Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level

Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a geologic

repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, for the disposal of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, in accordance with

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA) (42 U.S.C.

Sec. 10101 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental

Quality regulations that implement the procedural provisions of NEPA

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE procedures for implementing NEPA

(10 CFR Part 1021). DOE invites Federal, State, and local agencies,

Native American tribal organizations, and other interested parties to

participate in determining the scope and content of the EIS.

The NWPA directs DOE to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca

Mountain site in southern Nevada as a potential site for a geologic

repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste. If the Secretary of Energy determines that the Yucca

Mountain site is suitable, the Secretary may then recommend that the

President approve the site for development of a repository. Under the

NWPA, any such recommendation shall be considered a major Federal

action and must be accompanied by a final environmental impact

statement. Accordingly, DOE is preparing this EIS in conjunction with

any potential DOE recommendation regarding the development of a

repository at Yucca Mountain.

The NWPA provides that the environmental impact statement need not

consider the need for a repository, the alternatives to geologic

disposal, or alternative sites to the Yucca Mountain site. Therefore,

this environmental impact statement will evaluate a proposal to

construct, operate, and eventually close a repository at Yucca

Mountain. The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives for

implementing such a proposal in accordance with the NWPA.

The NWPA also provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

shall, to the extent practicable, adopt DOE's EIS in connection with

any subsequent construction authorization and license that the

Commission issues to DOE for a repository. The EIS process is scheduled

to be completed in September 2000 and is separate from the licensing

process that would be initiated by any submission of a license

application by DOE to the Commission in June 2001.

The EIS will be prepared over a five-year period in conjunction

with DOE's separate but parallel site suitability evaluation and

potential license application. DOE is beginning the EIS process early

to ensure that the appropriate data gathering and tests are performed

to adequately assess potential environmental impacts, and to allow the

public sufficient time to consider this complex program and to provide

input.

DATES: DOE invites and encourages comments and suggestions on the scope

of the EIS to ensure that all relevant environmental issues and

reasonable alternatives are addressed. Public scoping meetings are

discussed below in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. DOE will

carefully consider all comments and suggestions received during the

120-day public scoping period that ends on December 5, 1995. Comments

and suggestions received after the close of the public scoping period

will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this EIS, requests to pre-

register to speak at any of the public scoping meetings, questions

concerning the proposed action and EIS, or requests for additional

information on the EIS, should be directed to: Wendy R. Dixon, EIS

Project Manager, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, Office of

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 101

Convention Center Drive Suite P-110, MS 010, Las Vegas, NV 89109,

Telephone: 1-800-967-3477, Facsimile: 1-800-967-0739.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about this EIS,

please contact Wendy R. Dixon at the address, above. For information on

DOE's NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director,

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

Telephone: 1-202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

All interested persons, including Federal agencies, Native American

tribal organizations, State and local government agencies, public

interest groups, transportation interests, industry and utility

organizations, regulators, and the general public are encouraged to

take part in the EIS scoping process. Because of the anticipated public

interest and national scope of the program, DOE will provide several

methods for people to express their views and provide comments, request

additional information and copies of the EIS, or pre-register to speak

at the scoping meetings. Comments submitted by any of these means will

become part of the official record for scoping.

[[Page 40165]]

Written Comments and Toll-Free Facsimile Number

Written comments and requests may be mailed or sent by facsimile to

Wendy R. Dixon at the address or toll-free facsimile number listed

above

Toll-Free Telephone Line

All interested parties are invited to record their comments or

request information on the scope of the EIS by calling a toll-free

telephone number, 1-800-967-3477. Throughout the public scoping period,

this number will be staffed between the hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. During other hours, calls

will be forwarded to an answering machine.

Electronic Mail

Comments and information requests may be submitted by electronic

mail to the following Internet electronic mail address: ymp_

[email protected].

Internet

The public may access the Notice of Intent, request information,

and provide comments via the World Wide Web at the following Uniform

Resource Locator address: http://www.ymp.gov, under the listing

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Yucca Mountain Project Home

Page. When available, the EIS and other selected technical documents

may also be accessed at this Uniform Resource Locator address.

