Blending of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium From the Department
of Energy, to Low Enriched Uranium for Subsequent use as Reactor Fuel
at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
[Federal Register: November 19, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 57997-58002]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no01-106]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Blending of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium From the Department
of Energy, to Low Enriched Uranium for Subsequent use as Reactor Fuel
at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.
ACTION: Issuance of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and the
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) procedures implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act. On February 14, 2001, TVA published a notice
of adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
``Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium,'' prepared by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fissile Materials. This FEIS
was released by DOE in June 1996. TVA was not a cooperating agency on
that FEIS. In February 2001, TVA re-circulated the FEIS to agencies and
persons who had provided comments on the original DOE FEIS. EPA's
Notice of Availability for the re-circulation of the FEIS appeared in
the Federal Register on February 16, 2001. Subsequent to TVA's adoption
of the DOE FEIS and consideration of public comments received on TVA's
adoption of the FEIS, TVA has decided to implement the actions related
to the preferred alternative identified by DOE. The preferred
alternative in DOE's FEIS, as adopted by TVA, is Alternative 5, Maximum
Commercial Use.
TVA's actions related to the preferred alternative include entering
into an interagency agreement with DOE to obtain approximately 33
metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) for blend down and
subsequently to use the low enriched uranium (LEU) in the form of
nuclear reactor fuel at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP).
Interagency agreements are a common method for federal agencies to
frame roles, responsibilities, and conditions for arrangements between
agencies. TVA actions related to the preferred alternative also include
entering into contracts with a consortium composed of Framatome ANP of
Lynchburg, Virginia and Richland, Washington and Nuclear Fuel Services
of Erwin, Tennessee, to process and blend the uranium and to fabricate
the fuel.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce L. Yeager, Senior Specialist,
National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Policy and Planning,
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT
8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-8051 or e-mail
blyeager@tva.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis of Decision
After analysis of the adequacy and applicability of the DOE's Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Surplus Highly
Enriched Uranium, TVA's adoption of the DOE FEIS (Federal Register,
February 14, 2001), re-circulation of the DOE FEIS, and the
consideration of public comments received on TVA's adoption of the
FEIS, TVA decided to implement the actions (as described below) related
to the preferred alternative identified in the DOE FEIS. These actions
include entering into an interagency agreement with the DOE and into
contracts with a private consortium for the procurement and processing
of the HEU and for the fabrication of LEU into nuclear fuel. TVA will
obtain approximately 33 metric tons of HEU from the DOE for blending
down and subsequently use the LEU as nuclear reactor fuel at TVA's
BFNP. Framatome ANP will process and blend the uranium at the Nuclear
Fuel Services facility in Erwin, Tennessee, and fabricate fuel at its
facilities in Richland, Washington. The first fuel covered by the
contracts is expected to be loaded during the spring of 2005 and the
last reload is expected to occur in 2015.
Basis for Decision
TVA has decided to implement the actions described under the DOE
preferred alternative (Maximum Commercial Use) because it would result
in substantial savings to TVA ratepayers in nuclear fuel costs in the
years 2005-2015, thereby aiding TVA in its mission of providing low
cost, reliable power for the Tennessee Valley region without
significantly impacting the environment. Implementation of
[[Page 57998]]
TVA's actions would also avoid the environmental impacts associated
with producing an equivalent amount of LEU from 14 million pounds of
natural uranium (as U3O8) that in turn would require mining of 140,000
tons of ore.
Background
In accordance with United States policies and international
agreements for the non-proliferation of weapons-usable fissile
material, the President declared on March 1, 1995 that approximately
200 tons of this material was surplus to United States defense needs.
In the HEU Final EIS (Issued June 28, 1996), DOE considered the
potential environmental impacts of alternatives for a program to reduce
global nuclear proliferation risks by blending up to 200 metric tons of
United States-origin surplus HEU down to LEU to make it non-weapons
usable. The resulting LEU was to either be sold for commercial use as
fuel feed for non-defense nuclear power plants, or disposed of as low-
level radioactive waste (LLW). After consideration of the public
comments received, DOE finalized the HEU EIS and decided to implement
the preferred alternative (Maximum Commercial Use) of the FEIS.
