[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34610-34613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12185]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide 
Conversion Product Generated From Department of Energy's Inventory of 
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental 
Management (EM) is announcing its decision to implement its Preferred 
Alternative, as documented in the Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion 
Product Generated from DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 
(DOE/EIS-0359-S1; DOE/EIS-0360-S1) (Final DU Oxide SEIS). Specifically, 
DOE has decided to disposition depleted uranium (DU) oxide at one or 
more of the disposal sites evaluated in the Final DU Oxide SEIS: The 
EnergySolutions low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility 
near Clive, Utah; the Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) LLW disposal 
facility near Andrews, Texas; and the Nevada National Security Site 
(NNSS) LLW disposal facility in Nye County, Nevada. DOE will only ship 
to the selected commercial site(s) if the facility is authorized to 
receive DU oxide. DOE considered the potential environmental impacts of 
the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives; each 
alternative's ability to meet DOE's purpose and need; direct, indirect, 
and cumulative impacts of each alternative; and public comments on the 
Final DU Oxide SEIS. This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA 
Implementing Procedures.

ADDRESSES: This ROD, the Final DU Oxide SEIS on which it is based, and 
related information are available at http://www.energy.gov/em/disposition-uranium-oxide-conversion-depleted-uranium-hexafluoride and 
on the DOE NEPA website at: www.energy.gov/nepa. These may also be 
found at Public Reading Rooms and Libraries detailed in the Notice of 
Availability of the Final DU Oxide SEIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
Final DU Oxide SEIS, please contact Ms. Julia Donkin, Office of Waste 
Disposal, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 202-586-
5000. For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact Mr. William 
Ostrum, EM NEPA Compliance Officer, Office of Regulatory Compliance, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, EM-4.31, 
Washington, DC 20585; or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 34611]]

Background

    DOE prepared the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated 
from DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0359-S1; 
DOE/EIS-0360-S1) (Final DU Oxide SEIS) in accordance with the NEPA (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA 
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (10 CFR part 1021).
    On June 18, 2004, the DOE issued environmental impact statements 
for the construction and operation of facilities to convert depleted 
uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) to DU oxide at DOE's Paducah 
Site in Kentucky and Portsmouth Site in Ohio (69 FR 34161). Both the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of 
a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, 
Kentucky Site (DOE/EIS-0359) and the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium 
Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio Site (DOE/EIS-
0360) (collectively, the ``2004 EISs'') were prepared to evaluate and 
implement DOE's DUF6 long-term management program.
    On July 27, 2004, RODs were published for the 2004 Final EISs (69 
FR 44654; 69 FR 44649). In the RODs, DOE decided that it would build 
facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site and convert 
DOE's inventory of DUF6 to DU oxide. DOE did not include 
decisions with respect to specific disposal location(s) for DU oxide, 
but instead informed the public it would make the decisions later, and 
additional supplemental NEPA analysis would be provided for review and 
comment.
    DOE announced its intent to prepare an SEIS on August 26, 2016 (81 
FR 58921). On September 7, 2016, DOE issued a correction to the Federal 
Register notice 81 FR 58921 (81 FR 61674) to correct an error regarding 
the agency that granted the amendment to the WCS facility near Andrews, 
Texas, to allow disposal of depleted uranium. DOE prepared the Draft DU 
Oxide SEIS and distributed it to stakeholders and interested parties. 
Following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of 
Availability of the Draft DU Oxide SEIS (83 FR 67282; December 28, 
2018), DOE invited the public to comment on the Draft DU Oxide SEIS and 
conducted public hearings. In response to requests, DOE extended the 
public comment period an additional 21 days (84 FR 1716). After 
considering comments received on the Draft DU Oxide SEIS, DOE prepared 
a Final DU Oxide SEIS and on April 24, 2020, EPA issued a Notice of 
Availability for that document (85 FR 23022).

Purpose and Need for Agency Action in the Final DU Oxide SEIS

    The purpose and need for this action in the Final DU Oxide SEIS is 
to dispose of DU oxide resulting from converting DOE's DUF6 
inventory to a more stable chemical form and to dispose of other LLW 
and mixed LLW (MLLW) (i.e., empty and heel cylinders, calcium fluoride, 
ancillary LLW and MLLW) generated during the conversion process at the 
DOE DUF6 conversion facilities at the Paducah and Portsmouth 
sites. If a beneficial use cannot be found for the DU oxide, DOE may 
need to dispose of all or a portion of the inventory. This need follows 
directly from the decisions presented in the 2004 RODs for the 2004 
Final EISs, in which DOE deferred any decision related to the 
transportation and disposition of DU oxide at off-site disposal 
facilities.

