57997-58002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28844]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Blending of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium From the Department 
of Energy, to Low Enriched Uranium for Subsequent use as Reactor Fuel 
at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Issuance of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and the 
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) procedures implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act. On February 14, 2001, TVA published a notice 
of adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 
``Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium,'' prepared by the 
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fissile Materials. This FEIS 
was released by DOE in June 1996. TVA was not a cooperating agency on 
that FEIS. In February 2001, TVA re-circulated the FEIS to agencies and 
persons who had provided comments on the original DOE FEIS. EPA's 
Notice of Availability for the re-circulation of the FEIS appeared in 
the Federal Register on February 16, 2001. Subsequent to TVA's adoption 
of the DOE FEIS and consideration of public comments received on TVA's 
adoption of the FEIS, TVA has decided to implement the actions related 
to the preferred alternative identified by DOE. The preferred 
alternative in DOE's FEIS, as adopted by TVA, is Alternative 5, Maximum 
Commercial Use.
    TVA's actions related to the preferred alternative include entering 
into an interagency agreement with DOE to obtain approximately 33 
metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for blend down and 
subsequently to use the low enriched uranium (LEU) in the form of 
nuclear reactor fuel at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP). 
Interagency agreements are a common method for federal agencies to 
frame roles, responsibilities, and conditions for arrangements between 
agencies. TVA actions related to the preferred alternative also include 
entering into contracts with a consortium composed of Framatome ANP of 
Lynchburg, Virginia and Richland, Washington and Nuclear Fuel Services 
of Erwin, Tennessee, to process and blend the uranium and to fabricate 
the fuel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce L. Yeager, Senior Specialist, 
National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Policy and Planning, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT 
8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-8051 or e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Synopsis of Decision

    After analysis of the adequacy and applicability of the DOE's Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Surplus Highly 
Enriched Uranium, TVA's adoption of the DOE FEIS (Federal Register, 
February 14, 2001), re-circulation of the DOE FEIS, and the 
consideration of public comments received on TVA's adoption of the 
FEIS, TVA decided to implement the actions (as described below) related 
to the preferred alternative identified in the DOE FEIS. These actions 
include entering into an interagency agreement with the DOE and into 
contracts with a private consortium for the procurement and processing 
of the HEU and for the fabrication of LEU into nuclear fuel. TVA will 
obtain approximately 33 metric tons of HEU from the DOE for blending 
down and subsequently use the LEU as nuclear reactor fuel at TVA's 
BFNP. Framatome ANP will process and blend the uranium at the Nuclear 
Fuel Services facility in Erwin, Tennessee, and fabricate fuel at its 
facilities in Richland, Washington. The first fuel covered by the 
contracts is expected to be loaded during the spring of 2005 and the 
last reload is expected to occur in 2015.

Basis for Decision

    TVA has decided to implement the actions described under the DOE 
preferred alternative (Maximum Commercial Use) because it would result 
in substantial savings to TVA ratepayers in nuclear fuel costs in the 
years 2005-2015, thereby aiding TVA in its mission of providing low 
cost, reliable power for the Tennessee Valley region without 
significantly impacting the environment. Implementation of

[[Page 57998]]

TVA's actions would also avoid the environmental impacts associated 
with producing an equivalent amount of LEU from 14 million pounds of 
natural uranium (as U3O8) that in turn would require mining of 140,000 
tons of ore.

