Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing

Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope

Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the

Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310)

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of intent (NOI).

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

SUMMARY: DOE's civilian nuclear research and isotope production

infrastructure has diminished significantly since the early 1990s. As a

result, DOE is no longer able to accommodate new and expanding missions

for nuclear research and development and isotope production. The

Department does not have sufficient steady-state neutron resources to

meet all of its projected irradiation needs for: (1) The production of

isotopes for medical and industrial uses, (2) the production of

plutonium-238 for use in advanced radioisotope power systems for future

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space missions,

and 3) the Nation's nuclear research and development needs.

Therefore, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the Secretary of Energy recently announced DOE's intent to

prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on

accomplishing these new missions through the proposed enhancement of

the existing infrastructure, including the possible role of the Fast

Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located at DOE's

[[Page 50065]]

Hanford Site near Richland, Washington.

This PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of

alternative ways to meet the projected irradiation needs for the next

35 years by enhancing the existing infrastructure as follows: (1)

Resuming FFTF operation, (2) constructing and operating a research

reactor at a generic DOE site, and (3) constructing and operating one

or more neutron accelerators at a generic DOE site. In addition, the

PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of meeting the

projected mission needs to the extent possible using existing reactor

and neutron accelerator facilities.

The FFTF, DOE's largest operable reactor, is currently maintained

in a standby mode with no fuel in the reactor vessel. The PEIS will

include sufficient project-specific analyses of the FFTF to enable DOE

to support a restart decision. In addition, since DOE may decide not to

restart FFTF to meet the projected irradiation needs evaluated in this

PEIS, the environmental impacts of deactivating the FFTF reactor will

also be analyzed.

Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA

regulations, a No Action alternative, i.e., maintaining the status quo,

will be evaluated in this PEIS. Under No Action, DOE would continue to

rely on the existing infrastructure for production of isotopes and

nuclear research and development within the current operating envelope.

No domestic capability to produce plutonium-238 for future space

missions would be established.

DOE is now canceling the Plutonium-238 Production EIS, announced in

the Federal Register on October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53398) and integrating

the plutonium-238 production analyses into this PEIS. All oral and

written comments received by DOE on the proposed scope of the

Plutonium-238 Production EIS will be considered in preparing this PEIS.

DOE invites individuals, organizations, and agencies to submit oral

and/or written comments regarding the scope of this PEIS, including the

environmental issues and alternatives that the PEIS should analyze.

DATES: The public scoping period begins with the publication of this

Notice in the Federal Register and will continue until October 31,

1999. Comments submitted by mail, facsimile (FAX), electronic mail (e-

mail), or telephone will be considered in preparation of this PEIS.

Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent

practicable. DOE will conduct public scoping meetings to assist in

defining the scope of this PEIS including the significant environmental

issues to be addressed. DOE will hold scoping meetings in Seattle and

Richland, Washington; Portland and Hood River, Oregon; Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; Idaho Falls, Idaho; and in the Washington D.C. area. The

dates, times, and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 13, 1999, registration at 6

p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the American Museum of Science &

Energy, 300 South Tulane Avenue

Idaho Falls, Idaho, October 15, 1999, registration beginning

at 6 p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the Shilo Inn, 780 Lindsay

Boulevard

Seattle, Washington, October 18, 1999, registration beginning

at 6 p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the Seattle Center, 305 Harrison

Street

Portland, Oregon, October 19, 1999, registration beginning at

6 p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the Marriott Hotel-Downtown

Portland, 1401 SW Front Avenue

Hood River, Oregon, October 20, 1999, registration beginning

at 6 p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the Hood River Inn, 1108 E.

Marina Way

Richland, Washington, October 21, 1999, registration beginning

at 6 p.m., presentation at 7 p.m., at the Best Western Tower Inn &

Conference Center, 1515 George Washington Way

Arlington, Virginia, October 26, 1999, registration beginning

at 2 p.m., presentation at 2:30 p.m., at the Hyatt Regency Crystal

City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the PEIS, requests to speak

at the public scoping meetings, requests for special arrangements to

enable participation at the meetings (e.g., interpreter for the

hearing-impaired), and questions concerning the project review, should

be addressed to the DOE NEPA Document Manager: Ms. Colette E. Brown,

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE-50), U.S.

Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874.

Electronic mail (e-mail): [email protected];

toll-free facsimile (FAX): 1-877-562-4592; or leave a message, toll-

free, at telephone number 1-877-562-4593.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request information about this

PEIS, or to be placed on the PEIS document distribution list, contact

Colette E. Brown at the above mailing/e-mail addresses or toll-free

telephone/FAX numbers. For general information on the DOE NEPA process,

please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy

and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue S.W., Washington, DC 20585-0119.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE recognizes that increased nuclear research, technology

development, and educational programs are essential to support national

nuclear energy programs and international collaboration. DOE believes

that the availability of nuclear research reactor and accelerator

facilities is necessary to implement a successful nuclear energy

program. Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, DOE is responsible for serving the national need for a

reliable supply of isotope products and services for medicine,

industry, research, and space exploration. An adequate nuclear research

and isotope production facility infrastructure is needed to continue

these national services into the future at projected increased demand

levels.

DOE's nuclear technology infrastructure is dwindling while the

demand for steady-state neutron sources continues to increase to

explore the use of nuclear science for analyzing and testing materials,

nuclear fuels, electronic circuits, and other components; creating

isotopes required by medical clinicians, researchers, government, and

industry for a wide range of applications; and to produce plutonium-238

required to power deep space probes. Current supplies of isotopes are

limited and the demand is projected to increase dramatically,

particularly as research points toward additional medical applications

for many radioisotopes . Resuming operations at the FFTF, building a

new research reactor, or building new accelerator facilities, in

conjunction with the existing DOE neutron sources, would provide

adequate neutron source capacity to serve the nation's foreseeable

nuclear research and development and isotope production needs.

Therefore, DOE is proceeding with a NEPA evaluation (i.e., a

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, [PEIS]) of potential

enhancement to the nation's nuclear research and technology

infrastructure to assure that the United States can support future

nuclear research and isotope production activities.

[[Page 50066]]

This PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts

resulting from accomplishing these new nuclear research and development

and isotope production missions with (1) The existing operational DOE

infrastructure; (2) the existing operational DOE infrastructure

supplemented by the operation of the FFTF; (3) the existing operational

DOE infrastructure supplemented by the construction and operation of a

research reactor and supporting facilities at a generic DOE site; and

(4) the existing operational DOE infrastructure supplemented by the

construction and operation of one or more neutron-producing

accelerators and supporting facilities at a generic DOE site. Impacts

from the No Action alternative, as discussed below, will also be

analyzed.

Background

DOE's nuclear research and isotope production infrastructure has

diminished significantly since the early 1990s. The Department does not

have sufficient steady-state neutron sources to meet all of its

projected irradiation needs for: (1) The production of isotopes for

medical and industrial uses, (2) the production of plutonium-238 for

use in advanced radioisotope power systems for future NASA space

missions, and (3) the Nation's nuclear research and development needs.

On August 18, 1999, the Secretary of Energy announced DOE's intent to

prepare a PEIS on accomplishing these new and expanded missions through

the proposed enhancements of the existing infrastructure, including the

possible role of the FFTF.

FFTF, the largest research reactor in the world, is a sodium-cooled

research reactor located in the 400 Area of the Hanford Site, near the

City of Richland, in southeastern Washington State. FFTF is currently

defueled and usable fuel is stored on site in sodium fuel storage pools

or in the secure vault at the Plutonium Finishing Plant at the Hanford

Site. The reactor is in standby mode with the main cooling system

operating at approximately 200 deg.C (400 deg.F), to keep the sodium

coolant liquid and circulating. Essential systems, staffing, and

support services are being maintained in a manner that will support

either timely deactivation of the reactor or its restart. With minor

modification, (e.g., the installation of a system to insert and remove

irradiation targets while at power), the FFTF is capable of

accomplishing new and expanded mission requirements discussed above.

Alternatively, all or most of the new and expanded mission

requirements can be achieved by the addition of a new research reactor

or new neutron-producing accelerators to the existing infrastructure.

The environmental impacts of the proposed new facilities (including

support facilities) will be analyzed at a generic DOE site.