Implementation of the preferred alternative will involve gradually
blending up to 85 percent of the surplus HEU to a U-235 enrichment
level of approximately 4 percent for sale and commercial use over time
as reactor fuel feed, and blending the remaining surplus HEU down to an
enrichment level of about 0.9 percent for disposal as LLW. This would
take place over an estimated 15-to 20-year period.
Three blending technologies (uranyl nitrate hexahydrate [UNH]
liquid) blending; uranium hexafluoride (gas); or molten metal
blending), and four potential blending sites (DOE's Y-12 Plant in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina;
the Babcock and Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Facility in
Lynchburg, Virginia; and the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Plant in
Erwin, Tennessee) were considered in the FEIS.
DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition
of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium in June 1996, and subsequently
issued a Record of Decision on July 29, 1996.
TVA published a Notice of Adoption for this FEIS in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2001, and the Environmental Protection
Agency's Notice of Availability for re-issue of the FEIS appeared in
the Federal Register on February 16, 2001. The FEIS was re-circulated
by TVA to federal and state agencies. Individuals and organizations who
had provided comment on DOE's draft EIS were mailed the Notice of
Adoption and a letter noting TVA's adoption of the FEIS, and its
availability. Additionally, the FEIS was placed in local libraries in
Aiken, South Carolina; Richland, Washington; Athens, Alabama; and
Erwin, Oak Ridge, Knoxville, and Chattanooga, TN.
At their March 28, 2001, public meeting, the TVA Board of Directors
approved delegation of authority to enter into the Interagency
Agreement with the Department of Energy for obtaining surplus HEU and
processing the HEU to LEU. The Board further approved delegation of
authority for awarding separate contracts to Framatome ANP (Lynchburg,
VA and Richland, WA) for processing and blending HEU to LEU, and for
fabrication of fuel assemblies for use in TVA reactors. The
environmental impacts of the above actions were earlier evaluated by
TVA and determined to be bounded by the actions analyzed in the DOE
FEIS. The FEIS was subsequently adopted by TVA.
Alternatives Considered
Because of the large number of potential combinations of end
products, blending technologies and blending sites, DOE formulated
several representative alternatives that bounded potential effects. The
Final HEU EIS adopted by TVA considered and analyzed the No Action
Alternative and four reasonable alternatives for blending of a nominal
200 metric tons of surplus HEU down to LEU to make it non-weapons-
usable. In addition to the No Action Alternative (continued storage of
surplus HEU ), DOE considered four alternatives that represent
reasonable choices within the matrix of possible combinations for
blending of different proportions of the surplus HEU for commercial use
or for disposal as waste, with variations on numbers and locations of
blending sites. The analyses of potential effects from the types and
amounts of materials, transfer of materials, and sites in the range of
alternatives considered by DOE bound those implemented in TVA's
actions. The FEIS considered:
Alternative 1--No Action (continued storage)
Alternative 2 (No Commercial Use)--Blend 100 percent to
waste (at all four sites)
Alternative 3 (Limited Commercial Use)--Blend 75 percent
to waste (at all four sites), 25 percent to fuel (at 2 commercial
sites)
Alternative 4 (Substantial Commercial Use)--Blend 35
percent to waste, 65 percent to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial
sites, the 2 DOE sites, or at all 4 sites)
Alternative 5 (Maximum Commercial Use)--Blend 15 percent
to waste, 85 percent to fuel (at any 1 site, the 2 commercial sites,
the 2 DOE sites, or at all 4 sites).
As described in the DOE FEIS, each alternative involving commercial
use of LEU derived from surplus HEU (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) included
transfer of 50 metric tons of surplus HEU and 7,000 metric tons of
natural uranium from DOE stockpiles to the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) for eventual sale and commercial use.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that a
Record of Decision identify the environmentally preferred
alternative(s). The analyses in DOE's HEU final EIS indicated that the
environmentally preferred site for the blending facility would be the
Savannah River site (SRS). However, since the impacts at all proposed
blending sites are expected to be low during normal operations
(including radiological impacts) and well within regulatory limits, and
since the overall risks associated with potential accidents are low,
TVA concludes that the minor environmental differences between sites
would not serve as a basis for choosing among them. Each of the
facilities identified in the FEIS would be capable of blending up to
the entire inventory of surplus HEU without significant adverse
environmental impacts. Further, location of the oxide conversion
facility at NFS in Erwin, Tennessee, where conversion of UNH liquid to
uranium dioxide powder will occur with subsequent shipment of the oxide
powder to the Framatome ANP-Richland nuclear fuel fabricating facility,
has less potential for environmental impacts than shipment of UNH
liquid or crystals to the fabricating facility.