Scoping Meetings

DOE will hold 15 public scoping meetings in cities throughout the

United States to provide and discuss information and to receive

comments on the scope of this EIS. Table 1 at the end of this Notice

lists the specific locations, dates, and times for each scoping

meeting. Persons wishing to speak at any of these meetings can pre-

register up to two days before the meeting by: (1) Calling the toll-

free telephone number 1-800-967-3477, (2) writing to Wendy R. Dixon at

the address listed above, or (3) sending their request to pre-register

by facsimile or electronic mail, as identified above.

Persons wishing to speak who have not registered in advance can

register at each meeting. These ``walk-in registrants'' will be

accommodated to the extent practicable, following those persons who

have pre-registered. Only one spokesperson per organization, group, or

agency may present comments on its behalf. Oral statements will be

limited to ten minutes; however, written comments can be of any length

and submitted any time during the scoping period.

Each of the 15 public scoping meetings will have either a morning

or afternoon session, and an evening session. Morning sessions will

begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12:30 p.m., and afternoon sessions will

begin at 12:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. Evening sessions will begin at

6:00 p.m. and end about 10:00 p.m. If additional time is required in

order to accommodate all speakers wishing to present oral comments, the

meeting facilitator will consult with the audience and DOE staff and

determine whether to continue the meeting past the scheduled ending

time. A court reporter will record all portions of the scoping

meetings, and transcripts will be prepared and made a part of the

official record of the scoping process.

Each session will have an introductory presentation, a question and

answer period, and a public comment segment. A facilitator will begin

the introductory presentation of each session by explaining the scoping

meeting format. DOE staff will provide a brief description (lasting

approximately 30-45 minutes) of the repository program, the EIS, and

the scoping process. The question and answer period (lasting

approximately 45 minutes) will provide members of the public an

opportunity to ask questions and discuss various aspects of the

repository and to obtain additional information that may be useful in

formulating opinions and comments. Each member of the public will be

allowed five minutes to ask questions. The meeting facilitator may

allow extra time for additional questions depending on the number of

people present who have indicated their desire to participate during

the question and answer period. The meeting facilitator will begin the

public comment portion of the scoping meeting after the question and

answer period. At this time, members of the public will provide their

comments on the scope of the EIS.

Each public scoping meeting also will have a separate information

room containing exhibits and informational handouts about the

repository program and the EIS. DOE and contractor staff will be

available throughout the day to answer questions in an informal

setting. A table with blank comment cards will also be available for

people to privately prepare and submit written comments on the scope of

the EIS. These comment cards will be included in the formal record of

each scoping meeting.

Subsequent Document Preparation

Results of scoping, including the transcripts from the question and

answer periods and public comment segments, and all other oral and

written comments received by DOE, will be summarized in the EIS

Implementation Plan. This Plan will guide the preparation of the EIS,

and will describe the planned scope and content of the EIS, record the

results of the scoping process, and contain EIS activity schedules. As

a ``living document,'' the Implementation Plan may be amended as needed

to incorporate changes in schedules, alternatives, or EIS content.

The Implementation Plan will be available to the public for

information purposes as soon as possible after the close of the public

scoping process, and before issuing the Draft EIS. The Implementation

Plan and the transcripts from the public scoping meetings will be

available for inspection at major DOE facilities and public reading

rooms in Nevada and across the country, as identified at the end of

this Notice. Copies of the Implementation Plan, as well as the Draft

and Final EIS and related comments, will be provided to anyone

requesting copies of these documents.

Availability of the Draft EIS for public review, and the locations

and times of public hearings on the Draft EIS, will be announced in the

Federal Register and through local media (approximately in the Fall of

1998). After considering all public comments received on the Draft EIS,

DOE will prepare and issue a Final EIS, followed thereafter by a Record

of Decision (approximately in the Fall of 2000).

Background

Spent nuclear fuel 1 has been and is being generated and

stored in the United States as part of commercial power generation. The

accumulation of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactor

operations in the United States probably will continue for several

decades. There are 109 operating commercial facilities at 75 sites in

34 States where spent nuclear fuel is stored. By the year 2035, total

spent nuclear fuel from power reactors will amount to about 85,000

metric tons of heavy metal (i.e., metric tons of heavy metal, typically

uranium, without materials such as cladding, alloy and structural

materials) (MTHM).

\1\ Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a

nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of

which have not been separated by reprocessing.

