[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6286-6289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[5101 ER J206]


Notice of Request for Comments To Address Right-of-Way 
Applications Filed by Private Fuel Storage, LLC, for an Independent 
Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley 
Band of Goshute Indians and Related Transportation Facility in Tooele 
County, UT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) is requesting comments that will address right-of-way 
applications filed by Private Fuel Storage (PFS), LLC, for an 
independent spent fuel storage installation on reservation lands of the 
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (Band or Skull Valley Band). The 
installation is described in an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), entitled Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the 
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation 
Facility in Tooele County, Utah (December 2001). This EIS is available 
online at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1714/v1/. BLM was a cooperating agency in the preparation of this 
EIS, as were the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Department of the 
Interior, and the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Your comments are 
sought pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.6(d).

DATES: The Bureau of Land Management should receive your comments by 
May 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You should address your comments to the attention of Pam 
Schuller, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 2370 S. 
2300 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Schuller, Environmental 
Specialist, Salt Lake Field Office, 801-977-4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applications filed by PFS seek rights-
of-way under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1761, to transport spent nuclear fuel (SNF) across 
public lands managed by BLM. As proposed, the fuel would be transported 
by rail from an existing Union Pacific railroad site to a PFS facility 
on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in 
Tooele County, Utah. The fuel would be stored in aboveground canisters 
on the Reservation, awaiting eventual disposal at a permanent geologic 
repository currently proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or other, 
further storage at a location off the Reservation.
    In order for PFS to construct a rail line and transport SNF to 
reservation lands, an amendment to BLM's Pony Express Resource 
Management Plan (RMP) would be necessary and PFS would need a right-of-
way grant from BLM. An alternative to this rail line would involve 
construction of an intermodal transfer facility (ITF) on BLM lands. SNF 
would be transported by heavy-haul tractor/trailers to the reservation 
site under this alternative.
    Your comments are necessary to assist BLM in reviewing the 
applications of PFS. Regulations recently revised by BLM at 43 CFR part 
2804.26 (70 FR 21067 (April 22, 2005)) call for BLM to consider a 
number of factors in deciding whether to grant or deny an application 
for a right-of-way. Among these factors are (1) the project's 
consistency with BLM(s management of the public lands; (2) the public 
interest; (3) the applicant's qualifications to hold a grant; (4) the 
project's consistency with FLPMA, other laws, or regulations; (5) the 
applicant's technical or financial capability; and (6) the applicant's 
compliance with information requests. BLM will apply these standards to 
the PFS applications in light of the data in the applications and in 
the EIS. Certain recent developments also merit consideration, 
including statements by the Energy Department and PFS members, and 
Congressional action.
    Public Law 109-163, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006, was signed by President Bush on January 6, 2006. 119 
Stat. 3136. Section 384 of this Act designated certain lands as the 
Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area and withdrew these lands ``from all 
forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, 
from location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws, 
and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
geothermal leasing, and mineral materials, and all amendments to such 
laws.'' These lands include the area described in PFS's application for 
a right-of-way for a rail line, but do not include the area described 
in PFS's application for a right-of-way for the ITF. Because a rail 
line would be incompatible with wilderness, designation of the Cedar 
Mountain Wilderness Area would appear to preclude the grant of a right-
of-way for the proposed rail line and shift the focus of this project 
to the ITF alternative.
    On October 26, 2005, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman stated 
that the PFS facility initiative is not part of the Energy Department's 
overall strategy for the management of SNF and high-level radioactive 
waste. The Secretary noted that the Energy Department would be 
prohibited by statute from providing funding or financial assistance to 
the initiative because the PFS facility would be constructed and 
operated by the private sector outside the scope of the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). The Energy Department will continue to work 
toward the successful development of Yucca Mountain as a permanent 
geologic repository for the Nation's

[[Page 6287]]

