[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 331-336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare a 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership initiative (GNEP PEIS) pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) and DOE's 
regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 
1021, respectively). GNEP would encourage expansion of domestic and 
international nuclear energy production while reducing nuclear 
proliferation risks, and reduce the volume, thermal output, and 
radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel (spent fuel or SNF) before disposal 
in a geologic repository.
    Domestically, GNEP involves a programmatic proposal as well as 
project-specific proposals. The programmatic proposal is to begin to 
recycle spent fuel and destroy the long-lived radioactive components of 
that spent fuel. Toward this end, GNEP includes project-specific 
proposals to construct and operate three facilities. The proposed 
nuclear fuel recycling center would separate the SNF into its reusable 
components and waste components and manufacture new nuclear fuel using 
reusable components that still have the potential for use in nuclear 
power generation. The proposed advanced recycling reactor would destroy 
long-lived radioactive elements in the fuel while generating 
electricity. The advanced fuel cycle research facility would perform 
research into SNF recycling processes and other aspects of advanced 
nuclear fuel cycles. The GNEP PEIS will consider 13 sites as possible 
locations for one or more of these facilities, as well as alternative 
technologies to be used in these facilities. Internationally, GNEP 
involves two programmatic initiatives. First, the United States would 
cooperate with countries that have advanced

[[Page 332]]

nuclear programs to supply nuclear fuel services to countries that 
refrain from pursuing enrichment or recycling facilities to make their 
own nuclear fuel. Such countries would have no need to develop the 
technology and infrastructure to enrich uranium or separate plutonium, 
both of which have application in the production of nuclear weapons. 
Second, the United States would promote proliferation-resistant nuclear 
power reactors suitable for use in developing economies.
    The GNEP PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of 
these programmatic and project-specific proposals, as well as 
reasonable alternatives. The GNEP PEIS also will evaluate at a 
programmatic level the potential environmental impacts associated with 
the international aspects of GNEP, including alternatives. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice of Intent (NOI) 
describes the alternatives that DOE proposes to evaluate in the GNEP 
PEIS. This NOI also identifies dates, times, and locations for public 
scoping meetings on the GNEP PEIS.

DATES: DOE invites Federal, state, and local governments, Native 
American Tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the 
public to provide comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and 
environmental issues to be analyzed in the GNEP PEIS. The public 
scoping period starts with the publication of this NOI in the Federal 
Register and will continue through April 4, 2007. All comments received 
during the public scoping period will be considered in preparing the 
GNEP PEIS. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. 
Public scoping meetings are discussed below in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section. Federal or state agencies, local governments, or 
Native American Tribes that want to be considered as a cooperating 
agency in preparation of this PEIS should contact Mr. Timothy A. 
Frazier at the address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Please direct comments, suggestions, or relevant information 
on the GNEP PEIS to: Mr. Timothy A. Frazier, GNEP PEIS Document 
Manager, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, Telephone: 866-
645-7803, Fax: 866-645-7807, e-mail to: [email protected]. 
Please mark envelopes, faxes, and e-mail: ``GNEP PEIS Comments.'' 
Additional information on GNEP may be found at http://www.gnep.energy.gov.
    For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: 
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, 
GC-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0103, 202-586-4600, or by leaving a message at 1-
800-472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE's NEPA activities is 
available on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. This 
NOI is available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa and http://www.gnep.energy.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Terminology