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

Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 2,

generated from

[[Page 40166]]

DOE's national atomic energy defense and research activities, are

primarily located at DOE's Hanford Reservation, the Savannah River

Site, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Other spent

nuclear fuel, either currently in DOE possession or which may come

under DOE possession, includes material from foreign research reactors,

approximately 29 domestic university reactors, 5 non-DOE research

reactors, and 4 ``special case'' reactors at non-DOE locations.

\2\ High-level radioactive waste is the highly radioactive

material resulting from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. It

includes liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any

solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission

products in sufficient concentrations and other highly radioactive

material that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consistent with

existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.

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

In 1982, in response to the continued accumulation of spent nuclear

fuel and high-level radioactive waste, Congress passed the NWPA. The

purpose of the NWPA was to establish geologic repositories that would

provide reasonable assurance that the public and the environment would

be adequately protected from the hazards posed by these materials. In

1987, Congress amended the NWPA and directed DOE to evaluate the

suitability of only the Yucca Mountain site in southern Nevada as a

potential site for the first repository. If, based on this evaluation,

the Secretary of Energy determines that the Yucca Mountain site is

suitable, the Secretary may then recommend that the President approve

the site for development of a repository.

Under the NWPA, DOE is prohibited from emplacing more than 70,000

MTHM of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the

first repository until such time as a second repository is in

operation. The current planning basis calls for 63,000 MTHM of

commercial spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of in the first

repository, proposed to be located at the Yucca Mountain site. The

planning basis also calls for the disposal of 7,000 MTHM equivalent of

DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in this

first repository.

Proposed Action

If the site were found to be suitable, the proposed action would be

to construct, operate, and eventually close a repository at Yucca

Mountain for the geologic disposal of up to 70,000 MTHM of commercial

and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed

of in the repository in a subsurface configuration that would ensure

its long-term isolation from the human environment. Repository

construction, operation, and closure would be governed by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission's licensing process.

Construction would begin if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

authorizes construction of the repository. Surface facilities would be

designed and constructed to receive, and prepare for disposal, spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that would arrive in

transportation casks by highway and by rail. Capability to treat or

package the secondary wastes generated during disposal operations would

also be provided. Subsurface facilities would be designed and

constructed for emplacement of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste in disposal drifts. Subsurface facilities would

primarily include access ramps, ventilation systems, disposal drifts,

and equipment alcoves.

Disposal operations would begin once the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission issues a license allowing receipt of spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste. Disposal operations would be expected to

last up to 40 years, depending on shipment schedules. Disposal drifts

would continue to be constructed during this time period as necessary.

Spent nuclear fuel assemblies,3 and canisters containing

assemblies 4 or vitrified (i.e., solidified) high-level

radioactive waste 5 would be shipped to the repository in

transportation casks that meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for shipping by truck or

rail 6. The assemblies would be removed from the transportation

casks, which would be placed back into service after decontamination

and maintenance or after necessary repairs were completed. Canisters

and assemblies would be transferred to a ``hot'' cell--a room where

remotely-controlled equipment would be used to place the material in

disposal containers. These ``waste packages'' (i.e., assemblies and

canisters in disposal containers) would be transported underground in a

transportation vehicle having radiation shielding for worker

protection. Monitoring equipment, which would either be placed in

selected drifts or would be mobile remote-sensing devices, would

monitor performance of waste packages and aspects of the local

repository geology.

\3\ A fuel assembly is made up of fuel elements held together by

plates and separated by spacers attached to the fuel cladding.

\4\ Under one scenario, spent nuclear fuel assemblies would be

sealed in a multi-purpose canister that would then be inserted into

separate casks/containers for storage, transportation, and disposal.

Other canisters are available and include single-purpose systems,

which require transferring of individual assemblies from one cask/

container to another for storage, transport, and disposal. Another

alternative would be dual-purpose systems which require storing and

transporting individual assemblies in one cask and disposing of them

in another container.

\5\ Vitrified high-level radioactive waste would be sealed in

canisters suitable for transport in a truck or train cask.

\6\ Barges may also be used for intermodal shipments of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from generator sites

to nearby locations for transfer to truck and rail.

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

The closure/post-closure period would begin after the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission amends the license to authorize permanent

closure. Underground equipment would be removed, repository openings

would be backfilled and sealed, and the surface facilities would be

decontaminated, decommissioned, and dismantled or converted to other

uses. Institutional controls, such as permanent markers and monuments,

would be designed and constructed to last thousands of years and

discourage human activities that could compromise the waste isolation

capabilities of the repository.

