Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

AGENCY: Department of Energy

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare

a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.).

The PEIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of alternative

strategies for the long-term management and use of 560,000 metric tons

of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) currently stored in

cylinders at DOE's three gaseous diffusion plant sites located near

Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

This impact statement will support management decisions on depleted

UF6 by evaluating the environmental impacts of a range of

reasonable alternative strategies as well as providing a means for the

public to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard on this matter.

This NOI informs the public of the proposal, explains the schedule,

announces the dates, times, and places for scoping meetings, and

solicits public comment.

DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues and alternatives related

to this proposal is addressed, DOE invites comments on the scope of

this proposed PEIS. Written comments should be postmarked by March 25,

1996, to ensure consideration. Comments received after this date will

be considered to the extent practicable.

Three public scoping meetings will be held to provide information

and opportunities for discussion of the subject PEIS and to receive

oral and written comments. The meetings will be held near the storage

sites located near Paducah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and

Portsmouth, Ohio. The scoping meetings will be held twice a day,

beginning at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., at each site to allow for as much

interaction with the stakeholders as possible. The meetings will be

held according to the following schedule:

Paducah, Kentucky; February 13, 1996 (Information Age Park Resource

Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd., Paducah, Kentucky 42001)

Oak Ridge, Tennessee; February 15, 1996 (Pollard Auditorium at Oak

Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 210 Badger Avenue, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee 37831)

Portsmouth, Ohio; February 20, 1996 (Vern Riffe Pike County Vocational

School, State Route 124, Piketon, Ohio 45661)

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the PEIS and requests for

copies of referenced material should be directed to: Mr. Charles E.

Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science

and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road,

Germantown, Maryland, 20874-1290, (301) 903-4781.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE

NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office

of NEPA Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-4600 or 1-

800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The unique properties and value of depleted

UF6, such as its high purity and density, as well as the large

volume (560,000 metric tons) in storage, make it appropriate to

evaluate, analyze, and decide the fate of this material separately from

other DOE materials in storage or awaiting disposition. DOE has

determined that such an action is a major Federal action with

potentially significant environmental impacts and requires the

preparation of an EIS in accordance with NEPA. The purpose of this PEIS

will be to assess the potential impacts of a range of reasonable

alternative strategies for the long-term management of depleted

UF6. A strategy is a set of actions for handling depleted

UF6, from its current storage condition at three DOE sites--

Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee--to

ultimate disposition. These broad strategies focus on material use,

storage, and disposal. The programmatic impact statement will address

the potential impacts of the actions that would comprise each strategy.

DOE will prepare additional tiered, project-specific NEPA documents as

appropriate.

The proposed PEIS is the second component of an integrated three-

part program to select a long-term management strategy for depleted

UF6 at Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge. The first component of

the program is an engineering analysis of proposed technologies for

managing or using the material. This analysis will be based, in part,

on responses to a request for recommendations for potential uses,

associated conversion technologies, and management technologies for

depleted UF6.

In November 1994, DOE published two notices in the Federal Register

to initiate the consideration of alternative strategies for the long-

term management and use of depleted UF6. The first notice was the

``Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6): Request for

Recommendations'' (59 FR 56324), and the second notice was the

``Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement: Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management of

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride at Several Geographic Locations'' (59 FR

56325). As indicated in the request for recommendations, Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory used technical experts to evaluate the 57

responses to the request for recommendations. The results of these

evaluations are presented in ``The Technology Assessment Report for the

Long-Term Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride'' (UCRL-AR-

120372), dated June 30, 1995. Copies of this report are available from

the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, phone

(703) 487-4650, or from Mr. Bradley at the address above. Copies are

also in the DOE reading rooms at the following locations:

DOE Headquarters, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1E-190,

Washington, D.C. 20585, phone (202) 586-3142;

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Reading Room, 55 Jefferson

Circle, Room 112, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, phone (615) 241-4780;

Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 175 Freedom Blvd.,

Kevil, Kentucky 42053, phone (502) 462-2550;

Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 505 West Emmitt

Avenue, Suite 3, Waverly, Ohio 45690, phone (614) 947-5093.

As a result of the process implemented to date, DOE has considered

a wide range of potential alternatives. While many of the options

offered in response to DOE's request for recommendations were already

known,

[[Page 2240]]

others contained information on unique technologies and potential uses

that had not been evaluated previously. DOE officials have considered

the opinions of the independent technical reviewers on each of the

recommended options. After the consideration of public comments on the

scope of the PEIS, DOE will determine which options will be evaluated

in detail in the impact statement. Based on its initial review, DOE has

grouped the recommendations into four categories of options: (1)

Conversion, (2) use, (3) storage, and (4) disposal. DOE intends to

consider representative options in each category in evaluating the

environmental impacts of the alternatives.