    To aid in understanding the information that follows, a brief 
explanation of key terms and the three proposed facilities that support 
GNEP is provided below:
     Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--The Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative (AFCI) is an ongoing DOE initiative to develop 
proliferation-resistant spent nuclear fuel treatment and transmutation 
technologies to enable a transition from the current once-through 
nuclear fuel cycle to a future sustainable, closed nuclear fuel cycle 
where valuable material is separated from spent fuel and recycled, 
thereby extracting energy and reducing waste.
     Enriched uranium--Uranium in which the proportion of 
uranium-235 to uranium-238 has been increased above the naturally 
occurring 0.7 percent uranium-235. Reactor-grade uranium is uranium 
that has been enriched to about three to five percent uranium-235 for 
use in reactors to produce electricity. The same process can be used to 
further enrich uranium for weapons use.
     Fission--The splitting of an atom into at least two other 
atoms and the release of a relatively large amount of energy. Two or 
three neutrons are usually released during the transformation. Fission 
is the scientific principle by which nuclear power reactors work.
     Fission product--The atoms (fission fragments) formed by 
the fission of heavy elements such as uranium. Fission products build 
up in nuclear fuel as a normal part of reactor operations.
     Light-water reactor--A nuclear power reactor that uses 
water to cool the reactor and to moderate (slow down) neutrons. It 
belongs to the class of nuclear power plants called ``thermal 
reactors.'' Most nuclear power reactors in the world are light-water 
reactors.
     Recycling--The separation of used nuclear fuel into: 
Uranium; waste (fission products and fuel element structural 
materials); and transuranics. Uranium and transuranics would be 
incorporated into new fuel to be consumed in reactors to generate 
electricity.
     Spent nuclear fuel (used nuclear fuel)--The fuel that has 
been used in a nuclear reactor. As a typical nuclear reactor operates, 
the fission process creates energy to generate electricity. During this 
process, the uranium is being ``used'' and fission products accumulate 
and interfere with efficiency until the fuel can no longer effectively 
produce energy. At this point, the used fuel is said to be ``spent'' 
and is replaced.
     Transmutation--The conversion of one element to another by 
changing its atomic structure. There are two primary transmutation 
processes: Fission, which splits atoms, releasing energy; and neutron 
capture, which adds one neutron to an atom. Transmutation can be used 
to destroy radioactive elements with very long half-lives, such as 
transuranic elements, by converting them to stable elements or elements 
with shorter half-lives, while producing energy.
     Transuranics (transuranic elements)--Elements with atomic 
numbers greater than uranium (atomic number 92), including neptunium 
(93), plutonium (94), americium (95), and curium (96). Transuranic 
elements are created in nuclear power reactors when uranium absorbs or 
captures neutrons.
     Uranium enrichment--The physical process of increasing the 
proportion (or ratio) of uranium-235 to uranium-238 to make the uranium 
more usable as nuclear fuel.
    The three proposed GNEP facilities that DOE will evaluate in the 
GNEP PEIS are:
     A nuclear fuel recycling center--A nuclear fuel recycling 
center would support two of the three key components of an SNF 
recycling program: (1) It would separate light-water reactor SNF and 
fast reactor SNF into their reusable and non-reusable constituents, and 
(2) after completion of transmutation fuel development at the advanced 
fuel cycle research facility, it would fabricate such fuel for use in 
the destruction of transuranic elements in a fast reactor (the advanced 
recycling reactor). A nuclear fuel recycling center could be privately 
owned and operated, potentially with government-supplied incentives or 
other involvement yet to be determined.
     An advanced recycling reactor--A fast neutron spectrum 
reactor that would be capable of converting long-lived radioactive 
elements (e.g., plutonium and other transuranics) into shorter-lived 
radioactive elements while

[[Page 333]]

producing electricity. The advanced recycling reactor could be 
privately owned and operated, potentially with government-supplied 
incentives or other involvement yet to be determined.
     An advanced fuel cycle research facility--A research 
facility that DOE would design, build, and operate at a DOE site. Among 
other activities, the advanced fuel cycle research facility would 
support research and development (R&D) relating to separation and 
fabrication of fast reactor transmutation fuel to enable the 
destruction of transuranic elements separated from SNF.