Background

    In accordance with United States policies and international 
agreements for the non-proliferation of weapons-usable fissile 
material, the President declared on March 1, 1995 that approximately 
200 tons of this material was surplus to United States defense needs. 
In the HEU Final EIS (Issued June 28, 1996), 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 was to 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 public 
comments received, DOE finalized the HEU EIS and decided to implement 
the preferred alternative (Maximum Commercial Use) of the FEIS. 
Implementation of the preferred alternative will involve gradually 
blending up to 85 percent of the surplus HEU to a U-235 enrichment 
level of approximately 4 percent for 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 blending technologies (uranyl nitrate hexahydrate [UNH] 
liquid) blending; uranium hexafluoride (gas); or molten metal 
blending), and four potential blending sites (DOE's Y-12 Plant in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina; 
the Babcock and Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Facility in 
Lynchburg, Virginia; and the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Plant in 
Erwin, Tennessee) were considered in the FEIS.
    DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition 
of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium in June 1996, and subsequently 
issued a Record of Decision on July 29, 1996.
    TVA published a Notice of Adoption for this FEIS in the Federal 
Register on February 14, 2001, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Notice of Availability for re-issue of the FEIS appeared in 
the Federal Register on February 16, 2001. The FEIS was re-circulated 
by TVA to federal and state agencies. Individuals and organizations who 
had provided comment on DOE's draft EIS were mailed the Notice of 
Adoption and a letter noting TVA's adoption of the FEIS, and its 
availability. Additionally, the FEIS was placed in local libraries in 
Aiken, South Carolina; Richland, Washington; Athens, Alabama; and 
Erwin, Oak Ridge, Knoxville, and Chattanooga, TN.
    At their March 28, 2001, public meeting, the TVA Board of Directors 
approved delegation of authority to enter into the Interagency 
Agreement with the Department of Energy for obtaining surplus HEU and 
processing the HEU to LEU. The Board further approved delegation of 
authority for awarding separate contracts to Framatome ANP (Lynchburg, 
VA and Richland, WA) for processing and blending HEU to LEU, and for 
fabrication of fuel assemblies for use in TVA reactors. The 
environmental impacts of the above actions were earlier evaluated by 
TVA and determined to be bounded by the actions analyzed in the DOE 
FEIS. The FEIS was subsequently adopted by TVA.

Alternatives Considered

    Because of the large number of potential combinations of end 
products, blending technologies and blending sites, DOE formulated 
several representative alternatives that bounded potential effects. The 
Final HEU EIS adopted by TVA considered and analyzed the No Action 
Alternative and four reasonable alternatives for blending of a nominal 
200 metric tons of surplus HEU down to LEU to make it non-weapons-
usable. In addition to the No Action Alternative (continued storage of 
surplus HEU ), DOE considered four alternatives that represent 
reasonable choices within the matrix of possible combinations for 
blending of different proportions of the surplus HEU for commercial use 
or for disposal as waste, with variations on numbers and locations of 
blending sites. The analyses of potential effects from the types and 
amounts of materials, transfer of materials, and sites in the range of 
alternatives considered by DOE bound those implemented in TVA's 
actions. The FEIS considered:
     Alternative 1--No Action (continued storage)
     Alternative 2 (No Commercial Use)--Blend 100 percent to 
waste (at all four sites)
     Alternative 3 (Limited Commercial Use)--Blend 75 percent 
to waste (at all four sites), 25 percent to fuel (at 2 commercial 
sites)
     Alternative 4 (Substantial Commercial Use)--Blend 35 
percent to waste, 65 percent to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial 
sites, the 2 DOE sites, or at all 4 sites)
     Alternative 5 (Maximum Commercial Use)--Blend 15 percent 
to waste, 85 percent to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial sites, 
the 2 DOE sites, or at all 4 sites).
    As described in the DOE FEIS, each alternative involving commercial 
use of LEU derived from surplus HEU (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) included 
transfer of 50 metric tons of surplus HEU and 7,000 metric tons of 
natural uranium from DOE stockpiles to the United States Enrichment 
Corporation (USEC) for eventual sale and commercial use.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that a 
Record of Decision identify the environmentally preferred 
alternative(s). The analyses in DOE's HEU final EIS indicated that the 
environmentally preferred site for the blending facility would be the 
Savannah River site (SRS). However, since the impacts at all proposed 
blending sites are expected to be low during normal operations 
(including radiological impacts) and well within regulatory limits, and 
since the overall risks associated with potential accidents are low, 
TVA concludes that the minor environmental differences between sites 
would not serve as a basis for choosing among them. Each of the 
facilities identified in the FEIS would be capable of blending up to 
the entire inventory of surplus HEU without significant adverse 
environmental impacts. Further, location of the oxide conversion 
facility at NFS in Erwin, Tennessee, where conversion of UNH liquid to 
uranium dioxide powder will occur with subsequent shipment of the oxide 
powder to the Framatome ANP-Richland nuclear fuel fabricating facility, 
has less potential for environmental impacts than shipment of UNH 
liquid or crystals to the fabricating facility.