The Department does not have sufficient steady-state neutron

generation capacity to meet all of the projected needs without

impacting current missions at existing operating facilities. However,

some of the mission objectives can be achieved with surplus capacity

available at these existing operating facilities. The plutonium-238

mission objectives could be achieved at existing DOE research reactors

or commercial light water reactor (CLWR) facilities. Surplus capacity

exists at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and at the High Flux Isotope

Reactor (HFIR) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Implementation of

plutonium-238 production at ATR and HFIR would consume nearly all of

the available surplus capacity. Surplus capacity in these facilities

and existing neutron-producing accelerators could be used to support

medical and industrial isotope production and nuclear research and

development missions to the extent possible without impacting existing

missions. CLWRs cannot support most isotope production and research and

development mission objectives without significantly impacting their

primary mission, the production of electrical power. CLWRs were

therefore dropped from further consideration for these missions.

This PEIS will analyze the environmental impacts of operating

existing and new steady-state irradiation facilities, including both

reactors and neutron accelerators, and existing and new support

processing facilities to meet the mission objectives. In evaluating

these alternatives the Department assumes:

(1) None of these proposed missions is defense-related; and

(2) The mission activities currently pursued at existing facilities

(i.e., isotope production, nuclear research, etc.) are not changed in

any of the alternatives.

Following is a brief discussion of the proposed new and expanded

mission areas:

(1) Medical and Industrial Isotope Production

Medical isotopes are produced in the United States by the

Department of Energy in nuclear accelerators and reactors, and by

extracting them from existing radioactive materials. These isotopes can

be used for diagnosis or therapy. Diagnostic isotopes are used for

imaging internal organs. Unlike conventional radiology, imaging with

radioisotopes reveals organ function and structure, providing more

accurate diagnostics data and early detection of abnormalities. In

ongoing clinical testing, therapeutic isotopes have proven effective in

the treatment of cancer and other illnesses by cell-directed localized

radiation therapy (i.e., deploying antibodies or carriers of

radioisotopes to seek and destroy invasive cancer cells). This directed

therapy can minimize adverse side effects (e.g., healthy tissue damage,

nausea, hair loss) making it an effective and attractive alternative to

traditional chemotherapy or radiation treatments. An Expert Panel

convened by the Department last year reviewed several industry

projections relating to the future demand growth of medical isotopes.

The Expert Panel believes that the growth rate of medical isotope usage

could be significant over the next 20 years.

Industrial applications of radioisotopes fall into three broad

categories, including nucleonic instrumentation, irradiation and

radiation processing, and technologies that use radioactive tracers.

Examples of nucleonic instrumentation include gauges for measuring

physical parameters, such as: detection systems for pollutants,

explosives, drugs, ores, petroleum, and natural gases; nondestructive

testing by gamma radiography; and smoke detectors. Irradiation and

radiation processing technologies include radiation sterilization of

food and medical products, and the curing of plastics. Radioactive

tracer applications include studies on chemical synthesis reactions;

monitoring of mass transfer in industrial plants; analysis of transport

and uptake of nutrients, fertilizers, herbicides, and waste materials

in plants, soil, and groundwater; and laboratory-based studies on the

properties of materials.

In supporting these mission activities, the Department does not

expect to engage the commercial market itself. Rather, consistent with

current isotope activities, the Department will work with the private

sector to support private sector production and sale of isotopes. The

Department prefers to provide irradiation services for the private

sector using an appropriate fee structure and allow the private sector

to take responsibility for producing and processing targets.

[[Page 50067]]

(2) Plutonium-238 Production

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, DOE and its

predecessor agencies have been developing radioisotope power systems

and radioisotope heater units and supplying them to the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for more than 30 years. The

radioisotope used in these systems is plutonium-238. These systems have

repeatedly demonstrated their value as enabling technologies in various

NASA missions. DOE has projected that over the next 20 to 35 years,

NASA will continue to conduct missions that require or would be enabled

or enhanced by radioisotope power systems fueled with plutonium-238.

Under the National Space Policy issued by the Office of Science and

Technology Policy in September 1996, and in accordance with its nuclear

charter under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, DOE has responsibility

to assure that it maintains the capability to provide the nuclear

infrastructure, including the plutonium-238, needed to support these

missions. The Intersector Guidelines section of the National Space

Policy state that ``The Department of Energy will maintain the

necessary capability to support space missions which may require the

use of space nuclear power systems.'' DOE has estimated that up to 5

kilograms per year of plutonium-238 is required to support NASA

requirements for future space missions.