II. Background

    The United States faces significant energy challenges including 
increasing energy supplies in ways that protect and improve the 
environment. Meeting each of these challenges is critical to expanding 
the United States economy and protecting energy and national security.
    The President's Advanced Energy Initiative has identified three 
ways to meet the challenge of generating more electricity: Clean coal 
technology, advanced emission-free nuclear power, and renewable 
resources such as solar and wind. The GNEP PEIS will evaluate the 
potential environmental impacts of alternative ways to recycle spent 
nuclear fuel using technologies that increase its usefulness while 
reducing the threat of proliferation.
    Nuclear power provides approximately one-fifth of the electricity 
that the United States uses to power factories, office buildings, 
homes, and schools. Over 100 operating nuclear power plants, located at 
65 sites in 31 states, constitute the second-largest source of 
electricity generation in the United States. The plants are, on 
average, approximately 25 years old and are licensed to operate for 40 
years with an option to renew for an additional 20 years. Nuclear 
reactors do not emit the air pollutants and greenhouse gases that 
result from coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired generation. 
Nuclear power contributes to United States energy security.
    Historically, the United States has used a ``once through'' or 
``open'' fuel cycle in which nuclear fuel is used a single time by a 
nuclear power reactor, and then the spent fuel is stored at that plant 
pending disposal. The Federal government has responsibility for the 
disposal of SNF, and plans to dispose of it in the geologic repository 
located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
    GNEP would establish a ``closed'' fuel cycle by recycling spent 
nuclear fuel rather than disposing of it after one use. Recycling spent 
fuel rather than disposing of it potentially would extend the stock of 
nuclear fuel available to meet growing electricity demand and reduce 
waste from the generation of nuclear power. DOE has been researching 
and developing recycling technologies in its laboratories for many 
years and has identified processes that would be needed for GNEP to 
accomplish its objectives. However, additional R&D is necessary to 
implement the proposed GNEP recycling associated with the transmutation 
fuel.
    GNEP also offers the potential for more efficient nuclear waste 
disposal. Technological advancements through GNEP could reduce the 
volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of waste requiring permanent 
disposal at the Yucca Mountain geologic repository. It is important to 
emphasize, however, that GNEP does not diminish in any way the need 
for, or the urgency of, the nuclear waste disposal program at Yucca 
Mountain. Yucca Mountain is still required under any fuel cycle 
scenario.
    The Energy Information Administration projects that the world's 
electricity consumption will double from 2003 to 2030. GNEP as 
envisioned would promote the expanded use of carbon-free nuclear energy 
to meet growing electricity demand throughout the world, while reducing 
nuclear proliferation risks. GNEP would achieve this goal by having 
nations with secure, advanced nuclear capabilities provide fuel 
services--fresh fuel and recovery of used fuel--to other nations that 
refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment or recycling activities. The 
closed fuel cycle model envisioned by this partnership requires 
development and deployment of technologies that enable recycling and 
reduction of long-lived radioactive waste.
    As these technologies are developed, the United States would work 
with partners to provide developing countries with reactors that would 
be secure, cost-effective, and able to meet their energy needs, as well 
as related nuclear services that would ensure that they have a reliable 
fuel supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear 
power only for electricity and refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment 
and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear 
weapons. By working with other nations under the GNEP, the United 
States could provide safe and reliable energy that growing economies 
need, while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
    The commercial marketplace will ultimately determine how to meet 
future increased demand for electricity. By recycling SNF, GNEP is 
designed to provide an alternative to the once-through fuel cycle. DOE 
is not proposing in this PEIS that DOE would construct and operate any 
facilities for the primary purpose of generating electricity. The 
proposed advanced recycling reactor would demonstrate the feasibility 
of consuming transuranics in transmutation fuel in a reactor, while 
also generating electricity.

III. The Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    DOE's underlying purpose and need in proposing this action is to 
encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy 
production while reducing the risks associated with nuclear 
proliferation, and to reduce the volume, thermal output, and 
radiotoxicity of SNF before disposal in a geologic repository. To meet 
its non-proliferation goals with regard to SNF recycling, DOE will only 
assess as reasonable alternatives those technologies that do not 
separate pure plutonium.

IV. Advance Notice of Intent; Funding Opportunity Announcement; 
Requests for Expressions of Interest

    On March 22, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
14505) an Advance NOI (ANOI) related to the then-proposed GNEP 
Technology Demonstration Program EIS. That ANOI explained the goals of 
GNEP as it was then conceived and identified the three major project-
specific elements (the demonstration of advanced separations processes, 
conversion of transuranics, and advanced fuel fabrication) of a GNEP 
Technology Demonstration Program, which was intended to demonstrate 
closed fuel cycle technologies at an engineering scale. The ANOI also 
invited comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and environmental 
issues to be analyzed in that EIS. DOE received over 800 comment 
documents, more than 750 of which contained similar substantive 
comments.
    DOE considered all comments received. One of the main comments 
received was that DOE should do a programmatic NEPA review instead of 
limiting its review to the three facilities. Comments received on the 
ANOI also included the following:
     The proposed technologies are not sufficiently advanced to 
proceed with engineering-scale demonstrations;
     DOE should pursue and analyze alternatives to nuclear 
power in a PEIS;