high-level radioactive waste. Development of Yucca Mountain would 
reduce, if not eliminate, the need for high-level radioactive waste to 
go to a private temporary storage facility in Utah, the Secretary 
remarked.
    Correspondence dated December 8, 2005, between the Chief Executive 
Officer of Xcel Energy and Senator Orrin Hatch indicates that Xcel 
Energy, the majority shareholder and most active proponent of the PFS 
project, will hold in abeyance future investments in the next phase of 
the PFS facility as long as there is progress in various initiatives 
toward federally sponsored interim storage, reuse, and/or disposal of 
the nation's spent nuclear fuel. The initiatives referred to include 
the Energy Department's examination of multi-purpose canister systems 
for Yucca Mountain; Congressional passage of the FY 2006 Energy and 
Water Development Act providing funds for grants to communities 
interested in hosting facilities that would accept and eventually 
recycle used fuel from civilian nuclear plants; and Congressional 
preparation of legislation that will promote the movement of waste 
early in the next decade.
    Correspondence dated December 7, 2005, between the Chief Executive 
Officer of Southern Company and Senator Hatch indicates that Southern 
Company, one of eight members of the PFS consortium, will no longer 
support the PFS facility, having concluded that the PFS facility 
``cannot be successfully developed as a spent fuel repository in a time 
frame to meet Southern's needs.'' Southern will continue to work toward 
ensuring the eventual opening of Yucca Mountain, to which it is 
committed as the nation's spent fuel repository. Southern Company was 
one of six members of PFS that in July 2002 announced that they would 
commit no funds to construction of the PFS facility past the licensing 
phase so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and 
repository development proceeds in a timely fashion.
    Correspondence dated September 9, 2005, from the Utah Congressional 
delegation to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton states that the 
proximity of the Goshute reservation to the Utah Test and Training 
Range makes it one of the most dangerous locations for the aboveground 
storage of high-level nuclear waste. The proposed storage site would 
sit within miles of the training range where 7,000 overflights of F-16s 
occur every year. Due to heavy commercial air traffic in the area, a 
principal low level approach by these F-16s passes directly over the 
proposed storage site. The aircraft sometimes use live ordnance, and 70 
crashes of F-16s have occurred within the past 20 years at the Utah 
Test and Training Range, a number of these well outside the boundaries 
of the range.
    In this same correspondence, the Congressional delegation states 
that NRC refused to reopen its EIS, dated December 2001, to consider 
the threat of deliberate suicide air attacks, even though post 
September 11 studies have been completed at all other facilities 
licensed by NRC. Moreover, the EIS does not require PFS to have any on-
site means to handle damaged or breached casks. NRC staff concluded 
that the risk of a cask breach is so minimal that this scenario need 
not be considered in the EIS. At the delegation's urging, the 
Department of Homeland Security has consented to review the location of 
the proposed site to consider its national security implications.
    This Congressional correspondence of September 9, 2005, further 
states that ``the issuance of a license for a private away-from-reactor 
storage site has never been done and in our view runs counter to the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which limits the NRC to license storage sites 
only at federal facilities or onsite at nuclear power plants.''
    Finally, in correspondence with Senator Hatch, dated July 8, 2002, 
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham concluded that the NWPA authorizes 
DOE to provide funding and financial assistance only for shipments of 
spent fuel to a facility constructed under that act. The Secretary 
found that the PFS/Goshute facility would be constructed outside the 
scope of the act, and as a result DOE would not fund or otherwise 
provide financial assistance for PFS. Nor could DOE monitor the safety 
precautions that a private facility may install. All costs associated 
with the PFS plan would have to be covered by the members of the PFS 
private consortium, the Secretary concluded.
    The proposed action (Alternative 1) involves the construction and 
operation of the proposed PFS facility at a site designated as Site A 
in the northwest corner of the Skull Valley Indian Reservation and a 
new rail line connecting the existing Union Pacific railroad to the 
site. The proposed facility would be designed to store a lifetime 
capacity of up to 40,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU) (44,000 tons) of 
spent nuclear fuel. SNF is the primary by-product from a nuclear 
reactor. The capacity of the proposed facility would be sufficient to 
store all SNF from reactor sites owned by PFS members, as well as SNF 
from reactor sites that are not owned by PFS members.
    PFS is a limited liability company owned by eight U.S. electric 
power generating companies. These companies are: Entergy Corporation; 
Southern California Edison Company; Genoa FuelTech, Inc.; Indiana-
Michigan Company (American Electric Power); Florida Power and Light 
Company; GPU Nuclear Corporation; Xcel Energy Inc.; and Southern 
Nuclear Operating Company.
    Construction of the proposed PFS facility would occur in three 
phases. Phase 1 construction, which would provide an operational 
facility, is planned to begin upon issuance of a license by the NRC and 
certification by the Secretary that the conditions under which a May 
1997 lease between PFS and the Band was approved have been satisfied. 
The maximum term of the lease is 50 years. About one-fourth of the 
storage area for the proposed facility would be constructed during 
Phase 1, which would be completed in approximately 18 months. Another 
one-fourth would be completed during Phase 2, and the remaining portion 
constructed during Phase 3. The maximum amount of SNF that PFS could 
accept at the proposed facility over the term of the initial license 
and the proposed lease is 40,000 MTU. Once PFS had accepted 40,000 MTU 
of SNF, it could not accept any additional shipments, even if it had 
begun to ship the SNF off site.
    SNF to be shipped to the proposed PFS facility would be placed 
inside sealed metal canisters at commercial nuclear power plants. These 
canisters would then be placed inside NRC-certified steel shipping 
casks for transport by rail to the new rail siding at Skunk Ridge. 
Dedicated trains, stopping only for crew changes, refueling, and 
periodic inspections, would be used to transport SNF from the existing 
reactor sites to Skull Valley. PFS expects that it would receive 1 to 2 
trains, each carrying 2 to 4 shipping casks, per week from the reactor 
sites. The number of loaded SNF canisters (inside shipping casks) is 
estimated to be between 100 and 200 annually. Each canister would 
contain approximately 10 MTU of SNF.
    The nearest main rail line is approximately 39 km (24 miles) north 
of the proposed site. PFS's preferred option for transporting SNF from 
the existing Union Pacific main line railroad to the site is to build a 
new rail line to the site. The new rail line, and its associated rail 
siding, would connect to the existing Union Pacific main rail line at 
Skunk Ridge (near Low, Utah). The proposed right-of-way for the rail 
corridor would be 51 km (32 miles) long