Environmental Consequences

    The environmental analyses in DOE's FEIS estimated that the 
incremental radiological and other impacts of disposition of HEU during 
normal accident-free operations would be low for workers, the public 
and the environment, and well within regulatory requirements for all 
alternatives. Blending activities that would be conducted for the 
proposed TVA actions would be substantively the same as activities that 
have been analyzed in DOE's FEIS. The incremental impacts from TVA's 
actions would be low and well within the

[[Page 57999]]

bounds of impacts described in the DOE FEIS. There would be some 
increases in water usage, fuel needs, and waste generation from use of 
the NFS site. However, these increases can be accommodated at the NFS 
site. The only additional construction required would be that for an 
oxide conversion facility and a uranyl nitrate storage facility at the 
NFS site. As discussed in response to comments below (Impact of 
Converting Low Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution to UO2 (Provision 7), 
the potential effects of performing the conversion to oxide at NFS is 
not a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns in the 
FEIS. Further, the impact of these minor changes is within the bounds 
of impacts analyzed. Conversion of the material at NFS would result in 
fewer and safer shipments of a less soluble form of uranium.

Response To Public Comments Received on TVA's Adoption Of DOE's 
FEIS

    During the public review period, four agencies (US Environmental 
Protection Agency {EPA}, Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRC}, Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management {ADEM} and Tennessee Department 
of Environment and Conservation {TDEC}); two organizations (Local 
Oversight Committee--Oak Ridge Reservation {LOC} and the Citizens for 
National Security {CNS}); and three individuals responded with comments 
on TVA's notice of adoption of the DOE FEIS for highly enriched uranium 
(HEU) disposition. On March 16, 2001, the EPA published their 
Availability of Comments on Environmental Impact Statements in the 
Federal Register in which the EPA expressed lack of objections with 
TVA's adoption of, and no concerns with, DOE's FEIS provided TVA 
follows the actions described in the FEIS. On March 8, 2001, the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) responded that 
the agency had no comments concerning the disposition of highly 
enriched uranium into nuclear fuel assemblies for the TVA BFNP in 
Athens, Alabama.
    General comments from individuals included concerns regarding: (1) 
Threat of nuclear materials to humans and the environment (1 
individual); (2) comments of support regarding the nuclear power 
industry and/or the TVA action (2 individuals); (3) the appropriateness 
of using an Interagency Agreement between TVA and DOE (LOC); and 4) 
desire for a public meeting or additional time for comment (LOC and 1 
individual). The first two comments were noted. With regard to the 
third comment the proposed use of an Interagency Agreement between TVA 
and DOE to document each parties obligations is an appropriate 
contractual instrument to specify the role of two federal agencies 
implementing a project. A considerable number of opportunities were 
provided to the public to comment on the original DOE FEIS. The 33-day 
period provided for submitting comments on TVA's adoption of DOE's FEIS 
(after re-circulation of the FEIS), constituted additional opportunity 
for review of TVA's proposed actions and their relationship to DOE's 
actions. All comments received were considered in TVA's deliberations.
    Other comments from the public, organizations, and agencies were in 
the following areas of specific concern:
     General comments about need to maintain consistency with 
the DOE FEIS (EPA, TDEC, LOC, CNS);
     Source of blendstock, inclusion of off-specification 
materials in the DOE FEIS, the processes used for blending and types of 
products involved (LOC, NRC, 1 individual);
     Desired identification of specific transport routes, 
methods and types of materials (CNS, LOC, 1 individual) as it relates 
to the DOE FEIS;
     Scaling down of potential impacts to the lesser quantities 