The disposal and closure/post-closure activities would be designed

and implemented so that the combination of engineered (i.e., waste

package and any backfill) and natural (geologic system) barriers would

isolate the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The

combination of barriers would meet a standard to be specified by the

Environmental Protection Agency, which has been entrusted to develop a

radiation release standard pursuant to Section 801 of the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 10141 note); individual barriers would

perform according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements,

including its performance objectives at 10 CFR 60.113. The engineered

barrier must provide substantially complete containment of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for between 300 and 1,000

years by using corrosion resistant materials in the waste package.

Beyond 1,000 years, continued isolation would be assisted by

features that would limit the rate at which radioactive components of

the waste would be released. The rate of release would be substantially

affected by natural conditions, the heat generation rate of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (i.e., thermal load), and

its rate of heat dissipation. First, different thermal loads would

affect directly the internal and external waste package temperatures,

thereby affecting the corrosion rate and integrity of the waste

package. Second, the heat would affect the geochemistry, hydrology, and

mechanical stability of the disposal drifts, which in turn would

influence the flow of groundwater and the

[[Page 40167]]

transport of radionuclides from the engineered and natural barrier

systems to the environment. Therefore, the long-term performance of the

repository would be managed by appropriately spacing the waste packages

within disposal drifts and the distances between disposal drifts, and

by selectively placing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste packages to account for their individual heat generation rates.

Alternatives

DOE has preliminarily identified for analysis in the EIS a full

range of reasonable implementation alternatives for the construction,

operation, and closure/post-closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

These implementation alternatives are based on thermal load objectives

and include High Thermal Load, Intermediate Thermal Load, and Low

Thermal Load alternatives.

Under each implementation alternative, DOE will evaluate different

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste packaging and

transportation options. DOE anticipates that these options would

produce the broadest range of potential configurations for both surface

facilities and possible operational and disposal conditions at the

repository. Evaluation of these options will identify the full range of

reasonably foreseeable impacts to human health and the environment

associated with each implementation alternative.

High Thermal Load Alternative

Under the High Thermal Load implementation alternative, spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed in an

underground configuration that would generate the upper range of

repository temperatures while meeting performance objectives to isolate

the material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency

standards and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this

alternative, the emplacement density would likely be greater than 80

MTHM per acre. This alternative would represent the highest repository

thermal loading based on available information and expected test

results.

Intermediate Thermal Load Alternative

Under the Intermediate Thermal Load implementation alternative,

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed

in an underground configuration that would generate an intermediate

range of repository temperatures (compared to the High and Low Thermal

Load alternatives) while meeting performance objectives to isolate the

material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency standards

and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this alternative,

the disposal density would likely range between 40 to 80 MTHM per acre.

Low Thermal Load Alternative

Under the Low Thermal Load implementation alternative, spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be disposed in an

underground configuration that would provide the lowest potential

repository thermal loading (based on available information and expected

test results) while meeting performance objectives to isolate the

material in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency standards

and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Under this alternative,

the disposal density would likely be less than 40 MTHM per acre.

Packaging Options

As part of each implementation alternative, two packaging options

would be evaluated. Under Option 1, spent nuclear fuel assemblies would

be packaged and sealed in multi-purpose canisters at the generator

sites prior to being transported to the repository in Nuclear

Regulatory Commission-certified casks. High-level radioactive waste

also would be packaged and sealed in canisters prior to shipment in

similar casks. Under Option 2, spent nuclear fuel assemblies (without

canisters) and sealed canisters of high-level radioactive waste would

be transported to the repository in Nuclear Regulatory Commission-

certified casks. Under both options, assemblies and canisters with

intact seals would be removed from the casks and placed in disposal

containers at the repository.

DOE recognizes that it is likely that a mix of spent nuclear fuel

assemblies and canisters (and canister systems) of spent nuclear fuel

and vitrified high-level radioactive waste would arrive at the

repository during disposal operations. However, since the specific mix

is speculative, the above packaging options were chosen to produce the

broadest range of potential configurations for both surface facilities

and possible operational and disposal conditions at the repository.

These options were also selected to reflect the potential range of

exposures to workers and the public at the generator sites, along

transportation routes, and at the repository from the packaging,

transport, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste.