Historically, the reactors and chemical processing facilities at

DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) were used to produce plutonium-238 by

the irradiation of targets containing neptunium-237. The irradiated

targets were moved from the reactor site to a chemical processing

facility where the targets were processed and the plutonium-238 was

recovered as an oxide powder. The remaining neptunium-237 was recovered

for recycling into additional targets. The plutonium-238 oxide powder

was then shipped to facilities for producing pellets that were in turn

shipped to another DOE site to make the radioisotope power systems. As

a result of the downsizing of the DOE nuclear weapons complex at the

end of the Cold War, the reactors used to produce plutonium-238 at SRS

were shut down. The radiochemical processing facilities at SRS are also

planned to be shut down in the near future after existing supplies of

radioactive materials no longer needed to support DOE's missions have

been processed into a form suitable for long-term storage or disposal.

In 1992, DOE signed a contract to purchase plutonium-238 from

Russia allowing the U.S. to purchase up to 40 kilograms of plutonium-

238. Under this contract, DOE has purchased 9 kilograms of plutonium-

238, and in 1997, extended the contract for another five years. This

option, therefore, continues to be viable until at least 2002. However,

the long-term viability of this option is unclear once the end of the

current contract is reached. The political and economic climate in

Russia creates uncertainties about the reliability of this source of

plutonium-238 to satisfy future NASA space mission requirements.

Moreover, limited information exists regarding the extent of the

Russian supply, Russian plans on how they would satisfy future demand,

and nuclear safety and nonproliferation implications of Russian

production methods. Therefore, DOE proposes to reestablish a reliable

domestic capability for producing and processing plutonium-238 to

satisfy these foreseeable space mission requirements. Since the

facilities previously used at SRS are no longer available for the

production of plutonium-238, DOE needs to evaluate other existing DOE

and commercial light water reactors and chemical processing facilities

for target irradiation and separation of plutonium-238. The

environmental impacts of purchasing plutonium-238 from Russia are

evaluated and documented in the Environmental Assessment of the Import

of Russian Plutonium-238 (DOE/EA-0841, June 1993), prepared by DOE's

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

On October 5, 1998, DOE published a Notice of Intent in the Federal

Register (63 FR 53398) to prepare an EIS on the proposed production of

plutonium-238 for use in advanced radioisotope power systems for future

space missions. Since then, DOE has been preparing the draft EIS,

giving consideration to the numerous comments submitted by the public

during the scoping period last fall. During the public scoping of this

EIS, DOE announced that FFTF would not be considered a reasonable

alternative for that mission unless the facility was proposed to be

restarted for other reasons. With the Secretary's recent announcement

to prepare a PEIS which includes the possible restart of FFTF, the

scope of the Plutonium-238 Production EIS has been consolidated into

the scope of this PEIS. This PEIS will include the environmental

impacts of re-establishing a domestic plutonium-238 production

capability for future space missions. The Plutonium-238 Production EIS

has been terminated as a separate NEPA review. However, all comments

and input received from the public during the scoping period will be

considered in the preparation of the draft PEIS to be prepared pursuant

to this Notice.

(3) Support of Nuclear Research and Development

Materials Testing: Researchers from many different countries have

used DOE's high flux research reactor facilities for nuclear materials

testing and fuels research. These facilities, with the capability to

maintain a high density of neutrons in a given test volume for

materials testing, shorten the time needed for such testing, tailor the

flux to simulate different reactors and reactor conditions, and

instrument the core for close monitoring of tests. There is particular

interest in materials testing related to commercial nuclear power plant

license renewal, cooperative international fusion energy, space power

technology, and transmutation of wastes as a means to destroy long-

lived isotopes from commercial spent nuclear fuel. Activities

considered within the scope of this PEIS will include those arising

from international cooperation.