[[Page 6288]]

and 60 m (200 ft) wide. It would run to the proposed PFS facility 
through public lands administered by BLM on the eastern side of the 
Cedar Mountains. Because these public lands are outside a 
transportation and utility corridor described in BLM's Pony Express 
RMP, an amendment to this RMP would be necessary before BLM could issue 
a right-of-way. Any amendment to this RMP would also await compliance 
by the Department of Defense with certain reporting duties under 
section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000, 
Pub. L. 106-65.
    As noted above, designation of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area 
by Congress in Pub. L. 109-163 appears to preclude the grant of a 
right-of-way for the rail line in Alternative 1.
    At the proposed PFS facility, a dry cask storage technology would 
be used. The sealed metal canisters containing the SNF would be 
unloaded from the shipping casks at the proposed PFS facility, loaded 
into steel-and-concrete storage casks, and then placed on concrete pads 
for aboveground storage. The canister-based cask system for confining 
the SNF would be certified by NRC in accordance with NRC requirements 
(10 CFR part 72). PFS proposes to employ the Holtec HI-STORM dual-
purpose canister-based cask system for use at the proposed PFS 
facility. PFS anticipates storing as many as 4,000 sealed metal 
canisters inside individual storage casks, to store a maximum of 40,000 
MTU of SNF.
    The proposed PFS facility would be licensed by NRC to operate for 
up to 20 years. The applicant has indicated that it may seek to renew 
the license for 20 years (total of 40 years). By the end of the 
licensed life of the proposed PFS facility and prior to the expiration 
of the lease, it is expected that the SNF would have been shipped to a 
permanent repository. Service agreements (i.e., contracts) between PFS 
and companies storing SNF at the proposed PFS facility will require 
that the utilities remove all SNF from the proposed PFS facility by the 
time the PFS license has terminated and PFS has completed its licensing 
or regulatory obligations under the NRC license. The service agreement 
requirement to remove the SNF from the proposed PFS facility is not 
dependent upon the availability of a permanent geological repository. 
Therefore, if the PFS license is terminated or revoked prior to the 
availability of a permanent geological repository, the reactor 
licensees storing SNF at the PFS facility would continue to retain 
responsibility for the fuel and must remove it from the proposed PFS 
facility before license termination.
    At the end of its useful life (or upon termination of the lease 
with the Band or termination of the NRC license, whichever comes 
first), the proposed PFS facility would be closed. As a condition of 
the lease with the Band and as required by NRC regulations, 
decommissioning of the proposed PFS facility would be required prior to 
closure of the facility and termination of the NRC license. Although 
the exact nature of decommissioning cannot be predicted at this time, 
the principal activities involved in decommissioning would include:
    1. Removal of all remaining SNF from Skull Valley;
    2. Removal or disposition of all storage casks;
    3. Removal or disposition of the storage pads and crushed rock, at 
the option of the Band and the BIA; and
    4. Removal of the buildings and other improvements or their 
transfer to the Band, at the option of the Band and the BIA.
    The objective of the radiological decommissioning would be to 
remove all materials having levels of radioactivity above the 
applicable NRC limits in order for the site to be released for 
unrestricted use. The SNF contained inside sealed metal canisters would 
be transferred to licensed shipping casks for transportation away from 
Skull Valley.
    At the option of the Band, non-radiological decommissioning and 
restoration of the facility may include the removal of structures and 
reasonably returning the land to its original condition. The future of 
the buildings and other improvements to be constructed by PFS on the 
Reservation is to be determined by the Band and the BIA. PFS is 
obligated to remove the buildings and other improvements at the request 
of the Band. PFS will collect sufficient advanced funding or provide 
other financial assurances to accomplish any or all of the non-
radiological decommissioning. If the Band chooses to retain any or all 