Environmental Consequences
The environmental analyses in DOE's FEIS estimated that the
incremental radiological and other impacts of disposition of HEU during
normal accident-free operations would be low for workers, the public
and the environment, and well within regulatory requirements for all
alternatives. Blending activities that would be conducted for the
proposed TVA actions would be substantively the same as activities that
have been analyzed in DOE's FEIS. The incremental impacts from TVA's
actions would be low and well within the
[[Page 57999]]
bounds of impacts described in the DOE FEIS. There would be some
increases in water usage, fuel needs, and waste generation from use of
the NFS site. However, these increases can be accommodated at the NFS
site. The only additional construction required would be that for an
oxide conversion facility and a uranyl nitrate storage facility at the
NFS site. As discussed in response to comments below (Impact of
Converting Low Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution to UO2 (Provision 7),
the potential effects of performing the conversion to oxide at NFS is
not a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns in the
FEIS. Further, the impact of these minor changes is within the bounds
of impacts analyzed. Conversion of the material at NFS would result in
fewer and safer shipments of a less soluble form of uranium.
Response To Public Comments Received on TVA's Adoption Of DOE's
FEIS
During the public review period, four agencies (US Environmental
Protection Agency {EPA}, Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRC}, Alabama
Department of Environmental Management {ADEM} and Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation {TDEC}); two organizations (Local
Oversight Committee--Oak Ridge Reservation {LOC} and the Citizens for
National Security {CNS}); and three individuals responded with comments
on TVA's notice of adoption of the DOE FEIS for highly enriched uranium
(HEU) disposition. On March 16, 2001, the EPA published their
Availability of Comments on Environmental Impact Statements in the
Federal Register in which the EPA expressed lack of objections with
TVA's adoption of, and no concerns with, DOE's FEIS provided TVA
follows the actions described in the FEIS. On March 8, 2001, the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) responded that
the agency had no comments concerning the disposition of highly
enriched uranium into nuclear fuel assemblies for the TVA BFNP in
Athens, Alabama.
General comments from individuals included concerns regarding: (1)
Threat of nuclear materials to humans and the environment (1
individual); (2) comments of support regarding the nuclear power
industry and/or the TVA action (2 individuals); (3) the appropriateness
of using an Interagency Agreement between TVA and DOE (LOC); and 4)
desire for a public meeting or additional time for comment (LOC and 1
individual). The first two comments were noted. With regard to the
third comment the proposed use of an Interagency Agreement between TVA
and DOE to document each parties obligations is an appropriate
contractual instrument to specify the role of two federal agencies
implementing a project. A considerable number of opportunities were
provided to the public to comment on the original DOE FEIS. The 33-day
period provided for submitting comments on TVA's adoption of DOE's FEIS
(after re-circulation of the FEIS), constituted additional opportunity
for review of TVA's proposed actions and their relationship to DOE's
actions. All comments received were considered in TVA's deliberations.
Other comments from the public, organizations, and agencies were in
the following areas of specific concern:
General comments about need to maintain consistency with
the DOE FEIS (EPA, TDEC, LOC, CNS);
Source of blendstock, inclusion of off-specification
materials in the DOE FEIS, the processes used for blending and types of
products involved (LOC, NRC, 1 individual);
Desired identification of specific transport routes,
methods and types of materials (CNS, LOC, 1 individual) as it relates
to the DOE FEIS;
Scaling down of potential impacts to the lesser quantities
involved in the TVA action (1 individual);
NEPA analysis related to the NFS facility and the
environmental assessment to be performed by NRC for a license amendment
for the NFS facility (NRC, 1 individual);
Age of the DOE FEIS and identification of areas the
commenter believed needed updated, additional review or further
disclosure of analyses, e.g. socioeconomic, transportation, safeguards
and accident scenarios (CNS);
Assurance that regulation and licensing would be
consistent with NRC procedures for other commercial fuel cycle
facilities in the United States and previous Records of Decision issued
by DOE regarding disposition of Low Level Waste (TDEC).