involved in the TVA action (1 individual);
     NEPA analysis related to the NFS facility and the 
environmental assessment to be performed by NRC for a license amendment 
for the NFS facility (NRC, 1 individual);
     Age of the DOE FEIS and identification of areas the 
commenter believed needed updated, additional review or further 
disclosure of analyses, e.g. socioeconomic, transportation, safeguards 
and accident scenarios (CNS);
     Assurance that regulation and licensing would be 
consistent with NRC procedures for other commercial fuel cycle 
facilities in the United States and previous Records of Decision issued 
by DOE regarding disposition of Low Level Waste (TDEC).
    TVA initiated review on the use of surplus HEU as a source of low 
enriched uranium in March, 1994 in response to a Commerce Business 
Daily inquiry and Federal Register notice from DOE for proposed 
disposition options for uranyl nitrate (UN) solutions at its Savannah 
River Site (SRS). TVA performed feasibility studies specifically aimed 
at utilization of ``off-spec'' HEU as a source of enriched uranium for 
TVA reactors and began discussions with commercial fuel vendors to 
identify potential interest in providing fuel fabrication services 
using such uranium. Based on these studies, TVA provided input for 
DOE's consideration in evaluating the alternatives for HEU disposition 
in the FEIS. Following NEPA review for potential environmental effects, 
TVA conducted a limited successful demonstration (from Spring 1999 
through Fall 2000) at its Sequoyah Nuclear plant using 4 fuel 
assemblies derived from off-specification highly enriched uranium. 
Results of the test indicated that the HEU-derived fuel performed 
normally, caused no changes in plant operational parameters, 
characteristics or safety, and resulted in no new or additional wastes 
beyond those occurring with typical operations.
    In 1997, TVA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding to fully 
investigate the commercial and technical viability of using up to 33 
metric tons of ``off-spec'' HEU. TVA requested formal proposals from 
all domestic commercial fuel vendors in 1998 to provide services 
including HEU purification, downblending, conversion to uranium dioxide 
powder, and fabrication into fuel assemblies. A consortium composed of 
Framatome-Cogema Fuels in Lynchburg, Virginia, Siemens Power 
Corporation in Richland, Washington, and Nuclear Fuel Services in 
Erwin, Tennessee, provided the best proposal. Subsequent to the 
original proposal, Framatome-Cogema Fuels and Siemens Power Corporation 
merged into Framatome ANP. TVA then initiated joint negotiations with 
DOE and the consortium to determine the most cost-effective approach to 
complete the HEU disposition consistent with the FEIS assumptions. 
These negotiations have culminated in the TVA decision to enter into 
agreements with DOE and the commercial consortium. These agreements 
have the following major provisions:
    1. DOE shall provide natural uranium in the form of UF6 to TVA as 
blendstock.
    2. TVA shall provide natural uranium oxide for downblending 33 
metric tons of HEU.
    3. TVA's contractor shall convert 225 metric tons of natural 
uranium powder into UN solution and ship the solution to SRS for 
downblending HEU.
    4. DOE shall downblend approximately 16 metric tons of HEU at SRS 
into low-enriched UN solution containing 233 metric tons of uranium.
    5. TVA's contractor shall ship the low-enriched UN solutions from 
SRS to the NFS site.
    6. DOE shall ship approximately 17 metric tons of HEU to NFS for

[[Page 58000]]

downblending into low-enriched UN solution containing 228 metric tons 
of uranium.
    7. TVA's contractor shall convert all of the low-enriched UN 
solutions to UO2 powder containing 461 metric tons of uranium at the 
NFS site.
    8. TVA's contractor shall ship the UO2 powder to Richland, WA for 
fuel pellet and fuel assembly fabrication.
    The environmental impacts of the above actions have been evaluated 
by TVA and determined to be bounded by the actions analyzed in the 
FEIS. The following discussion provides the basis for this 
determination, and also attempts to address comments received from the 
public, organizations and agencies.