[[Page 334]]

     DOE is proceeding with Federal action related to GNEP 
before conducting the required NEPA analysis.
    These issues will be addressed in the GNEP PEIS.
    In addition, a number of foreign governments and private companies 
have expressed interest in cooperating with DOE to develop and deploy 
advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies. Some of these entities 
indicated they are pursuing technologies that may be ready for 
deployment faster, and at a larger, commercial scale, than those 
currently under development by DOE.
    In response to the comments and the interest expressed, DOE has 
made two fundamental changes to its GNEP NEPA strategy: (1) DOE will 
prepare a PEIS to assess the programmatic elements of GNEP, as well as 
the three proposed projects; and (2) DOE is now proposing to analyze 
engineering-scale and commercial-scale demonstrations of GNEP 
technologies at two of the three proposed facilities, rather than only 
at the smaller engineering scale.
    Since publication of the ANOI, DOE has taken several steps to 
determine the level of interest in GNEP and obtain useful information. 
First, DOE has sought input regarding potential hosting sites in the 
United States for a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced 
recycling reactor. On August 3, 2006, DOE issued a Financial Assistance 
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for public or commercial 
entities interested in hosting GNEP facilities to conduct detailed 
siting studies. These siting studies will be used by DOE to help 
evaluate potential locations for a nuclear fuel recycling center and an 
advanced recycling reactor. Applications for these financial assistance 
grants were due to DOE by September 7, 2006. On November 29, 2006, DOE 
announced that 11 commercial and public consortia had been selected to 
receive grants under this FOA. The study sites and sponsors are:
    Atomic City, Idaho--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Barnwell, South Carolina--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Hanford Site, Washington--Tri-City Industrial Development Council/
Columbia Basin Consulting Group,
    Hobbs, New Mexico--Eddy Lea Energy Alliance,
    Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho--Regional Development Alliance, 
Inc.,
    Morris, Illinois--General Electric Company,
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee--Community Reuse 
Organization of East Tennessee,
    Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky--Paducah Uranium Plant 
Asset Utilization, Inc.,
    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio--Piketon Initiative for 
Nuclear Independence, LLC,
    Roswell, New Mexico--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Savannah River National Laboratory, South Carolina--Economic 
Development,
    Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties.
    Second, on August 7, 2006, DOE issued two requests for Expressions 
of Interest (EOIs) related to GNEP (see 44 FR 44673 and 44 FR 44676). 
The purpose of the EOIs was to obtain information from the domestic and 
international nuclear industry on the potential development of a 
commercial-scale nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced 
recycling reactor using advanced technologies available now or in the 
near future. DOE is using the industry responses to the EOIs to help 
identify available technologies, alternative facility sizes, potential 
financial arrangements, and other factors related to the development of 
a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. This 
information will contribute to the development of reasonable 
alternatives for evaluation in the GNEP PEIS.
    DOE also would pursue an R&D program using an advanced fuel cycle 
research facility to develop additional technologies (not yet 
available) to separate and fabricate transmutation fuel for a fast 
reactor. DOE did not include an advanced fuel cycle research facility 
in the FOA or EOI processes because an advanced fuel cycle research 
facility is intended to be an R&D facility on a DOE site. Like a 
nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor, an 
advanced fuel cycle research facility will be evaluated in the GNEP 
PEIS.

V. Description of GNEP Recycling

    In general terms, GNEP recycling would work as follows. Spent fuel 
would be received from commercial nuclear reactors and would be 
processed in a nuclear fuel recycling center to separate the 
potentially reusable constituents (uranium and transuranic elements) 
from the non-reusable constituents (e.g., fuel element structural 
materials and fission products). The reusable constituents would be 
used to make transmutation fuel for an advanced recycling reactor and, 
possibly, other reactor fuels (e.g., uranium could be re-enriched and 
made into light-water reactor fuel). The transmutation fuel would be 
consumed in an advanced recycling reactor, and the advanced recycling 
reactor would also produce electricity during these operations. The 
spent transmutation fuel would then be separated and the remaining 
transuranics used to make new transmutation fuel to be further 
destroyed in the advanced recycling reactor while producing 
electricity. Non-reusable constituents would be converted to waste 
forms for eventual disposal in a geologic repository or for other long-
term storage or disposal, as appropriate. This fuel cycle has the 
potential to reduce the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of 
waste that would need to be placed in a geologic repository, thereby 
increasing the geologic repository's effective capacity and lessening 
the need for additional repository capacity.