Proposed Action in the Final DU Oxide SEIS

    DOE's Proposed Action in the Final DU Oxide SEIS is to transport 
and dispose of DU oxide and other LLW and MLLW generated during the 
conversion process at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites to a LLW 
disposal facility. To implement the Proposed Action, DOE identified 
three Action Alternatives. Under the Action Alternatives, if a 
beneficial use cannot be found, DU oxide would be transported to and 
disposed of at one or more of three disposal facilities: (1) The 
EnergySolutions LLW disposal facility near Clive, Utah; (2) the WCS LLW 
disposal facility near Andrews, Texas; and (3) the NNSS LLW disposal 
facility in Nye County, Nevada. Approximately 46,150 cylinders (or 
41,016 bulk bags and 46,150 empty cylinders) of DU oxide would be 
shipped from Paducah and 22,850 cylinders (or 18,142 bulk bags and 
22,850 empty cylinders) of DU oxide would be shipped from the 
Portsmouth site over the life of the project. Under the No Action 
Alternative, the DU oxide cylinders would remain in storage at the 
Paducah and Portsmouth sites and would not be transported to a disposal 
facility. As decided in the RODs for the 2004 EISs, excess empty and 
heel cylinders, calcium fluoride and ancillary LLW and MLLW would be 
transported and disposed of under all the evaluated alternatives, 
including the No Action Alternative.
    Additionally, under the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-
11), DOE is required to accept LLW and MLLW from a uranium enrichment 
facility licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If 
requested by the generator, DOE must accept the DU once it is 
determined to be LLW. Under the USEC Privatization Act, the licensee 
must reimburse DOE for its costs to disposition the LLW and MLLW 
(including DU). At the present time, there are no plans or proposals 
for DOE to convert additional DUF6 and dispose of additional 
DU oxide cylinders, beyond the current inventory for which it has 
responsibility. In anticipation of the potential future receipt of 
commercial DUF6, DOE has estimated the impacts from 
management of 150,000 metric tons (165,000 tons; approximately 12,500 
cylinders) of commercial DUF6 as a reasonably foreseeable 
future action for cumulative impacts that would take place after the 
management of DOE DU oxide.

Alternatives Analyzed in the Final DU Oxide SEIS

    No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, DU oxide 
containers would not be transported for disposal. Instead, DU oxide 
containers would be stored indefinitely at the Paducah and Portsmouth 
sites where the DU oxide is produced. Storage was analyzed for a 100 
year period, although storage could extend beyond that 100 year period. 
Annual impacts beyond 100 years would be similar to those expected 
during the 100-year period of analysis.
    Action Alternatives. Under the Action Alternatives, if a beneficial 
use cannot be found, DU oxide would be transported and disposed of at 
one or more of the disposal facilities identified as EnergySolutions, 
WCS, and NNSS. The Final DU Oxide SEIS conservatively assumes that 
under the Action Alternatives, DU oxide in cylinders and drums would be 
stored for up to 76 years at the Paducah site and 47 years at the 
Portsmouth site. Bulk bags are not appropriate for long-term storage, 
and therefore, would not be used for long-term storage of DU oxide 
under the No Action Alternative. All activities at the Paducah and 
Portsmouth sites would remain the same under these Action Alternatives, 
except for the destination of the DU oxide container shipments. The 
containers in which the DU oxide is placed (cylinders, bulk bags, or 
drums) would be used as the transportation package and disposal 
container, and would be shipped in compliance with U.S. Department of

[[Page 34612]]