Impact of Blendstock Selection (Provisions 1 and 2)

    DOE evaluated a number of different options for providing uranium 
blendstock to blend the HEU (FEIS pages 2-4 & 2-14). These included 
depleted uranium and natural uranium both in the form of UF6 and 
uranium oxide powder. The natural or depleted UF6 to be provided to TVA 
already exists in DOE inventory at the USEC. Transfer to TVA would be 
accomplished at the USEC site by a ``book transfer'' to the TVA 
inventory already in storage at USEC. Therefore, no environmental 
impact would result from this transfer action. Since a UNH blending 
process will be utilized both at SRS and NFS, UF6 must be converted 
into uranium oxide powder for dissolution into UN solution. TVA 
evaluated the alternative of converting the UF6 to uranium oxide at one 
of its commercial fuel fabricators versus procuring uranium oxide 
powder directly on the commercial uranium market. The total cost of 
shipping the UF6 (either natural or depleted uranium), conversion to 
uranium oxide powder, and shipping the powder to NFS for dissolution 
was greater than procuring the powder directly. Furthermore, the 
environmental impact of the UF6 conversion to powder would be greater. 
Approximately 50-70 shipments of depleted or natural UF6 from the USEC 
facilities in Paducah, Kentucky, or 50 shipments of depleted UF6 from 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, would be required. The FEIS evaluated shipping 
UF6 to the GE (now Global Nuclear Fuel--GNF) plant in Wilmington, North 
Carolina, from Paducah (a distance of 1,278 km) or from Oak Ridge (a 
distance of 791 km) for conversion to uranium oxide powder. Once 
converted the uranium oxide powder would have to be shipped from the 
GNF plant to NFS (a distance of 860 Km) in approximately 40 shipments. 
To complete these actions, a minimum of 90 total shipments resulting in 
73,950 shipment-km of transportation would be required. TVA proposed 
procuring uranium oxide powder directly from a commercial supplier such 
as Cameco in Ontario, Canada. Approximately 40 shipments of uranium 
powder from the Cameco facility in Blind River, Ontario, Canada (a 
distance of 1,700 Km from NFS) would be required, resulting in 68,000-
km of transportation. Although, the route from Cameco to NFS was not 
specifically analyzed in the FEIS, the expected environmental impact 
from this transportation is estimated to be less than the UF6 
alternative primarily due to the elimination of the UF6 shipments. 
(Note that UF6 is a more volatile chemical form than uranium oxide). 
Shipment of uranium oxide powder from other commercial suppliers in the 
United States would have less impact than shipments from Cameco. The 
FEIS did evaluate the impact of shipping natural uranium powder from 
the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, to SRS (a distance of 4,442 
km) to bound the maximum intersite transportation effects (FEIS page 2-
14 and Appendix G) for all intermediate routes. The FEIS analyses of 
this route does bound the impact of the TVA proposed action. TVA also 
evaluated use of surplus depleted uranium solutions at SRS and surplus 
low-enriched uranium powder at DOE's Fernald site as blendstock.
    Both of these alternatives were unacceptable because the chemical 
contaminants in this material made it unusable as blendstock.
    Finally, the incremental effect of TVA's adopted action is less 
than the TVA alternative action of refueling its reactors using uranium 
procured in the commercial market. If TVA did not use the surplus HEU 
as a source of uranium, it would have to procure natural UF6 from its 
commercial vendors. Only two vendors exist in North America, ConverDyne 
in Illinois and Cameco in Canada. TVA normally procures 50 percent of 
its requirements annually from each of these suppliers. If the HEU-
derived uranium is not used, TVA would procure approximately 2,500,000 
kg of uranium as UF6 from Cameco. This would require over 300 shipments 
of natural UF6 from Cameco to USEC enrichment facilities at Paducah, 
Kentucky, (a distance of 1450 km) resulting in 435,000 shipment-km. 
Therefore, the proposed action, procuring natural uranium oxide powder 
from Cameco as blendstock has much less significant environmental 
impacts in regard to transportation than the alternative of not using 
the HEU-derived uranium.