Nonproliferation Programs: Since October 1976, when President

Gerald Ford issued a Nuclear Policy Statement prohibiting the export of

reprocessing and other nuclear technologies that could contribute to

proliferation of fissile materials, all U.S. Administrations have

adopted policies aimed at minimizing the prospects that civilian

plutonium separation would be adopted in other countries. At the same

time, the U.S. has refrained from the commercial development of

reprocessing and plutonium separation technologies. The U.S. policy is

to advance global non-proliferation technology, while at the same time

supporting the development of advanced, ultra-high burnup nuclear

fuels. DOE's high flux research reactor facilities are ideally suited

for the study, research, testing, development, and demonstration of

technologies necessary to safely convert plutonium-based materials for

disposition and use as proliferation-resistant fuels.

Alternatives To Be Evaluated

This PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of using

irradiation and processing facilities to meet projected irradiation

service mission needs for 35 years, i.e., (1) production of isotopes

for medical and industrial uses, (2) production of up to five kilograms

per year of plutonium-238 for use in advanced radioisotope

[[Page 50068]]

power systems for future NASA space missions, and (3) to support the

Nation's nuclear research and development needs. This PEIS will not re-

examine current missions conducted at existing, operating facilities,

but rather assumes that these current activities will continue while

new or expanded missions are pursued.

When applicable, the impacts of transporting radioactive feedstock

material to the processing facility for storage, transporting

radioactive material between the irradiation facility and the

processing facility, and transporting the product to the user will be

analyzed in this PEIS.

No Action

Under this alternative, DOE would maintain the status quo. The

Department would not restart the FFTF and would maintain it in a

standby mode. Production of isotopes for medical and industrial uses

and existing irradiation services missions currently conducted at

operating facilities would continue within the existing mission

envelope. No domestic capability to produce plutonium-238 would be

established. DOE would rely on its remaining inventory of plutonium-238

inventory to meet the power requirements of near-term space missions

and would seek to negotiate for additional purchases from Russia to

enable future space missions. The PEIS would evaluate two scenarios

with respect to the neptunium-237 currently stored at the Savannah

River Site: (a) The neptunium-237 aqueous nitrate solution stored at

the Savannah River Site would be converted to a solid form suitable for

disposal as evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Interim Management of Nuclear Materials, Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-

0220, October 1995); or (b) the neptunium-237, converted to an oxide

form, would be transferred from the Savannah River Site to a new

storage site to maintain a future option to produce plutonium-238. The

three alternative facilities for the storage of the neptunium-237 are

the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; the Fluorinel Dissolution Process Facility near Idaho Falls,

Idaho; and the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility in Hanford,

Washington. The impacts of transporting neptunium-237 to the candidate

storage facilities from the Savannah River Site will be evaluated.

Alternative 1--Restart FFTF

Under this alternative, the PEIS will analyze the potential

environmental impacts of resuming operation of FFTF to accomplish the

identified missions. The FFTF is designed to operate at a maximum power

level of 400 megawatts, but can achieve all the projected new and

expanded mission requirements anticipated under this PEIS while

operating at the 100 megawatt power level. This PEIS will analyze the

FFTF for operations at the 100 megawatt power level. The FFTF has an

onsite supply of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel (i.e., plutonium-uranium) to

support approximately 6 years of operation at the 100 megawatt level.

When the onsite fuel is depleted the FFTF may continue to use MOX fuel

or switch to a reactor core of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. The

Department believes that an additional 15-year supply of MOX fuel is

available from Germany under very favorable terms (i.e., no charge for

the fuel). This PEIS will evaluate 35 years of FFTF operation for two

reactor core configurations: (1) MOX core for approximately 21 years

followed by 14 years of operation with a HEU core, and (2) MOX core for

approximately 6 years followed by 29 years of operation with a HEU

core. The impacts of spent fuel produced by FFTF operation and for

transporting German fuel to FFTF will be evaluated in the PEIS. The

PEIS will include sufficient project-specific analyses of the FFTF to

enable DOE to support a restart decision.

This PEIS will also analyze the impacts of performing medical,

industrial, and plutonium-238 isotope processing operations associated

with the identified missions in hot cell facilities in the DOE complex.

Processing operations include storage of target and process feedstock

material, fabrication of targets for irradiation, processing irradiated

targets to separate the product and recycling the unconverted feedstock

material for the fabrication of new targets.