Transportation requirements and meet disposal site waste acceptance 
criteria. Damaged DU oxide containers would be repaired, replaced, or 
placed in an overpack enclosure that would provide protection to safely 
handle, transport and dispose of the container.
    Preferred Alternative. As noted in the Final DU Oxide SEIS, DOE's 
Preferred Alternative is to dispose of DU oxide at one or more of the 
disposal sites (EnergySolutions, WCS, and/or NNSS), understanding that 
any disposal location(s) must have a current license or authorization 
to dispose of DU oxide at the time shipping to a location is initiated. 
While DOE's Preferred Alternative as announced in the Final DU Oxide 
SEIS, is one or a combination of the Action Alternatives over the No 
Action Alternative, DOE does not have a preference among the Action 
Alternatives. Any decision related to the Proposed Action may also 
depend on competitive procurement practices necessary to contract for 
the transportation and disposal of the DU oxide.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    The impact areas analyzed in the Final DU Oxide SEIS include: Site 
infrastructure; climate, air quality, and noise; geology and soils; 
water resources; biotic resources; public and occupational health and 
safety (during normal operations, accidents, and transportation); 
socioeconomics; waste management; land use and aesthetics; cultural 
resources; and environmental justice. DOE evaluated potential 
environmental impacts at a level of detail commensurate with their 
importance. The Final DU Oxide SEIS does not reevaluate the impacts of 
storage of DUF6 cylinders, conversion of DUF6 to 
DU oxide, or the management and disposition of hydrogen fluoride. These 
activities were evaluated in the 2004 EISs and decisions were announced 
in ROD 69 FR 44654 and ROD 69 FR 44649.
    Potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Action 
Alternative are discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final DU Oxide SEIS. 
Based on the analysis in the Final DU Oxide SEIS, annual impacts on 
site infrastructure; air quality, climate change, and noise; geology 
and soils; water resources; biotic resources; socioeconomics; land use 
and aesthetics; cultural resources; and environmental justice would be 
negligible to minor and similar for the No Action Alternative and 
Action Alternatives. Annual potential impacts to public and 
occupational health and safety (during normal operations and accidents) 
resulting from storage of DU oxide at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites 
would be similar for the No Action Alternative and Action Alternatives. 
However, under the Action Alternatives, DU oxide containers would be 
stored for up to 76 years at Paducah and up to 47 years at the 
Portsmouth site, resulting in lower total potential storage impacts 
than the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative assumed for 
analytical purposes that containers would be stored for 100 years.
    Annual population dose from hypothetical cylinder breaches at the 
Paducah site was estimated to be 0.01 person-rem and at the Portsmouth 
site 0.002 person-rem. Thus, the No Action Alternative would result in 
zero latent cancer fatalities (LCF) among the exposed population, but 
relatively higher total exposure and calculated LCFs (6 x 
10-\4\ LCF at Paducah and 1 x 10-\4\ LCF at the 
Portsmouth site) due to a longer storage period than that of the Action 
Alternatives (5 x 10-\4\ LCF at the Paducah site and 6 x 
10-\5\ LCF at the Portsmouth site). Similarly, the maximally 
exposed individual member of the public, and a cylinder yard worker, 
would receive the same annual dose from storage of cylinders under the 
No Action or Action Alternatives, but a lower total dose from the 
Action Alternatives due to the reduced storage time.
    Additional worker exposure would result from all Action 
Alternatives from the handling of the DU oxide drums and cylinders (or 
bulk bags and empty cylinders) and empty and heel cylinders during 
loading operations at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites in preparation 
for shipment to the waste disposal site. Worker exposure from loading 
containers would result in zero LCFs for all Action Alternatives and 
options. All potential worker and public doses would be well below 
regulatory limits for radiation exposure.
    Waste disposal volumes would not be expected to exceed the 
capacities of the EnergySolutions, WCS, or NNSS disposal facilities. 
For purposes of analysis and to bound the impacts under each Action 
Alternative, it was assumed that all wastes would be disposed of at 
each disposal site (i.e., EnergySolutions, WCS, or NNSS). In practice, 
waste could be disposed of at more than one disposal site.
    While all three Action Alternatives would result in lower overall 
potential public and occupational health impacts at the Portsmouth and 
Paducah sites compared to the No Action Alternative, the Action 
Alternatives would result in increased impacts from the handling and 
transportation of DU oxide to each disposal location. The Final DU 
Oxide SEIS analyzed transportation options for each Action Alternative, 
including transportation by truck or train and in cylinders or bulk 
bags. None of the Action Alternatives or shipment options resulted in 
an expected radiologic fatality (i.e., a calculated LCF of one or 
greater) among the potentially exposed population or crew. Calculated 
population LCFs for the Action Alternatives ranged from 0.4 population 
LCFs expected from truck transportation of DU oxide in cylinders to 
EnergySolutions or NNSS to 0.06 from train transportation of bulk bags 
to EnergySolutions or WCS. Calculated population LCFs were higher for 
the NNSS alternative because of the greater distance to the disposal 
site. Calculated population LCFs were higher for truck than train 
transportation, and higher for transportation in cylinders than in bulk 
bags. This is primarily due to the difference in total mileage 
necessary for each option and the potentially exposed populations along 
truck and rail routes. Calculated crew LCFs for the Action Alternatives 
ranged from 0.2 crew LCFs for transportation to NNSS in cylinders via 
truck, to 0.04 crew LCFs for transportation to WCS in bulk bags via 
train. Calculated crew LCFs were higher for NNSS than for the other 
Action Alternatives because of the greater distance to the disposal 
site. Calculated crew LCFs were higher for truck than train 
transportation, and higher for transportation in cylinders than in bulk 
bags. This is primarily due to the difference in total mileage 
necessary for each option and the potentially exposed crew along truck 
and rail routes.
    All the Action Alternatives could result in non-radiologic 
fatalities as a result of traffic accidents, ranging from one expected 
traffic fatality for train transportation of bulk bags to any of the 
disposal sites to 11 traffic fatalities for truck transport of 
cylinders to EnergySolutions or NNSS. Calculated traffic fatalities 
were similar across the Action Alternatives for a given transportation 
mode and container option. Calculated traffic fatalities were higher 
for truck transportation than train, and higher for transportation in 
cylinders than in bulk bags. This is primarily due to the difference in 
total mileage necessary for each option.
    The No Action Alternative would result in lower potential LCFs from 
transportation to crew and the population, and lower potential traffic 
fatalities because it would not result in the transportation of DU 
oxide to a disposal site during the period of analysis. However, 
because the No Action Alternative defers a disposition decision, it is 
likely that at some future