Impact of Blendstock Dissolution (Provision 3)

    The natural uranium oxide powder delivered to NFS will be converted 
into a uranyl nitrate solution for blending HEU using the UNH blending 
process (FEIS page 2-20). Approximately, 562,500 liters of uranyl 
nitrate solution containing 225,000 kg of uranium will be shipped from 
the NFS site in Erwin, Tennessee, to the SRS in Aiken, South Carolina, 
(a distance of 620 km). The shipments will be made in DOT certified 
cargo tank trailers approved for shipping uranyl nitrate solution. 
Approximately 50 shipments total will be required with a maximum of 15 
shipments in a year. The route to be taken will primarily be interstate 
highways from Johnston City, Tennessee, to Asheville, North Carolina, 
via I-81 and I-40, Asheville, North Carolina, to Columbia, South 
Carolina, via I-26, and Columbia, South Carolina, to Aiken, South 
Carolina, via I-20. The FEIS does not specifically evaluate these 
shipments in Appendix G. However, the FEIS does evaluate shipment of 4 
percent uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to the Westinghouse commercial 
fuel fabrication plant in Columbia, South Carolina, (FEIS page 4-95) 
and the shipment of 4 percent uranyl nitrate hexahydrate from NFS to 
Westinghouse in Columbia, South Carolina, (FEIS page G-7) over the same 
route. The results of the FEIS transportation analyses bound the 
expected impacts of the planned natural uranyl nitrate solution 
shipments from Erwin, TN to Aiken, SC because the total number of 
shipments evaluated in the FEIS over the same route is greater than 500 
shipments and the FEIS analyses were done for 4 percent enriched 
uranium instead of natural uranium. The total health impact of shipping 
the natural uranyl nitrate solution (estimated at 6E-03 fatalities 
total) is significantly less than the total heath impact from the FEIS 
analyses (5.5E-02 fatalities total). Furthermore, the FEIS bounding 
analyses for shipping natural uranium blendstock (FEIS page 2-14) is 
from the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, to SRS (a distance of 
4,442 km). For 50 shipments of natural uranium blendstock over this 
route a total health impact of 3.7E-02 fatalities can be calculated 
from Table G.1-6 of the FEIS.

Impact of Blending 17 Metric Tons of HEU at SRS (Provision 4)

    The FEIS specifically evaluates blending up to 200 metric tons of 
HEU to a combination of 4 percent UNH and

[[Page 58001]]

0.9 percent UNH at SRS (FEIS pages 2-64 to 2-77).

Impact of Shipping Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution from SRS to NFS 
(Provision 5)

    TVA's contractor will ship 233 metric tons of low enriched uranium 
as uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to NFS in Erwin, Tennessee. The 
route to be used is the same route discussed previously in regard to 
natural uranium solution shipping. The shipments will be made in 230 
gallon Type B shipping containers licensed by the NRC. Each commercial 
truck shipment will carry 9 shipping containers for a total of 2070 
gallons containing 800 kg of uranium. Type B shipping containers are 
required by federal regulations for these shipments because of the U-
234 concentration expected in the uranyl nitrate solution. Type B 
containers are designed and tested to meet stringent requirements (FEIS 
page G-14) to ensure that the contents are not released even under 
hypothetical accident conditions. TVA contracted with Columbiana Boiler 
to design, test, and license a bulk liquid transport package suitable 
for shipping low-enriched uranyl nitrate solution.
    The uranyl nitrate solution shipping campaign will occur over the 
period of 2003-2007 and will require approximately 300 shipments. The 
maximum number of shipments expected per year is 70. The FEIS evaluated 
shipment of 4 percent uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to the 
Westinghouse commercial fuel fabrication plant in Columbia, South 
Carolina, (FEIS page 4-95) using Type A cargo tankers and the shipment 
of 4 percent uranyl nitrate hexahydrate crystal from NFS to 
Westinghouse in Columbia, South Carolina (FEIS page G-7) using Type A 
containers.
    These shipments are over the same route proposed for the low 
enriched uranyl nitrate solution. The results of the FEIS 
transportation analyses cited bound the expected impacts of the planned 
low enriched uranyl nitrate solution shipments because the total number 
of shipments evaluated in the FEIS over the same route is greater than 
500 shipments as compared to the 300 shipments necessitated by the TVA 
action. Additionally, the FEIS assumes the shipments are made in Type A 
containers (FEIS page 4-102) with a 100 percent content release rate 
during maximum accident conditions (FEIS page G-2). The low enriched 
uranyl nitrate solution shipments will be made in Type B containers 
with zero content release expected during accident conditions. The 
total health impact of shipping the low enriched uranyl nitrate 
solution is estimated to be less than 5.8E-02 fatalities using the 
conservative assumptions of the FEIS. The smaller number of shipments 
and the use of Type B containers would result in lesser health impacts 
from TVA actions. Furthermore, the FEIS bounding analyses for shipping 
low enriched uranium is from SRS to Siemens in Richland, Washington, (a 
distance of 4,442 km). For 300 shipments of low enriched uranium over 
this route a total health impact of 2.1E-01 fatalities can be 
calculated from Table G.1-7.