The processing operations portion of this alternative includes

three options. Because space is not available in currently operating

facilities on the Hanford site to support all of the processing

requirements for the identified missions, new or off-site facilities

will be needed to support activities conducted using the FFTF. The

first option incorporates the use of a large existing and never used

hot cell facility located near the FFTF to support all process facility

operations for the identified missions. The second and third options

incorporate the use of off site processing facilities to support the

plutonium-238 production mission in conjunction with the use of

existing operational processing facilities at the Hanford Site to

support the FFTF in the remaining missions.

Option 1 will assess the impact of using the Fuels and Materials

Examination Facility (FMEF) located near the FFTF in the 400 Area of

the Hanford Site to support the FFTF missions.

Option 2 will assess the impact of using the Radiochemical

Engineering Development Center (REDC) located in the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in support of FFTF for the

production of plutonium-238 and other existing facilities located in

the 300 and 400 Areas of the Hanford Site to support the FFTF in the

remaining mission areas (i.e., production of medical and industrial

isotopes and nuclear research and development).

Option 3 will assess the impact of using the Fluorinel Dissolution

Process Facility (FDPF) located in the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho, in support of FFTF

for the production of plutonium-238 and other existing facilities

located in the 300 Area and 400 Area of the Hanford Site to support the

FFTF in the remaining mission areas (i.e., production of medical and

industrial isotopes and nuclear research and development).

Alternative 2--Use Only Existing Operational Facilities to the Extent

Possible

Under this alternative, the PEIS will analyze the potential

environmental impacts of meeting the projected mission needs to the

extent possible using only existing operational facilities (without

FFTF). The Department's analyses indicate that the plutonium-238

production objectives can be met using existing facilities. However,

should plutonium-238 production be conducted at existing facilities,

significant new medical and industrial isotope production and nuclear

research and development mission objectives cannot be achieved without

impacting current missions at these facilities. This PEIS will analyze

the impact of the continuing, existing isotope production and nuclear

research and development missions at current levels as part of the No

Action alternative. The cumulative impacts from operating the affected

facilities for all missions will be addressed under this alternative.

This PEIS will evaluate the potential impacts of nine options for

plutonium-238 production, that is, the combinations of three reactor

sites (for the irradiation of targets) with three different processing

facilities (for the storage of neptunium-237, fabrication of neptunium-

237

[[Page 50069]]

targets for irradiation, and the processing of irradiated targets to

separate plutonium-238). The three reactor sites are the Advanced Test

Reactor located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; the High Flux Isotope Reactor

located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and

a commercial light water reactor located at an undefined generic site.

The three processing facilities, previously discussed under Alternative

1, are REDC, FDPF, and FMEF. The impacts of transporting neptunium-237

to the storage facility from the Savannah River Site (SRS);

unirradiated and irradiated targets between the irradiation facilities

and processing facilities; and plutonium-238 from the processing

facilities to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New

Mexico where it is processed for use in advanced radioisotope power

systems, will be evaluated for each combination.

Alternative Sites for Plutonium-238 Production Target Irradiation

Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at the Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory: Under this alternative, DOE would

irradiate targets (fabricated from neptunium-237 currently stored at

SRS) in the ATR to produce up to 5 kilograms per year of plutonium-

238, the maximum annual production requirement for the plutonium-238

production mission under current planning. ATR is an operating test

reactor with a primary programmatic mission to support the Naval

Reactor Fuels Program. A prerequisite of applying this alternative

is that no impacts to the primary mission of the reactor would be

allowed. In addition, nuclear research and isotope production

missions at the ATR would also continue within the facility's

current mission envelope.

High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory: Under this alternative, DOE would irradiate neptunium-

237 targets in HFIR to produce up to 2 kilograms per year of

plutonium-238. HFIR is an operating research reactor with its main

programmatic mission to support DOE's Office of Science. A

prerequisite of applying this alternative is that no impacts to the

primary mission of the reactor would occur. Nuclear research and

isotope production missions at the HFIR would also continue within

the facility's current mission envelope. The use of HFIR for

production of small quantities of plutonium-238 is compatible with

the primary neutron scattering and radioisotope production mission

of that reactor. Production of plutonium-238 at a rate higher than

two kilograms per year would disrupt experimental programs currently

being conducted at HFIR. Use of HFIR for the plutonium-238

production would need to be supplemented by the ATR to meet the 5

kilograms per year production objective.

Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) at a generic site

location: Under this alternative, DOE would irradiate neptunium-237

targets in an existing CLWR to produce up to five kilograms per year

of plutonium-238. A CLWR is an operating reactor with a primary

mission to deliver electric power to the local power grid. A

prerequisite of applying this alternative is that no impacts to the

primary mission of the reactor would be allowed.

Under Alternative 2, the PEIS will also analyze the potential

environmental impacts of meeting projected medical and industrial

isotope production and nuclear research and development mission needs,

to the extent possible (i.e., without impacting existing missions),

using existing neutron spallation sources (i.e., neutron-producing

accelerators), such as, for example, the Brookhaven LINAC Isotope

Producer at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, or the

Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los

Alamos, New Mexico). The FFTF would be deactivated under Alternative 2.

Alternative 3--Construct New Accelerator(s)

Under this alternative, the PEIS will analyze the potential

environmental impacts of constructing and operating one or more (if

necessary, depending on power level requirements) new neutron-producing

accelerators and new process facility at a generic DOE site for all

identified missions. The role of the process facility is the same as in

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, the FFTF would be deactivated.

Alternative 4--Construct New Research Reactor

Under this alternative, the PEIS will analyze the potential

environmental impacts of constructing and operating a new research

reactor and new process facility at a generic DOE site for all

identified missions. The role of the process facility is the same as in

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, the FFTF would be deactivated.

Environmental Impact Areas To Be Analyzed

The following areas have been tentatively identified for analysis

in the PEIS. This list is neither intended to be all inclusive nor is

it a predetermination of potential environmental impacts. The list is

presented to facilitate comments on the scope of this PEIS. Additions

to or deletions from this list may occur as a result of the public

scoping process:

Health and Safety: Potential public and occupational

consequences from construction, routine operation, transportation, and

credible accident scenarios;

Waste Management/Pollution Prevention: Types of wastes

expected to be generated, handled, and stored; pollution prevention

opportunities and the potential consequences to public safety and the

environment;

Hazardous Materials: Handling, storage, and use; both

present and future;

Background Radiation: Cosmic, rock, soil, water, and air

and the potential addition of radiation;

Water Resources: Surface and groundwater hydrology, water

use and quality, and the potential for degradation;

Air Quality: Meteorological conditions, ambient

background, sources, and potential for degradation;

Earth Resources: Physiography, topography, geology, and

soil characteristics;

Land Use: Plans, policies, and controls;

Noise: Ambient, sources, and sensitive receptors;

Ecological Resources: Wetlands, aquatic, terrestrial,

economically and recreationally important species, and threatened and

endangered species;

Socioeconomic: Demography, economic base, labor pool,

housing, transportation, utilities, public services/facilities,

education, recreation, and cultural resources;

Natural Disasters: Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and

seismic events;

Cumulative Effects: Including impacts from past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable actions at and in the vicinity of the sites;

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts;

Natural and Depletable Resources: Requirements and

conservation potential; and

Environmental Justice: Any potential disproportionately

high and adverse impacts to minority and low income populations.

Pending Decisions

This PEIS is only one of many inputs required for a decision to be

made relating to the infrastructure to support new nuclear research and

development and isotope production missions. Other elements that will

provide major inputs into the decision process include:

DOE's Nuclear Science and Technology Long-Range Research

and Development Plan;

DOE's Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Road

Map;

Nonproliferation Study, a review of potential impacts to

the U.S. nonproliferation policy from the

[[Page 50070]]

alternatives under consideration in the PEIS;

Cost Study, a review of costs for the alternatives under

consideration in the PEIS; and

Implementation schedule for the alternatives under

consideration in the PEIS.

The primary decision is related to the ability of DOE to support

the future missions evaluated in the PEIS. DOE will make a decision

whether its infrastructure should be enhanced to support these

missions.

If the decision is for enhancement, then subsequent

decisions will be made relating to Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

If Alternative 1 (FFTF Restart) is selected for

implementation, subsequent decisions will be made relating to the

support facilities. The FMEF could support FFTF for all of the missions

or existing operational onsite facilities in combination with either

the REDC in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory or the FDPF at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory could support FFTF

for all the missions.

If Alternative 3 (New Accelerator(s)) or Alternative 4

(New Research Reactor) is selected, subsequent NEPA review would be

required for site selection, construction, and operation of the

facility(ies).