Transportation

As part of each implementation alternative, two national

transportation options and three regional (i.e., within the State of

Nevada) transportation options would be evaluated. These options would

be expected to result in the broadest range of operating conditions

relevant to potential impacts to human health and the environment.

In a national context, the first option would consist of shipping

all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by truck, from

the generator site to the repository.

The second national option would consist of shipment by rail,

except from those generator sites (as many as 19) that may not have

existing capabilities to load and ship rail casks. For such sites, the

spent nuclear fuel would be transported by truck to the repository, or

to a facility near the nuclear power plant where it would be

transferred to rail cars for shipment to the repository.

In a regional context, there are three transportation options: two

of these options apply to shipments that would arrive in Nevada by

rail, and the third applies to shipments that would arrive in Nevada by

legal weight truck.7

\7\ A legal weight truck consists of a tractor, semi-trailer,

and loaded cask, with a maximum gross weight of 80,000 pounds.

The first regional transportation option would consist of several

rail corridors to the repository. The rail corridor option would

involve identifying and applying siting criteria, based on engineering

considerations (e.g., topography and soils), potential land use

restrictions (e.g., wilderness areas and existing conflicting uses),

and any other factors identified from the scoping process.

The second regional transportation option would involve the use of

heavy haul truck 8 routes to the repository. The heavy haul option

would include the construction and use of an intermodal transfer

facility to receive shipments that would arrive in Nevada by rail; the

intermodal transfer facility would be located at the beginning of the

heavy haul route. The heavy haul option would include any need to

improve the local transportation infrastructure.

\8\ A heavy haul truck consists of a tractor, semi-trailer, and

loaded cask, with a gross weight in excess of 129,000 pounds.

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

The third regional transportation option would involve legal weight

truck shipments directly to the repository. Under this option, a

transfer facility would not be required.

No Action

The No Action alternative would evaluate termination of site

[[Page 40168]]

characterization activities at Yucca Mountain and the continued

accumulation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at

commercial storage sites and DOE facilities. Spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste would continue to be managed for the

foreseeable future at existing commercial storage sites and DOE

facilities located in 34 States. The No Action alternative, although

contrary to the Congressional desire to provide a permanent solution

for isolation of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste, provides a baseline against which the implementation

alternatives can be compared.

At the Yucca Mountain site, the surface facilities, excavation

equipment, and other support facilities would be dismantled and removed

for reuse or recycling, or would be disposed of in solid waste

landfills. Disturbed surface areas would be reclaimed and excavated

openings to the subsurface would be sealed and backfilled.

At commercial reactors, spent nuclear fuel would continue to be

generated and stored in either water pools or in canisters, until

storage space at individual reactors becomes inadequate, at which time

reactor operations would cease. DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-

level radioactive waste would continue to be managed at three primary

sites--the Hanford Reservation, Savannah River Site, and the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory.

Environmental Issues To Be Examined in the EIS

This EIS will examine the site-specific environmental impacts from

construction, operation, and eventual closure of a repository for spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca

Mountain, Nevada. Transportation-related impacts of the alternatives

will also be analyzed. Through internal discussion and outreach

programs with the public, DOE is aware of many environmental issues

related to the construction, operation, and closure/post-closure phases

of such a repository. The issues identified here are intended to

facilitate public scoping. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive

or to predetermine the scope of the EIS, but should be used as a

starting point from which the public can help DOE define the scope of

the EIS.

Radiological and non-radiological releases. The potential

effects to the public and on-site workers from radiological and

nonradiological releases;

Public and Worker Safety and Health. Potential health and

safety impacts (e.g., injuries) to on-site workers during the

unloading, temporary surface storage, and underground emplacement of

waste packages at Yucca Mountain;

Transportation. The potential impacts associated with

national and regional shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste from reactor sites and DOE facilities to the Yucca

Mountain site will be assessed. Regional transportation issues include:

(a) technical feasibility, (b) socioeconomic impacts, (c) land use and

access impacts, and (d) impacts of constructing and operating a rail

spur, a heavy haul route, and/or a transfer facility;

Accidents. The potential impacts from reasonably

foreseeable accidents, including any accidents with low probability but

high potential consequences;

Criticality. The likelihood that a self-sustaining nuclear

chain reaction could occur and its potential consequences;