TVA initiated review on the use of surplus HEU as a source of low
enriched uranium in March, 1994 in response to a Commerce Business
Daily inquiry and Federal Register notice from DOE for proposed
disposition options for uranyl nitrate (UN) solutions at its Savannah
River Site (SRS). TVA performed feasibility studies specifically aimed
at utilization of ``off-spec'' HEU as a source of enriched uranium for
TVA reactors and began discussions with commercial fuel vendors to
identify potential interest in providing fuel fabrication services
using such uranium. Based on these studies, TVA provided input for
DOE's consideration in evaluating the alternatives for HEU disposition
in the FEIS. Following NEPA review for potential environmental effects,
TVA conducted a limited successful demonstration (from Spring 1999
through Fall 2000) at its Sequoyah Nuclear plant using 4 fuel
assemblies derived from off-specification highly enriched uranium.
Results of the test indicated that the HEU-derived fuel performed
normally, caused no changes in plant operational parameters,
characteristics or safety, and resulted in no new or additional wastes
beyond those occurring with typical operations.
In 1997, TVA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Understanding to fully
investigate the commercial and technical viability of using up to 33
metric tons of ``off-spec'' HEU. TVA requested formal proposals from
all domestic commercial fuel vendors in 1998 to provide services
including HEU purification, downblending, conversion to uranium dioxide
powder, and fabrication into fuel assemblies. A consortium composed of
Framatome-Cogema Fuels in Lynchburg, Virginia, Siemens Power
Corporation in Richland, Washington, and Nuclear Fuel Services in
Erwin, Tennessee, provided the best proposal. Subsequent to the
original proposal, Framatome-Cogema Fuels and Siemens Power Corporation
merged into Framatome ANP. TVA then initiated joint negotiations with
DOE and the consortium to determine the most cost-effective approach to
complete the HEU disposition consistent with the FEIS assumptions.
These negotiations have culminated in the TVA decision to enter into
agreements with DOE and the commercial consortium. These agreements
have the following major provisions:
1. DOE shall provide natural uranium in the form of UF6 to TVA as
blendstock.
2. TVA shall provide natural uranium oxide for downblending 33
metric tons of HEU.
3. TVA's contractor shall convert 225 metric tons of natural
uranium powder into UN solution and ship the solution to SRS for
downblending HEU.
4. DOE shall downblend approximately 16 metric tons of HEU at SRS
into low-enriched UN solution containing 233 metric tons of uranium.
5. TVA's contractor shall ship the low-enriched UN solutions from
SRS to the NFS site.
6. DOE shall ship approximately 17 metric tons of HEU to NFS for
[[Page 58000]]
downblending into low-enriched UN solution containing 228 metric tons
of uranium.
7. TVA's contractor shall convert all of the low-enriched UN
solutions to UO2 powder containing 461 metric tons of uranium at the
NFS site.
8. TVA's contractor shall ship the UO2 powder to Richland, WA for
fuel pellet and fuel assembly fabrication.
The environmental impacts of the above actions have been evaluated
by TVA and determined to be bounded by the actions analyzed in the
FEIS. The following discussion provides the basis for this
determination, and also attempts to address comments received from the
public, organizations and agencies.
Impact of Blendstock Selection (Provisions 1 and 2)
DOE evaluated a number of different options for providing uranium
blendstock to blend the HEU (FEIS pages 2-4 & 2-14). These included
depleted uranium and natural uranium both in the form of UF6 and
uranium oxide powder. The natural or depleted UF6 to be provided to TVA
already exists in DOE inventory at the USEC. Transfer to TVA would be
accomplished at the USEC site by a ``book transfer'' to the TVA
inventory already in storage at USEC. Therefore, no environmental
impact would result from this transfer action. Since a UNH blending
process will be utilized both at SRS and NFS, UF6 must be converted
into uranium oxide powder for dissolution into UN solution. TVA
evaluated the alternative of converting the UF6 to uranium oxide at one
of its commercial fuel fabricators versus procuring uranium oxide
powder directly on the commercial uranium market. The total cost of
shipping the UF6 (either natural or depleted uranium), conversion to
uranium oxide powder, and shipping the powder to NFS for dissolution
was greater than procuring the powder directly. Furthermore, the
environmental impact of the UF6 conversion to powder would be greater.