Impact of Blending 16 Metric Tons of HEU at NFS (Provision 6)

    The FEIS specifically evaluates blending up to 200 metric tons of 
HEU to a combination of 4 percent UNH and 0.9 percent UNH at NFS (FEIS 
pages 2-64 to 2-77).

Impact of Converting Low Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution to UO2 
(Provision 7)

    Processing and downblending up to 200 metric tons of HEU at the NFS 
site is specifically evaluated in the FEIS. The FEIS assumes that the 
product of the downblending operation would be UNH crystals. The 
process is illustrated in the FEIS on page 2-21. Further, the FEIS 
assumes that the UNH crystals will be shipped to commercial fuel 
fabricators for dissolution to UN liquid, denitration to U3O8 powder, 
and reduction to UO2 powder.
    Under TVA's adopted action, the denitration and reduction processes 
to produce low enriched UO2 powder would be undertaken at the NFS site. 
The FEIS evaluated the impacts of downblending 25 percent of the 
surplus HEU (50 metric tons) to 0.9 percent enriched uranyl nitrate 
solution (3750 metric tons) and conversion to U3O8 powder at the NFS 
site (FEIS pages 2-20 to 2-22 and 2-41 to 2-44). Thermal denitration of 
uranyl nitrate solution to U3O8 will produce essentially equivalent 
gaseous and liquid effluents as the ammonium diuranate(ADU) process 
used to produce UO2. In the thermal denitration process, nitrates are 
recovered from the offgas in a liquid process. In the ADU process, the 
nitrates are also recovered as liquid and the ammonium hydroxide is 
recycled. Both processes require offgas treatment including filtration 
for uranium solids by HEPA filtration. Since the effluent from the ADU 
process will be concentrated and solidified, the impact to the 
environment will be minimized. Therefore, the FEIS analyses for 
conversion of 3750 metric tons uranium as uranyl nitrate solution to 
U3O8 powder bound the expected impacts of the proposed conversion of 
461 metric tons uranium as low enriched uranyl nitrate solution to UO2 
powder at the NFS site. Addition of these processes and the storage 
tank facility at the NFS site for uranyl nitrate, would require a 
license amendment from the NRC. The NRC will independently evaluate the 
potential environmental impacts of a proposed license amendment by NFS.

Impact of Shipping 461 Metric Tons of UO2 Powder to Framatome ANP-
Richland (Provision 8)

    After the low enriched uranyl nitrate solution is converted into 
UO2 powder at NFS, it will be shipped to the Framatome ANP fuel 
fabrication facility in Richland, Washington. The shipping campaign 
will occur over the period of 2004-2008. A total of 154 shipments will 
be required to transport 461 metric tons of uranium as UO2 powder. The 
maximum number of shipments expected in any one year is 40. The UO2 
will be packaged in Type B shipping containers meeting DOT requirements 
and licensed by the NRC. The FEIS evaluates shipping low enriched 
uranium as UNH crystals from NFS to Siemens (now Framatome ANP) in 
Richland, WA. UNH crystals require more volume than UO2 powder, 
therefore, 215 shipments would be needed to ship the 461 metric tons of 
uranium as crystals. Furthermore, UNH crystals are much more soluble 
than UO2 powder and accidental releases of UNH crystals would likely 
have a more significant impact than releases of UO2 powder. From the 
FEIS Table G.1-7, the total health impact for these shipments is 
calculated as 1.44E-01 fatalities. The FEIS analyses bound the expected 
impacts of shipping the low enriched uranium as UO2.