Waste Isolation. Potential impacts associated with the

long-term performance of the repository;

Socioeconomic Conditions. Potential regional (i.e., in

Nevada) socioeconomic impacts to the surrounding communities, including

impacts on employment, tax base, and public services;

Environmental Justice. Potential for disproportionately

high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations;

Pollution Prevention. Appropriate and innovative pollution

prevention, waste minimization, and energy and water use reduction

technologies to eliminate or significantly reduce use of energy, water,

hazardous substances, and to minimize environmental impacts;

Soil, Water, and Air Resources. Potential impacts to soil,

water quality, and air quality;

Biological Resources. Potential impacts to plants,

animals, and habitat, including impacts to wetlands, and threatened and

endangered species;

Cultural Resources. Potential impacts to archaeological/

historical sites, Native American resources, and other cultural

resources;

Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and

implementing alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions;

Potential irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

resources.

Under the No Action alternative, potential environmental effects

associated with the shutdown of site characterization activities at

Yucca Mountain will be estimated. Potential environmental effects from

the continued accumulation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste at commercial reactors and DOE sites will be

addressed by summarizing previous relevant environmental analyses and

by performing new analyses of representative sites, as appropriate. At

the Yucca Mountain site, the potential environmental consequences from

the reclamation of disturbed surface areas, and the sealing of

excavated openings following the dismantlement and removal of

facilities and equipment, will be quantified. These analyses would be

similar in level of detail to the analyses of the implementing

alternatives. At the commercial reactor and DOE sites, the potential

environmental consequences will be addressed in terms of risk to the

environment and the public from long-term management of spent nuclear

fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In addition, the loss of storage

capacity, the need for additional capacity, and their potential

consequences to continued reactor operations, will be described.

Consultations With Other Agencies

The NWPA requires DOE to solicit comments on the EIS from the

Department of the Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 10134(a)(1)(D)). DOE also intends to consult with the

Departments of the Navy and Air Force and will solicit comments from

other agencies, the State of Nevada, affected units of local

government, and Native American tribal organizations, regarding the

environmental issues to be addressed by the EIS.

Relationship to Other DOE NEPA Reviews

DOE is preparing or has completed other NEPA documents that may be

relevant to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program

and this EIS. If appropriate, this EIS will incorporate by reference

and update information taken from these other NEPA documents. These

documents (described below) are available for inspection by the public

at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room (1E-190), Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. and will be

made available in Nevada at locations to be announced at the public

scoping meetings. These documents include the following:

Environmental Assessment, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada

Research and

[[Page 40169]]

Development Area, Nevada, DOE/RW-0073, 1986.

Environmental Assessment for a Monitored Retrievable

Storage Facility, DOE/RW-0035, 1986.

Environmental Impact Statement for a Multi-Purpose

Canister System for the Management of Civilian and Naval Spent Nuclear

Fuel. The Notice of Intent was published on October 24, 1994 (59 FR

53442). The scoping process for this EIS has been completed and an

Implementation Plan is being prepared. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be

issued for public review in late 1995.

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement [Final EIS issued

April 1995 (DOE/EIS-0203-F); Record of Decision (60 FR 28680-96, June

1, 1995)]. This EIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences

of managing DOE's inventory of spent nuclear fuel over the next 40

years. The Nevada Test Site was considered but was not selected as a

DOE spent nuclear fuel management site.

Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (formerly Environmental Management Programmatic EIS). A

revised Notice of Intent was published January 24, 1995 (60 FR 4607).

This Programmatic EIS will address impacts of potential DOE waste

management actions for the treatment, storage, and disposal of waste.

The Draft EIS is scheduled to be issued for public review in September

1995.

Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Nuclear

Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor

Spent Nuclear Fuel [Notice of Intent published October 21, 1993 (58 FR

54336)]. The draft EIS was issued for public review in March 1995 (DOE/

EIS-0218D). This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of

the proposed policy's implementation. Under the proposed policy, the

United States could accept up to 22,700 foreign research reactor spent

nuclear fuel elements over a 10-15 year period.

Environmental Impact Statement on the Transfer and

Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium (formerly part of the

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Long-Term Storage and

Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials). The Notice of Intent

was issued April 5, 1995 (60 FR 17344). This EIS will address

disposition of DOE's surplus highly enriched uranium to support the

President's Nonproliferation Policy. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be

issued in September 1995.