Approximately 50-70 shipments of depleted or natural UF6 from the USEC
facilities in Paducah, Kentucky, or 50 shipments of depleted UF6 from
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, would be required. The FEIS evaluated shipping
UF6 to the GE (now Global Nuclear Fuel--GNF) plant in Wilmington, North
Carolina, from Paducah (a distance of 1,278 km) or from Oak Ridge (a
distance of 791 km) for conversion to uranium oxide powder. Once
converted the uranium oxide powder would have to be shipped from the
GNF plant to NFS (a distance of 860 Km) in approximately 40 shipments.
To complete these actions, a minimum of 90 total shipments resulting in
73,950 shipment-km of transportation would be required. TVA proposed
procuring uranium oxide powder directly from a commercial supplier such
as Cameco in Ontario, Canada. Approximately 40 shipments of uranium
powder from the Cameco facility in Blind River, Ontario, Canada (a
distance of 1,700 Km from NFS) would be required, resulting in 68,000-
km of transportation. Although, the route from Cameco to NFS was not
specifically analyzed in the FEIS, the expected environmental impact
from this transportation is estimated to be less than the UF6
alternative primarily due to the elimination of the UF6 shipments.
(Note that UF6 is a more volatile chemical form than uranium oxide).
Shipment of uranium oxide powder from other commercial suppliers in the
United States would have less impact than shipments from Cameco. The
FEIS did evaluate the impact of shipping natural uranium powder from
the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, to SRS (a distance of 4,442
km) to bound the maximum intersite transportation effects (FEIS page 2-
14 and Appendix G) for all intermediate routes. The FEIS analyses of
this route does bound the impact of the TVA proposed action. TVA also
evaluated use of surplus depleted uranium solutions at SRS and surplus
low-enriched uranium powder at DOE's Fernald site as blendstock.
Both of these alternatives were unacceptable because the chemical
contaminants in this material made it unusable as blendstock.
Finally, the incremental effect of TVA's adopted action is less
than the TVA alternative action of refueling its reactors using uranium
procured in the commercial market. If TVA did not use the surplus HEU
as a source of uranium, it would have to procure natural UF6 from its
commercial vendors. Only two vendors exist in North America, ConverDyne
in Illinois and Cameco in Canada. TVA normally procures 50 percent of
its requirements annually from each of these suppliers. If the HEU-
derived uranium is not used, TVA would procure approximately 2,500,000
kg of uranium as UF6 from Cameco. This would require over 300 shipments
of natural UF6 from Cameco to USEC enrichment facilities at Paducah,
Kentucky, (a distance of 1450 km) resulting in 435,000 shipment-km.
Therefore, the proposed action, procuring natural uranium oxide powder
from Cameco as blendstock has much less significant environmental
impacts in regard to transportation than the alternative of not using
the HEU-derived uranium.
Impact of Blendstock Dissolution (Provision 3)
The natural uranium oxide powder delivered to NFS will be converted
into a uranyl nitrate solution for blending HEU using the UNH blending
process (FEIS page 2-20). Approximately, 562,500 liters of uranyl
nitrate solution containing 225,000 kg of uranium will be shipped from
the NFS site in Erwin, Tennessee, to the SRS in Aiken, South Carolina,
(a distance of 620 km). The shipments will be made in DOT certified
cargo tank trailers approved for shipping uranyl nitrate solution.