If the decision is not to enhance or expand the

infrastructure, then subsequent decisions will be made relating to No

Action or Alternative 2 (Use Only Existing Facilities).

If No Action Scenario 1 is selected, a subsequent

decision would be required to determine if Russian plutonium-238 should

be purchased to support future NASA space missions.

If No Action Scenario 2 is selected, a subsequent

decision would be required to determine if Russian plutonium-238 should

be purchased to support future NASA space missions. In addition, the

site for the storage of the neptunium-237 would be selected.

If Alternative 2 is selected, a series of decisions are

required: (1) The selection of neutron accelerator sites to support, to

the extent possible, the medical and industrial isotope production and

research and development missions; (2) the selection of the reactor

option to support the plutonium-238 mission; and (3) the selection of

the processing facility site to support the plutonium-238 mission.

DOE, in its Record of Decision (ROD), may elect to implement a

combination of the pathways and/or individual elements within the

outlined pathways.

Scoping Meetings

The purpose of this Notice is to encourage public involvement in

the PEIS process and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope

and content of this PEIS. Through this notice, DOE formally invites

Federal, state, tribal, and other government agencies, as well as the

public to comment on the scope of this PEIS. DOE will hold scoping

meetings in Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, Hood River, Oregon,

Richland, Washington, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Idaho Falls, Idaho, and

Washington DC. The dates, times, and locations of these meetings are

identified under DATES above.

In order to facilitate an understanding of the program's

objectives, DOE personnel will also be available at the scoping

meetings to explain the program to the public and answer any questions.

DOE will designate a facilitator for the scoping meetings. At the

opening of each meeting, the facilitator will establish the order of

speakers and will announce any additional procedures necessary for

conducting the meetings. To ensure that all persons wishing to make a

presentation are given the opportunity, each speaker may be limited to

five minutes except for public officials and representatives of groups,

who will each be allotted ten minutes. DOE encourages those providing

oral comments to also submit them in writing. Comment cards will also

be available for those who prefer to submit their comments in written

form. Speakers may be asked clarifying questions, but the scoping

meetings will not be conducted as evidentiary hearings.

Toll-free telephone and facsimile (FAX) numbers have been

established to receive public comments. Interested parties may call 1-

877-562-4593 and leave a detailed message with their comments or FAX

their comments to 1-877-562-4592. Comments will also be accepted by

electronic mail. Interested parties may e-mail their comments to:

[email protected]

DOE will make transcripts of the scoping meetings and project-

related materials available for public review in the following reading

rooms:

U.S. Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Public Reading Room,

Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: (202) 586-3142

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, DOE--Idaho

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

Falls, ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-1144

Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, Government

Documents Section, 951 Southwest Hall, Portland, OR 97207, Telephone:

(503) 725-3690

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge

Public Reading Room, 230 Warehouse Road, Building 1916-T-2, Suite 300,

Oak Ridge, TN 37830, Telephone: (423) 241-4780

Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Drive, Richland, WA 99352,

Telephone: (509) 942-7457

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, DOE Public

Reading Room, 2770 University Drive CIC, Room 101L, Richland, WA 99352,

Telephone: (509) 372-7443

University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications

Room, Seattle, WA 98195, Telephone: (206) 543-1937

Gonzaga University, Foley Center Library, East 502 Boone, Spokane, WA

99258, Telephone: (509) 323-6532

NEPA Process

The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing

Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope

Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the

Fast Flux Test Facility will be prepared in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental

Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of

NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part

1021).

A 45-day comment period on the draft PEIS is planned, and public

hearings to receive comments will be held approximately 3 to 4 weeks

after distribution of the draft PEIS. The draft PEIS is expected to be

issued during the Spring 2000. Availability of the draft PEIS, the

dates of the public comment period, and information about the public

hearings will be announced in the Federal Register and in the local

news media when the draft PEIS is distributed.

The final PEIS, which will consider the public comments received on

the draft PEIS, is expected to be published during the Fall 2000. No

sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

notice of availability of the final PEIS is published in the Federal

Register, DOE will issue its Record of Decision and publish it in the

Federal Register.

[[Page 50071]]

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 10th day of September 1999.

David Michaels, PhD,

Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 99-24086 Filed 9-14-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P