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Storage

and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials [Notice of Intent

published June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31985)]. This Programmatic EIS will

evaluate alternatives for long-term storage of all weapons-usable

fissile materials (primarily plutonium and highly enriched uranium

retained for strategic purposes--not surplus) and disposition of

surplus weapons-usable fissile materials (excluding highly enriched

uranium), so that risk of proliferation is minimized. The Nevada Test

Site is a candidate storage site.

Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement. A revised Notice of Intent was published October 28,

1994 (59 FR 54175), and the Draft Programmatic EIS was issued in March

1995 (60 FR 14433, March 17, 1995). Public hearings on the Draft

Programmatic EIS were held in April 1995, and a Final Programmatic EIS

is scheduled for October 1995. This EIS addresses how to best assure an

adequate tritium supply and recycling capability. The Nevada Test Site

is an alternative site for new tritium supply and recycling facilities.

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement. A Notice of Intent was published June

14, 1995 (60 FR 31291). A prescoping workshop was held on May 19, 1995,

and scoping meetings are scheduled to be held during July and August

1995. This Programmatic EIS will evaluate proposed future missions of

the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program and potential

configuration (facility locations) of the nuclear weapons complex to

accomplish the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program missions.

The Nevada Test Site is an alternative site for potential location of

new or upgraded Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program

facilities.

Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada

Test Site [Notice of Intent published August 10, 1994 (59 FR 40897)].

This EIS will address resource management alternatives for the Nevada

Test Site to support current and potential future missions involving

defense programs, research and development, waste management,

environmental restoration, infrastructure maintenance, transportation

of wastes, and facility upgrades and alternative uses. The public

scoping process has been completed, and the Implementation Plan was

issued in July 1995. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be issued for public

review in September 1995.

Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation

of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components

[Notice of Intent published May 23, 1994 (59 FR 26635); an amended

Notice of Intent published June 23, 1995 (60 FR 32661)]. This EIS will

address the potential environmental impacts of the continued operation

of the Pantex Plant, which includes near- to mid-term foreseeable

activities and the nuclear component storage activities at other DOE

sites associated with nuclear weapon disassembly operations at the

Pantex Plant. The Nevada Test Site is being considered as an

alternative site for relocation of interim plutonium pit storage.

Public Reading Rooms

Copies of the Implementation Plan, and the Draft and Final EISs,

will be available for inspection during normal business hours at the

following public reading rooms. DOE may establish additional

information locations and will provide an updated list at the public

scoping meetings.

Albuquerque Operations Office, National Atomic Museum, Bldg. 20358,

Wyoming Blvd., S.E., Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM 87117.

Attn: Diane Leute (505) 845-4378

Atlanta Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 730

Peachtree Street, Suite 876, Atlanta, GA 30308-1212. Attn: Nancy Mays/

Laura Nicholas (404) 347-2420

Bartlesville Project Office/National Institute for Petroleum and Energy

Research, Library, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 220 Virginia Avenue,

Bartlesville, OK 74003. Attn: Josh Stroman (918) 337-4371

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, BPA-C-KPS-1, 905

N.E. 11th Street, Portland, OR 97208. Attn: Sue Ludeman (503) 230-7334

Chicago Operations Office, Document Dept., University of Illinois at

Chicago, 801 South Morgan Street, Chicago, IL 60607. Attn: Seth Nasatir

(312) 996-2738

Dallas Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room, 1420

Mockingbird Lane, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75247. Attn: Gailene Reinhold

(214) 767-7040

Fernald Area Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Information Room,

FERMCO, 7400 Willey Road, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Attn: Gary Stegner

(513) 648-3153

Headquarters Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Room 1E-190, Forrestal

Bldg.,

[[Page 40170]]

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. Attn: Gayla

Sessoms (202) 586-5955

Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Public Reading Room, 1776 Science Center

Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83402. Attn: Brent Jacobson (208) 526-1144

Kansas City Support Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room,

911 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Kansas City, MO 64106. Attn: Anne Scheer

(816) 426-4777

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management National Information

Center, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 760, Washington, D.C. 20024.

Attn: Paul D'Anjou (202) 488-6720

Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room,

55 South Jefferson Circle, Room 112, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8510. Attn:

Amy Rothrock (615) 576-1216

Oakland Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room,

EIC, 8th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Room 700N, Oakland, CA 94612-5208.