Approximately 50 shipments total will be required with a maximum of 15
shipments in a year. The route to be taken will primarily be interstate
highways from Johnston City, Tennessee, to Asheville, North Carolina,
via I-81 and I-40, Asheville, North Carolina, to Columbia, South
Carolina, via I-26, and Columbia, South Carolina, to Aiken, South
Carolina, via I-20. The FEIS does not specifically evaluate these
shipments in Appendix G. However, the FEIS does evaluate shipment of 4
percent uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to the Westinghouse commercial
fuel fabrication plant in Columbia, South Carolina, (FEIS page 4-95)
and the shipment of 4 percent uranyl nitrate hexahydrate from NFS to
Westinghouse in Columbia, South Carolina, (FEIS page G-7) over the same
route. The results of the FEIS transportation analyses bound the
expected impacts of the planned natural uranyl nitrate solution
shipments from Erwin, TN to Aiken, SC because the total number of
shipments evaluated in the FEIS over the same route is greater than 500
shipments and the FEIS analyses were done for 4 percent enriched
uranium instead of natural uranium. The total health impact of shipping
the natural uranyl nitrate solution (estimated at 6E-03 fatalities
total) is significantly less than the total heath impact from the FEIS
analyses (5.5E-02 fatalities total). Furthermore, the FEIS bounding
analyses for shipping natural uranium blendstock (FEIS page 2-14) is
from the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, to SRS (a distance of
4,442 km). For 50 shipments of natural uranium blendstock over this
route a total health impact of 3.7E-02 fatalities can be calculated
from Table G.1-6 of the FEIS.
Impact of Blending 17 Metric Tons of HEU at SRS (Provision 4)
The FEIS specifically evaluates blending up to 200 metric tons of
HEU to a combination of 4 percent UNH and
[[Page 58001]]
0.9 percent UNH at SRS (FEIS pages 2-64 to 2-77).
Impact of Shipping Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution from SRS to NFS
(Provision 5)
TVA's contractor will ship 233 metric tons of low enriched uranium
as uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to NFS in Erwin, Tennessee. The
route to be used is the same route discussed previously in regard to
natural uranium solution shipping. The shipments will be made in 230
gallon Type B shipping containers licensed by the NRC. Each commercial
truck shipment will carry 9 shipping containers for a total of 2070
gallons containing 800 kg of uranium. Type B shipping containers are
required by federal regulations for these shipments because of the U-
234 concentration expected in the uranyl nitrate solution. Type B
containers are designed and tested to meet stringent requirements (FEIS
page G-14) to ensure that the contents are not released even under
hypothetical accident conditions. TVA contracted with Columbiana Boiler
to design, test, and license a bulk liquid transport package suitable
for shipping low-enriched uranyl nitrate solution.
The uranyl nitrate solution shipping campaign will occur over the
period of 2003-2007 and will require approximately 300 shipments. The
maximum number of shipments expected per year is 70. The FEIS evaluated
shipment of 4 percent uranyl nitrate solution from SRS to the
Westinghouse commercial fuel fabrication plant in Columbia, South
Carolina, (FEIS page 4-95) using Type A cargo tankers and the shipment
of 4 percent uranyl nitrate hexahydrate crystal from NFS to
Westinghouse in Columbia, South Carolina (FEIS page G-7) using Type A
containers.
These shipments are over the same route proposed for the low
enriched uranyl nitrate solution. The results of the FEIS
transportation analyses cited bound the expected impacts of the planned
low enriched uranyl nitrate solution shipments because the total number
of shipments evaluated in the FEIS over the same route is greater than
500 shipments as compared to the 300 shipments necessitated by the TVA
action. Additionally, the FEIS assumes the shipments are made in Type A
containers (FEIS page 4-102) with a 100 percent content release rate
during maximum accident conditions (FEIS page G-2). The low enriched
uranyl nitrate solution shipments will be made in Type B containers
with zero content release expected during accident conditions. The
total health impact of shipping the low enriched uranyl nitrate
solution is estimated to be less than 5.8E-02 fatalities using the
conservative assumptions of the FEIS. The smaller number of shipments
and the use of Type B containers would result in lesser health impacts
from TVA actions. Furthermore, the FEIS bounding analyses for shipping
low enriched uranium is from SRS to Siemens in Richland, Washington, (a
distance of 4,442 km). For 300 shipments of low enriched uranium over
this route a total health impact of 2.1E-01 fatalities can be
calculated from Table G.1-7.
Impact of Blending 16 Metric Tons of HEU at NFS (Provision 6)
The FEIS specifically evaluates blending up to 200 metric tons of
HEU to a combination of 4 percent UNH and 0.9 percent UNH at NFS (FEIS
pages 2-64 to 2-77).