VI. Current Research and Development Activities

    DOE has been conducting R&D related to the nuclear fuel cycle and 
nuclear reactor programs for many decades. Current R&D efforts are 
focused on exploring new, innovative concepts for advanced nuclear 
energy technologies that can address the key issues facing the long-
term viability and expansion of nuclear power, including: The need to 
reduce and deal satisfactorily with nuclear wastes; improving economic 
performance; further advancing the safety of nuclear power generation; 
and addressing issues associated with the proliferation of fissile 
materials and sensitive nuclear technologies. GNEP would build upon 
these activities. While these activities share a common purpose with 
GNEP, they are outside the scope of the GNEP PEIS.

VII. Proposed Alternatives

    The GNEP PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of 
programmatic and project-specific proposals, as well as reasonable 
alternatives.

A. International Programmatic Alternatives

    The GNEP PEIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of 
two proposed international initiatives and, for each, a No Action 
Alternative. The No Action Alternative would reflect the continuation 
of the status quo.
    The two initiatives are the reliable fuel services program and the 
reactor program. Under the reliable fuel services program, the United 
States would work with partner nations to provide assurances of fuel 
availability for operators of nuclear power reactors in nations that 
refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing

[[Page 335]]

programs. DOE is not proposing any specific action with regard to the 
reliable fuel services program, and the GNEP PEIS will include only a 
general, qualitative analysis of the potential impacts on the United 
States or the global commons that might be involved with such 
activities.
    Under the reactor program, the United States would explore 
promoting proliferation-resistant reactors designed to meet the needs 
of developing economies. Because the designs for these reactors are not 
yet determined and DOE is not proposing any specific action to make the 
reactors available, the GNEP PEIS will include only a general, 
qualitative analysis of the potential impacts on the United States or 
the global commons that might be involved with such activities.

B. Domestic Programmatic Alternatives

    The domestic programmatic alternatives currently envisioned are:
    Programmatic Alternative 1, No Action Alternative: Continue the 
status quo by relying upon a ``once through'' or ``open'' fuel cycle in 
which commercial reactors generate and store SNF until DOE can dispose 
of it in a geologic repository, while continuing the ongoing nuclear 
fuel cycle R&D activities, including those activities associated with 
DOE's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI).
    Programmatic Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Pursue the GNEP closed 
fuel cycle and recycle SNF in a system that includes one or more 
nuclear fuel recycling centers and one or more advanced recycling 
reactors to process SNF generated after their deployment. The PEIS 
analysis would be based upon alternative assumptions regarding the 
amount of SNF processed and the corresponding potential cumulative 
impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions as a result of this 
alternative.
    The closed fuel cycle programmatic alternative will include an 
analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with broad 
implementation of a closed fuel cycle. In addition, DOE is now 
proposing to site, construct, and operate a single set of closed fuel 
cycle facilities.