Use of Off-Specification HEU

    TVA is planning to use the off-specification material described in 
the FEIS that can be economically recovered. The FEIS does cover the 
impact of blending this off-specification uranium to 4 percent 
enrichment for commercial reactor use in Alternative 5 : Maximum 
Commercial Use Alternatives (Pages 2-9). This alternative evaluated an 
85 percent fuel/15 percent waste ratio for 200 metric tons of surplus 
HEU. The 85 percent commercial fuel usage included off-specification 
uranium that could be economically recovered (approximately 33 metric 
tons). The 15 percent waste included HEU material that cannot be 
economically recovered. The results are summarized in Table 2.4-1 (page 
2-64) and discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS.

[[Page 58002]]

Socioeconomics

    TVA's staff economist reviewed the DOE FEIS and concluded that the 
FEIS adequately covers the socioeconomic and environmental justice 
considerations for TVA's proposed actions. One activity was evaluated 
in greater detail for socioeconomic effects to corroborate that effects 
were minimal and did not create additional substantive issues or 
potential for impacts. Construction of additional facilities at NFS is 
not explicitly addressed in the DOE FEIS. Construction would require 
about 4 years, with a maximum employment of about 105 workers. This 
activity would have a positive socioeconomic impact on the area. At 
maximum employment, the number of jobs in Unicoi County, where the 
facility is located, would increase about 1.6 percent. However, the 
Labor Market Area within which most construction workers would live, 
also includes Carter, Sullivan and Washington Counties. This Labor 
Market Area (LMA) has a combined employment level of over 189,000 
workers. Therefore the maximum LMA employment increase during 
construction would be less than one-tenth of one percent and would 
constitute a minor, insignificant addition to employment in the LMA.

Other Considerations

    As discussed, the DOE FEIS bounds the expected environmental 
impacts from the proposed TVA actions. Furthermore, the alternative of 
obtaining low enriched uranium through conventional mining, milling, 
conversion, and enrichment has far greater environmental impacts than 
the proposed action. To produce an equivalent amount of LEU for fuel 
rod assemblies would require 14 million pounds of U3O8 which would 
conservatively require mining about 140,000 tons of ore. Finally, the 
following should be considered. The Department of Transportation 
estimates that 3.6 billion tons of regulated hazardous materials are 
transported each year in the United States with approximately 500,000 
shipments of hazardous materials occurring each day (FEIS page 4-101). 
There are approximately 2 million annual shipments of radioactive 
materials representing about 2 percent of the annual hazardous material 
shipments. As discussed, TVA's proposed actions will replace some of 
those shipments with other shipments in the form of natural uranium and 
low enriched uranium. All of the shipments anticipated resulting from 
the TVA actions would represent less than a 0.01 percent increase in 
the number of expected radioactive material shipments over the same 
time period, and constitute an insignificant addition to the amount of 
such material shipped.

Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Harm

    As discussed, implementation of the decisions in this ROD will 
result in low environmental and health impacts during normal 
operations. These impacts were adequately addressed in the DOE FEIS. 
However, DOE, TVA, and its contractors will take all reasonable steps 
to avoid or minimize harm, including the following:
     DOE and TVA will use current safety and health programs 
and practices to reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation 
exposure as low as reasonably achievable.
     DOE, TVA and its contractors will meet appropriate waste 
minimization and pollution prevention objectives consistent with the 
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. As discussed in the HEU FEIS, 
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, non-hazardous 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 federal 
facilities, TVA and DOE will seek to include comparable requirements in 
contracts with commercial facilities.

    Dated: November 4, 2001.
John Scalice,
Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President.
[FR Doc. 01-28844 Filed 11-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P