The third component of DOE's program is a parallel study of the

life-cycle costs of each of the management strategy alternatives to be

evaluated in the EIS. The results of this study, in conjunction with

those of the impact assessment, will form the basis for making a

strategy selection from among the alternatives. This decision will be

documented in the Record of Decision for this PEIS.

Background

Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element containing

different isotopes, notably Uranium-238 (U-238) and Uranium-235 (U-

235). In its natural state, uranium occurs as an oxide ore

(U3O8). This oxide ore is concentrated and then fluorinated

to yield UF6.

The ability to use uranium for controlled fission in nuclear chain

reactions in most nuclear reactors depends on increasing the proportion

of the U-235 isotope in the material (0.7 percent in natural uranium)

relative to the proportion of the U-238 isotope through an isotopic

separation process called enrichment. In this process, a stream of

UF6 containing both U-235 and U-238 is divided into separate

streams--one is increased, or enriched, in its percentage of U-235

(typically 3.5 percent), and the other reduced, or depleted, in its

percentage of U-235 (typically 0.25 percent). The enriched UF6 is

used for making reactor fuel and historically for making weapons-grade

uranium. The large-scale enrichment process developed by the United

States in the 1940's is called ``gaseous diffusion.'' After World War

II, the process continued at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge

facilities under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its

successor agencies, including DOE. On July 1, 1993, responsibility for

uranium enrichment operations at the Portsmouth and Paducah facilities

was transferred from DOE to the United States Enrichment Corporation.

Diffusion plant operations at the Oak Ridge facility ceased in 1985.

The facility used for diffusion operations at Oak Ridge is no longer

needed, and DOE plans to decontaminate and decommission the buildings

and equipment used in the diffusion process.

A major consequence of the gaseous diffusion process is the

accumulation of a significant amount of depleted UF6. This

material is so named because it is depleted in the percentage of the U-

235 isotope as compared to the original feed material. Most of this

material, accumulated since the 1940s, is stored at the Paducah and

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites and at the Oak Ridge

Reservation. The total amount of depleted UF6, created prior to

July 1, 1993, and still the responsibility of DOE, is approximately

560,000 metric tons. Depleted UF6 is stored as a solid in a

partial vacuum in large steel cylinders each containing approximately

12 metric tons. These are stacked two layers high at the sites in large

storage areas referred to as ``yards.'' The specifications for these

cylinders are typically: a capacity of 12 metric tons, a diameter of 48

inches, a length of 12 feet, and wall thicknesses of \5/16\ of an inch.

There are approximately 46,500 such cylinders in storage at the three

sites. About 28,400 cylinders are stored at Paducah, 13,400 at

Portsmouth, and 4,700 at Oak Ridge.

Purpose of the PEIS

The purpose of the PEIS is to evaluate the impacts of reasonable

alternative strategies for depleted UF6 long-term management and

use, and to support the selection of a strategy for implementation. The

alternatives will be analyzed for their potential impacts on the human

environment, including risks to worker and public health and safety.

The need to re-examine the current strategy for long-term

management of depleted UF6 arises from several factors including

DOE's current missions and functions; increasing budget pressures; the

continuing need for good stewardship of resources including materials

in inventory; and continuing Departmental attention to considerations

of environment, safety, and health. The increased pressure on the

Federal budget particularly requires that DOE take a closer look at

materials management in order to ensure maximum cost effectiveness.

This includes an examination of feasible uses of this material

consistent with DOE's mission as well as an examination of management

methods that are consistent with environmental requirements and

budgetary constraints.

Description of Preliminary Alternatives

Reasonable alternatives (i.e., those that are practical or feasible

both technically and economically) to be considered in detail in the

PEIS will represent a range of alternatives for meeting DOE's purpose

and need. Each alternative is in the form of a strategy. A strategy is

a set of actions and schedules for depleted UF6, including

storage, use and/or disposal. Such actions also may include conversion

and transportation activities. All alternatives begin with the material

in storage. Strategies involve the configuration of the proposed

facilities associated with these actions, including various

centralization or decentralization options. The time period for the

analysis would cover approximately 40 years from the Record of

Decision.

The following is a preliminary list of six alternatives and the

actions within each that will be analyzed. The proposed alternatives

include continuation of the current management plan (the no action

alternative), two storage alternatives, two use alternatives, and a

disposal alternative. The conversion processes and other options that

will be analyzed will be representative of those recommended in

response to the published request for recommendations. This list of

alternatives is subject to modifications (additions or deletions) as

suggested by the public.