[[Page 34613]]

time the containers of DU oxide may be transported off site for 
disposal or some undetermined future use. The impacts of transportation 
and disposal of DU oxide would likely be similar to the potential 
impacts described for the Action Alternatives.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The No Action Alternative would be the Environmentally Preferable 
Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, transportation and 
disposal would not occur, and the DU oxide containers would remain in 
storage at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites, resulting in less impacts 
from container handling and transportation than under the Action 
Alternatives. However, the No Action Alternative defers a disposition 
decision for the DU oxide containers. Because the No Action Alternative 
defers a disposition decision, it is likely that at some future time 
the containers of DU oxide would be transported off-site for disposal 
or some undetermined future use. The impacts of transportation and 
disposal of DU oxide would likely be similar to the potential impacts 
described for the Action Alternatives.

Comments Received on Draft DU Oxide SEIS

    DOE received 24 comment documents which contained 115 comments. All 
comments were considered in preparing the Final DU Oxide SEIS. DOE did 
not receive any comments after the close of the comment period. Topics 
of comments received during the public comment period on the Draft DU 
Oxide SEIS are presented in Appendix E, of the Final DU Oxide SEIS. DOE 
has considered comments received on the Draft DU Oxide SEIS and finds 
that they do not present ``significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action 
or its impacts'' within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and 10 CFR 
1021.314(a) and therefore do not require preparation of a supplement 
analysis or a supplemental EIS.

Decision

    DOE has decided to implement its Preferred Alternative as described 
in the Final DU Oxide SEIS. DOE's Preferred Alternative is to dispose 
of DU oxide, if a beneficial use cannot be found, at one or more of the 
disposal sites: (1) The EnergySolutions LLW disposal facility near 
Clive, Utah; (2) the WCS LLW disposal facility near Andrews, Texas; and 
(3) the NNSS LLW disposal facility in Nye County, Nevada. DOE will only 
ship to the selected commercial site(s) if the facility is authorized 
to receive DU oxide. In making its decision, DOE considered several 
factors especially the potential environmental impacts of the No Action 
Alternative and the Action Alternatives; each alternative's ability to 
meet DOE's purpose and need; direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 
of each alternative; and public comments on the Final DU Oxide SEIS. 
Based on the analysis in the Final DU Oxide SEIS, all disposal 
locations identified and analyzed are suitable for transportation and 
disposal of DU oxide, if a beneficial use cannot be found. Impacts to 
human health and the human environment would be similar for all three 
sites. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need 
for agency action and would only defer a final decision on the ultimate 
disposition of the DU oxide. In addition, under the No Action 
Alternative, it is likely that at some future time the containers of DU 
oxide would be transported off-site for disposal or some undetermined 
future use, if a use is identified. DOE acknowledges additional 
commercial DUF6 was analyzed in the DU Oxide SEIS as a 
reasonably foreseeable future action contributing to cumulative 
impacts, which is not part of this decision.

Mitigation

    The Proposed Action would include all practical means to avoid or 
minimize environmental harm, including following standard practices 
such as Best Management Practices for minimizing impacts on 
environmental resources. The alternatives evaluated are not expected to 
produce impacts that would require mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigation 
Action Plan is not required.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy (DOE) was signed on June 
1, 2020, by William I. White, Senior Advisor for Environmental 
Management to the Under Secretary for Science, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-12185 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P