C. Domestic Project-Specific Alternatives

    The project-specific alternatives are:
    Project Alternative 1, No Action Alternative: Continue relying upon 
a ``once through'' or ``open'' fuel cycle in which commercial reactors 
generate and store SNF until DOE can dispose of it in a geologic 
repository, while continuing the ongoing nuclear fuel cycle R&D 
activities, including those activities associated with DOE's AFCI. A 
nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor, and an 
advanced fuel cycle research facility would not be built.
    Project Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Select site(s) and 
construct and operate the following GNEP facilities: (1) A nuclear fuel 
recycling center, (2) an advanced recycling reactor, and (3) an 
advanced fuel cycle research facility. The GNEP PEIS will assess 
alternative technologies and implementation approaches (e.g., 
engineering or commercial facility scale) that are deemed reasonable, 
based in part on the EOIs discussed in the BACKGROUND section above. 
With respect to a nuclear fuel recycling center, DOE plans to evaluate 
alternative separations technologies for SNF from commercial light-
water reactors and the advanced recycling reactor. For each technology, 
DOE would evaluate potential waste streams and alternative waste forms 
(e.g., borosilicate glass, ceramic).
    For a nuclear fuel recycling center, DOE will analyze several 
alternative SNF throughputs from approximately 100 metric tons of heavy 
metal (MTHM) annually, up to 3,000 MTHM annually. At the low range of 
throughputs, the analyses would correspond to engineering-scale 
capacities consistent with the ANOI. At the high range of throughput, 
the Department expects that a nuclear fuel recycling center would have 
the capacity to recycle up to 2,000-3,000 MTHM annually, which would 
enable a nuclear fuel recycling center to recycle commercial SNF 
inventories at approximately the same rate that such inventories are 
now generated. DOE also will assess appropriate storage alternatives 
for the recycling facilities. DOE will evaluate storage of spent fuel 
prior to recycling, as well as storage of waste generated from 
recycling, at a level related to the projected throughput for a nuclear 
fuel recycling center.
    For an advanced recycling reactor, the baseline technology that 
will be assessed is a sodium-cooled fast reactor. DOE plans to evaluate 
alternative fuel types (e.g., oxide, metal) and power ratings (250--
2,000 MWthermal) for an advanced recycling reactor. DOE also 
will assess appropriate storage alternatives for spent fuel generated 
by an advanced recycling reactor prior to recycling, at a level related 
to the projected size of an advanced recycling reactor.
    DOE envisions that a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced 
recycling reactor could begin operation before DOE has fully completed 
its research and development of the transmutation fuel recycling at an 
advanced fuel cycle research facility. During this interim period, DOE 
may use a nuclear fuel recycling center to separate light-water reactor 
SNF and support the fabrication of fast reactor driver fuel which would 
be consumed in the advanced recycling reactor. This fuel could be made 
of uranium and plutonium, but would likely not contain other 
transuranics. Once DOE completes the R&D required to fabricate fuel 
containing other transuranic elements, it would use a nuclear fuel 
recycling center to fabricate fast reactor fuels containing other 
transuranics, and demonstrate the consumption of transuranic elements 
in an advanced recycling reactor. DOE would then separate the resulting 
spent transmutation fuel and fabricate new transmutation fuel in a 
nuclear fuel recycling center.
    At this time, the following DOE sites are under consideration for 
the location of a nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced 
recycling reactor: Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho Falls, Idaho); 
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, Kentucky); Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant (Piketon, Ohio); Savannah River Site (Aiken, South 
Carolina); Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee); and 
Hanford Site (Richland, Washington). In addition, non-DOE sites in the 
following locations also are under consideration for the location of a 
nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced recycling reactor: 
Atomic City, Idaho; Morris, Illinois; Hobbs, New Mexico; Roswell, New 
Mexico; and Barnwell, South Carolina.
    DOE is proposing that the advanced fuel cycle research facility be 
located at a DOE site. The DOE sites under consideration include: Idaho 
National Laboratory (Idaho Falls, Idaho); Argonne National Laboratory 
(DuPage County, Illinois); Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, 
New Mexico); Savannah River Site (Aiken, South Carolina); Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee); and Hanford Site (Richland, 
Washington).
    To determine reasonable site alternatives for an advanced fuel 
cycle research facility, DOE is conducting a site screening process 
that is considering criteria specific to an advanced fuel cycle 
research facility. Similarly, for a nuclear fuel recycling center and 
an advanced recycling reactor, DOE will use the information received 
through the FOA process, as well as other information, to develop the 
reasonable site alternatives. As a result of these site screening 
processes, some sites may be eliminated from

[[Page 336]]

consideration as reasonable site alternatives. DOE will document the 
results of the site screening processes in the GNEP PEIS Site 
Alternative Screening Report.
    DOE intends that the alternatives and analyses in the GNEP PEIS 
will provide the maximum amount of flexibility in making decisions 
related to GNEP. In any event, however, in order for a site to be 
selected as the preferred site for a facility, DOE will require 
adequate assurances that there are no legal impediments to the siting 
and operation of that facility in that State.
    The GNEP PEIS analysis will address the potential environmental 
impacts of proceeding with a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced 
recycling reactor, and an advanced fuel cycle facility, either 
individually or in any combination. In addition, the PEIS will analyze 
the environmental impacts of not developing transmutation fuel in a 
timely manner.