Continue Current Management Plan (No Action)

Under the ``no action'' alternative, cylinder management activities

(handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue,

consistent with the current management plan. These management

activities include actions needed to meet safety and environmental

requirements.

Storage

Two storage alternatives are proposed for consideration in the

impact statement. These are continued storage beyond 2020 as UF6

and as an oxide. Storage for up to 40 years will be analyzed.

Storage as UF6

This alternative considers storing depleted UF6 in one of

three types of storage facilities. The steps in the alternative include

repackaging as necessary to meet the requirements of the storage

facility designs and transport to the storage facility(s). The storage

[[Page 2241]]

alternatives include (1) storage in yards, (2) storage in enclosed

buildings, and (3) deep underground retrievable storage (such as a

mine). In cases where the storage facility is located off site, the

impact statement will examine the transportation impacts associated

with moving the material from its current location.

Storage as an Oxide

The steps in this storage alternative include: transport of the

depleted UF6 to a conversion facility, conversion to an oxide form

(either U308 or UO2), and transport of the oxide to a

storage facility. The potential storage facilities are: (1) Buildings,

(2) below-ground cement vaults, and (3) deep underground retrievable

storage (such as a mine). In addition to the oxide, the conversion

technology could produce an additional product(s) (such as hydrogen

fluoride). The alternative analysis will include an assessment of the

impacts associated with the transport of that product to either a

disposal site or to a user.

Use of Depleted Uranium

Strategies that focus on the use of depleted uranium normally

include conversion of the UF6 to another chemical form, usually

oxide or metal. The basic steps in a use alternative are: (1) Transport

of the depleted UF6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2)

conversion of the depleted UF6 to another chemical form, (3)

transport of this new material to a fabrication plant, (4) fabrication

of the end product, and (5) transport of this product to the user.

Conversion processes leading to uranium oxide and depleted uranium

metal generate additional products including calcium fluoride and

hydrogen fluoride, which may either be sold or disposed of as waste.

The impacts associated with transporting these additional products will

be included in the assessment of the use alternatives.

In the use alternatives, the conversion products (oxides, metals,

etc.) would be manufactured into other forms. Of the uses proposed in

response to the request for recommendations, the production of

radiation shielding, from either oxide or metal, will be analyzed as a

representative dense-material use alternative. Other dense-material

applications include using depleted uranium metal in industrial

counterweights, energy storage flywheels, or as munitions. Impacts

associated with other dense-material would be generally bounded by the

consideration of the more general radiation shielding application.

Should the dense-material use alternative be selected in DOE's Record

of Decision, DOE will prepare additional tiered NEPA analysis as

appropriate concerning this alternative and specific dense-material

uses.

Although suggested as a use alternative, enriching and converting

this material into fuel feed for existing commercial reactors or

advanced reactors (including breeder reactors) is not a reasonable

alternative and will not be analyzed in detail in the PEIS. While

technologically feasible, enrichment would be a lengthy and expensive

process which would continue to generate additional depleted UF6.

This alternative is unreasonable for a number of reasons including:

Duration, cost-effectiveness, current and anticipated commercial market

prices, current and anticipated market demand, the lack of current and

anticipated demand by DOE's Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, and the

generation of additional depleted UF6 for further disposition.

However, the PEIS will analyze long-term storage, and the impacts from

the use of stored material as a fuel source, if subsequently proposed,

would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documentation.

Radiation Shielding from Metal

Once converted, the metal would be packaged and transported to a

fabrication plant where uranium metal shielding components could be

manufactured. The impacts associated with off-site transport of the

metal and the manufacturing process will be part of the assessment. The

impacts of the uses of the final products will be assessed in a general

way consistent with public access to the manufactured product.

Radiation Shielding from Oxide

The steps in this alternative are identical to those described

previously except that the conversion technology produces oxide rather

than metal. The oxide (in the form of depleted UO2) would be

transported to a fabrication plant where a concrete material containing

uranium could be manufactured. The transport of the oxide material off

site and the manufacture of the concrete and the container will be

included in the impact assessment. The impact of the use of the

concrete material for shielding will be included in the assessment.

Disposal of Depleted UF6

This alternative analyzes the impact of the disposal of depleted

UF6 in the oxide form in three different disposal facility

configurations. Because it is chemically stable and insoluble, the

oxide form would likely be the most appropriate form for permanent

disposal. In this scenario, the material would be disposed of as a low-

level radioactive waste.