of the buildings and other improvements once the radiological 
decommissioning is complete, it has the right to receive a transfer 
from PFS in an ``intact'' condition. The future use of any buildings 
and other improvements not removed by PFS, including the soil-concrete 
mixture below the pads, would be at the discretion of the Band. Any 
impacts associated with such use would be evaluated by a separate NEPA 
review. The proposed lease requires that the SNF be removed from the 
Reservation before the end of the lease term.
    Alternative 2 involves constructing the proposed PFS facility at an 
alternative location (Site B) on the Reservation. This site is located 
about 800 m (0.5 mile) south of the proposed Site A and is similar in 
terms of its environmental characteristics to the proposed site. Under 
this alternative, a new rail line would be constructed across BLM lands 
from Skunk Ridge. The rail corridor through Skull Valley would be 
essentially identical to the one for the proposed action, but it would 
be about 1.6 km (1 mile) longer due to the slightly greater distance of 
Site B from the existing main rail line. From BLM's perspective, 
Alternative 2 would require amendment of the Pony Express RMP and the 
authorization of a right-of-way across public lands for the 
construction and operation of a new rail line. Amendment of the Pony 
Express RMP would involve the Defense Department's compliance with 
section 2815(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000. 
Because the rail line is essentially the same as that involved in 
Alternative 1, designation of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area in 
Pub. L. 109-163 appears to preclude the grant of a right-of-way for the 
rail line in Alternative 2.
    Alternative 3 involves constructing the proposed PFS facility at 
Site A, but transportation of SNF from the existing Union Pacific main 
rail line to the site would be accomplished by heavy-haul tractor/
trailers. An ITF and rail siding would be built on land managed by BLM 
at the existing main rail line near Timpie, Utah, to transfer SNF 
shipping casks from rail cars to the heavy-haul vehicles, which would 
then transport the SNF along the existing Skull Valley Road to the 
site. No rail line would be built under this alternative.
    The ITF would occupy 9-11 acres of BLM land approximately 2 miles 
west of the intersection of I-80 and Skull Valley Road and outside of 
the lands designated in Pub. L. 109-163 as the Cedar Mountain 
Wilderness Area. It would consist of three rail sidings, a new access 
road for heavy-haul vehicles, and a building with a crane for 
transferring SNF shipping casks from rail cars onto heavy-haul tractor/
trailers. PFS has filed an application for a right-of-way from BLM to 
use this land. The ITF would not require an amendment to the Pony 
Express RMP. The ITF would occupy previously disturbed land lying 
between the existing Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 80. SNF 
would arrive at the ITF by rail using the Union Pacific rail line. The 
crane would load the fuel from the rail cars onto heavy-haul tractor/
trailers, which would use the existing Skull Valley road to carry

[[Page 6289]]

the fuel south to the PFS facility on the Goshute Reservation, a 
distance of approximately 26 miles. From BLM's perspective, Alternative 
3 involves the authorization of a right-of-way to occupy public lands 
for the ITF; no RMP amendment would be necessary.
    Alternative 4 involves constructing the PFS facility at Site B on 
reservation lands and transportation of SNF by heavy-haul tractor/
trailers. As in alternative 3, PFS would seek a right-of-way to 
authorize use of an ITF on BLM lands. No rail corridor would be 
constructed under this alternative, and no amendment of BLM's RMP would 
be necessary.
    Under the no action alternative, no PFS facility or transportation 
facilities would be built in Skull Valley. Under this alternative, NRC 
would deny the application for a license for the proposed PFS facility, 
and no certification by the Secretary of lease conditions would occur. 
From BLM's perspective, the right-of-way applications filed by PFS 
would be denied. The Band would be free to pursue alternative uses for 
the land in the northwest corner of the Reservation.

Jim Hughes,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E6-1595 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P