VIII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis

    DOE has identified the following potential environmental issues for 
analysis in the GNEP PEIS. The list is presented to facilitate comment 
on the scope of the PEIS; it is not intended to be comprehensive or to 
predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential 
impacts. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the public 
scoping process. The current list includes the following issues:
     Potential impacts to the general population and workers 
from radiological and nonradiological releases
     Potential impacts of emissions on air and water quality
     Potential impacts on flora and fauna of a region
     Potential impacts from transportation--in the United 
States and across the global commons
     Potential impacts from treatment, storage, and disposal of 
radioactive materials and waste
     Potential impacts from postulated accidents, as well as 
potential impacts from acts of terrorism or sabotage
     Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on 
low-income and minority populations (environmental justice)
     Potential Native American concerns (cultural and 
archaeological)
     Short-term and long-term land use impacts
     Compliance with applicable Federal and state regulations
     Long-term health and environmental impacts
     Long-term site suitability
     Consumption of natural resources and energy
     Socioeconomic impacts to potentially affected communities
     Potential impacts to cultural resources
     Cumulative impacts
     Pollution prevention and waste management practices
     Potential impacts from decontamination and decommissioning 
(D&D) of facilities

IX. Public Scoping Meetings

    Public scoping meetings will be held to provide the public with an 
opportunity to present comments, ask questions, and discuss the scope 
of the GNEP PEIS with DOE officials. DOE selected the following scoping 
meeting locations based on the responses received to the Financial 
Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement and a preliminary 
identification of DOE sites that could support the proposed DOE-
directed R&D facility.
    As discussed in this NOI, inclusion on the list below does not 
necessarily mean that a particular location will be considered as a 
reasonable site alternative for any GNEP facilities.
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee: DoubleTree Hotel (Salons A and B) 215 South 
Illinois Avenue Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 
6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    North Augusta, South Carolina: North Augusta Community Center 495 
Brookside Avenue North Augusta, South Carolina 29841 Thursday, February 
15, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Joliet, Illinois: Barber & Oberwortmann Horticultural Center 227 
North Gougar Road Joliet, Illinois 60435 Thursday, February 22, 2007, 6 
p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Hobbs, New Mexico: Lea County Event Center 5101 N Lovington-Hobbs 
Hwy Hobbs, New Mexico 88240 Monday, February 26, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Roswell, New Mexico: Best Western Sally Port Inn & Suites 
(Ballroom) 2000 N Main Street Roswell, New Mexico 88201-6450 Tuesday, 
February 27, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico: Hilltop House Best Western (La Vista Room) 
400 Trinity Drive (at Central) Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Thursday, 
March 1, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Paducah, Kentucky: Executive Inn Riverfront (Meeting Room 
International D) One Executive Blvd. Paducah, Kentucky 42001 Tuesday, 
March 6, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Piketon, Ohio: Ohio State University Endeavor Center, Room 160 1862 
Shyville Road Piketon, Ohio 45661 Thursday, March 8, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 
p.m.
    Pasco, Washington: Red Lion Hotel (Gold Room) 2525 N. 20th Avenue 
Pasco, Washington 99301 Tuesday, March 13, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Idaho Falls, Idaho: Red Lion Hotel on the Falls (Yellowstone/Teton 
Rooms) 475 River Parkway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 Thursday, March 15, 
2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Washington, DC: Hotel Washington (Washington Room) 15th and 
Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20004 Monday, March 19, 2007, 1 
p.m.-5 p.m.
    DOE also will publish notices in local media in advance of the 
scheduled public scoping meetings with the dates, times, and locations.

X. NEPA Process

    DOE plans to publish the GNEP Draft PEIS in 2007 and the GNEP Final 
PEIS in 2008. Following the 90-day public scoping period that commences 
with publication of this NOI, DOE will prepare the GNEP Draft PEIS. 
Once approved, DOE will announce the availability of the GNEP Draft 
PEIS in the Federal Register and hold public hearings to solicit 
comments on the GNEP Draft PEIS from Federal, state, and local 
governments, Native American Tribes, industry, other organizations, and 
members of the public. These comments will be considered and addressed 
in the GNEP Final PEIS. DOE will issue one or more Records of Decision 
no sooner than 30 days after publication of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the GNEP Final PEIS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2006.
David R. Hill,
General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E6-22548 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P