The steps in the disposal alternative are: (1) Transport of the

depleted UF6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2) conversion

to oxide, (3) transport of the oxide to a disposal facility, and (4)

disposal. The conversion of the depleted UF6 to an oxide form

(either U3O8 or UO2) would be accomplished using the

technology assessed as part of alternatives described previously. After

conversion, the material would be appropriately packaged and

transported to a disposal facility. The facility designs analyzed in

the alternative include drums placed in: (1) Engineered trenches, (2)

below-ground concrete vaults, and (3) mines. Both bulk disposal of the

depleted UF6 and grouted disposal forms will be considered. Bulk

disposal consists of placing the oxide directly in the drums. Grouted

disposal requires fixing the oxide in a cement-type medium. General

facility configurations will be assessed for both humid and arid

hypothetical locations to provide the full range of potential impacts.

Transportation impacts associated with moving the low-level waste

material will be assessed for locations in both the Eastern and Western

United States.

As with the other alternatives that include a conversion step,

byproducts are produced. The transport of these additional materials

will be included in the assessment.

Identification of Environmental Issues

This EIS is the first level of a tiered environmental assessment

process. Tiering refers to the process of first addressing general

(programmatic) matters in a broad PEIS followed by more narrowly

focused (project level) environmental documentation that incorporates

by reference the more general discussions. At this first level, the

PEIS addresses the potential impacts of broad strategy alternatives,

including analyses of the general impacts of (1) the current management

program for depleted UF6 at DOE's storage sites, (2) technologies

for converting the depleted UF6 to other chemical forms, (3)

storage for subsequent use or disposal, (4) transportation of

materials, and (5) disposal. The environmental impacts of the transport

of materials along specific routes, impacts from the siting of any

specific facilities, or the use of specific technologies will be

assessed in future NEPA documents, as appropriate. These subsequent

documents are the ``project

[[Page 2242]]

level'' documents and are the second level of the tier.

The second level document(s) would address specific siting issues,

construction and operation decisions, and the impacts of transport

between identified origins and destinations. As this PEIS supports the

selection of a general strategy, the range of impact areas to be

considered will focus on those appropriate to this level of decision.

The impact analysis will consider, for each alternative, the physical,

chemical, and radiological health and safety risks to workers and to

the public of material storage, conversion, transportation, use, and

disposal. Potential impacts to air quality and noise levels, water

quality, waste disposal capacity, biotic resources, and socioeconomic

factors associated with these activities will be assessed.

Environmental justice issues will be considered as appropriate for this

level of decision. Cumulative impacts of strategy-related actions and

other actions at the three DOE sites will be assessed.

Related and Other DOE NEPA Documentation

Consistent with tiering, should the depleted UF6 strategy

selection result in site-specific actions, additional NEPA documents

would be prepared to consider the specific impacts on the site and

vicinity from any proposed action. Such analyses would address

additional site-specific issues such as historic resources, threatened

and endangered species, critical environmental resources, floodplain,

and land use. The results of specific analyses conducted as part of

other Departmental EISs will be incorporated as appropriate.

Invitation to Comment

DOE will conduct a full and open process to define the scope of the

PEIS. DOE will hold public scoping meetings at the sites that may be

affected by the proposed action in order to discuss issues and to

receive oral and written comments on the scope of the impact statement.

These meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to present

comments, ask questions, and discuss concerns with DOE officials. The

public will be encouraged to comment on the content of the proposed

action, the proposed alternatives, and the range of impacts to be

considered including cumulative effects. Oral and written comments will

be considered equally in the preparation of the document.

The scoping meetings will allow opportunity for the public to

provide comments on the alternative strategies being considered by DOE.

These scoping meetings build upon six public information forums held

during the request for recommendations comment period and the

completion of the technology assessment phase. At those forums, the

public provided recommendations for technologies to be considered and

comments on the factors used to evaluate the recommendations.

The scoping meetings will consist of an explanation of the depleted

UF6 management program, as well as interactive workshops to

examine the alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS.

Background information and fact sheets will be made available to the

public prior to the scoping meetings, upon request. (Requests should be

sent to Mr. Charles E. Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of

Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy,

19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290; (301) 903-4781.)

These materials, along with posters, demonstrations, and technical

experts, will be present at each of the scoping meetings to provide as

much information as possible to the participants.

Information on the meeting dates and locations, as well as related

materials, can be obtained through the address above. Information is

also available through the information and resource centers located

near the sites. Contact Mr. Charles E. Bradley at the address above for

more information.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of January 1996.

Peter N. Brush,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 96-1196 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P