Attn: Laura Noble (510) 637-1762

Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bldg. 922/

M210, Receiving Department, Building 166, Cochrans Mill Road,

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. Attn: Ann C. Dunlap (412) 892-6167

Richland Operations Office, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading Room,

100 Sprout Rd., Room 130 West, Mailstop H2-53, Richland, WA 99352.

Attn: Terri Traub (509) 376-8583

Rocky Flats Field Office, Front Range Community College Library, 3645

West 112th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80030. Attn: Nancy Ben (303) 469-

4435

Savannah River Operations Office, Gregg-Graniteville Library,

University of S. Carolina-Aiken, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, SC

29801. Attn: James M. Gaver (803) 725-2889

Southeastern Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Legal Library,

Samuel Elbert Bldg., 2 South Public Square, Elberton, GA 30635-2496.

Attn: Joel W. Seymour/Carol M. Franklin (706) 213-3800

Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Public Reading

Room, 1 West 3rd, Suite 1600, Tulsa, OK 74103. Attn: Marti Ayers (918)

581-7426

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Management Office, U.S. Dept. of

Energy, SPRPMO/SEB Reading Room, 900 Commerce Road East, New Orleans,

LA 70123. Attn: Ulysess Washington (504) 734-4243

Yucca Mountain Science Centers

Yucca Mountain Science Center, U.S. 95--Star Route 374, Beatty, NV

89003. Attn: Marina Anderson (702) 553-2130

Yucca Mountain Science Center, 4101-B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas, NV

89107. Attn: Melinda D'ouville (702) 295-1312

Yucca Mountain Science Center, 1141 South Hwy. 160, Pahrump, NV

89041. Attn: Lee Krumm (702) 727-0896

Table 1.--Scoping Meetings

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

Location of scoping meeting Dates/times \1\

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

Pahrump Community Center, 400 N. Tuesday, August 29, 1995, morning/

Hwy. 160, Pahrump, NV 89048. evening sessions.

Boise Centre on the Grove, 850 W. Wednesday, September 6, 1995,

Front St., Boise, ID 83702. morning/evening sessions.

Lawlor Events Center, University of Friday, September 8, 1995, morning/

Nevada-Reno Campus, Reno, NV 89667. evening sessions.

University of Chicago, Downtown MBA Tuesday, September 12, 1995,

Center, 450 N. Cityfront Plaza morning/evening sessions.

Drive, Chicago, IL 60611.

Cashman Field, 850 Las Vegas Blvd. Friday, September 15, 1995, morning/

North, Las Vegas, NV 89101. evening sessions .

Denver Convention Complex, 700 14th Tuesday, September 19, 1995,

Street, Denver, CO 80202. afternoon/evening sessions.

Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Thursday, September 21, 1995,

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. afternoon/evening sessions.

Arlington Community Center, 2800 Tuesday, September 26, 1995,

South Center Street, Dallas, TX afternoon/evening sessions.

76004.

Caliente Youth Center, Highway 93, Thursday, September 28, 1995,

Caliente, NV 89008. morning/evening sessions.

Hilton Inn, 150 West 500 South, Thursday, October 5, 1995,

Salt Lake City, UT 84111. afternoon/evening sessions.

Maritime Institute of Technology Wednesday, October 11, 1995,

and Graduate Studies, 5700 morning/evening sessions.

Hammonds Ferry Rd., Linthicum

(near Baltimore), MD 21090.

Russell Sage Conference Center, 45 Friday, October 13, 1995, afternoon/

Ferry St., Troy (Albany), NY 12180. evening sessions.

Georgia International Convention Tuesday, October 17, 1995, morning/

Center, 1902 Sullivan Road, evening sessions.

College Park (Atlanta), GA 30337.

Penn Valley Community College, 3201 Friday, October 20, 1995, afternoon/

S.W. Trafficway, Kansas City, MO evening sessions.

64111.

Tonopah Convention Center, 301 Tuesday, October 24, 1995, morning/

Brougher, Tonopah, NV 89049. evening sessions.

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

\1\ Session times are as follows: Morning (8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.),

Afternoon (12:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.), Evening (6:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.).

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 1st day of August, 1995.

Peter N. Brush,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 95-19396 Filed 8-4-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P