Impact of Converting Low Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Solution to UO2
(Provision 7)
Processing and downblending up to 200 metric tons of HEU at the NFS
site is specifically evaluated in the FEIS. The FEIS assumes that the
product of the downblending operation would be UNH crystals. The
process is illustrated in the FEIS on page 2-21. Further, the FEIS
assumes that the UNH crystals will be shipped to commercial fuel
fabricators for dissolution to UN liquid, denitration to U3O8 powder,
and reduction to UO2 powder.
Under TVA's adopted action, the denitration and reduction processes
to produce low enriched UO2 powder would be undertaken at the NFS site.
The FEIS evaluated the impacts of downblending 25 percent of the
surplus HEU (50 metric tons) to 0.9 percent enriched uranyl nitrate
solution (3750 metric tons) and conversion to U3O8 powder at the NFS
site (FEIS pages 2-20 to 2-22 and 2-41 to 2-44). Thermal denitration of
uranyl nitrate solution to U3O8 will produce essentially equivalent
gaseous and liquid effluents as the ammonium diuranate(ADU) process
used to produce UO2. In the thermal denitration process, nitrates are
recovered from the offgas in a liquid process. In the ADU process, the
nitrates are also recovered as liquid and the ammonium hydroxide is
recycled. Both processes require offgas treatment including filtration
for uranium solids by HEPA filtration. Since the effluent from the ADU
process will be concentrated and solidified, the impact to the
environment will be minimized. Therefore, the FEIS analyses for
conversion of 3750 metric tons uranium as uranyl nitrate solution to
U3O8 powder bound the expected impacts of the proposed conversion of
461 metric tons uranium as low enriched uranyl nitrate solution to UO2
powder at the NFS site. Addition of these processes and the storage
tank facility at the NFS site for uranyl nitrate, would require a
license amendment from the NRC. The NRC will independently evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of a proposed license amendment by NFS.
Impact of Shipping 461 Metric Tons of UO2 Powder to Framatome ANP-
Richland (Provision 8)
After the low enriched uranyl nitrate solution is converted into
UO2 powder at NFS, it will be shipped to the Framatome ANP fuel
fabrication facility in Richland, Washington. The shipping campaign
will occur over the period of 2004-2008. A total of 154 shipments will
be required to transport 461 metric tons of uranium as UO2 powder. The
maximum number of shipments expected in any one year is 40. The UO2
will be packaged in Type B shipping containers meeting DOT requirements
and licensed by the NRC. The FEIS evaluates shipping low enriched
uranium as UNH crystals from NFS to Siemens (now Framatome ANP) in
Richland, WA. UNH crystals require more volume than UO2 powder,
therefore, 215 shipments would be needed to ship the 461 metric tons of
uranium as crystals. Furthermore, UNH crystals are much more soluble
than UO2 powder and accidental releases of UNH crystals would likely
have a more significant impact than releases of UO2 powder. From the
FEIS Table G.1-7, the total health impact for these shipments is
calculated as 1.44E-01 fatalities. The FEIS analyses bound the expected
impacts of shipping the low enriched uranium as UO2.
Use of Off-Specification HEU
TVA is planning to use the off-specification material described in
the FEIS that can be economically recovered. The FEIS does cover the
impact of blending this off-specification uranium to 4 percent
enrichment for commercial reactor use in Alternative 5 : Maximum
Commercial Use Alternatives (Pages 2-9). This alternative evaluated an
85 percent fuel/15 percent waste ratio for 200 metric tons of surplus
HEU. The 85 percent commercial fuel usage included off-specification
uranium that could be economically recovered (approximately 33 metric
tons). The 15 percent waste included HEU material that cannot be
economically recovered. The results are summarized in Table 2.4-1 (page
2-64) and discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS.
[[Page 58002]]
Socioeconomics
TVA's staff economist reviewed the DOE FEIS and concluded that the
FEIS adequately covers the socioeconomic and environmental justice
considerations for TVA's proposed actions. One activity was evaluated
in greater detail for socioeconomic effects to corroborate that effects
were minimal and did not create additional substantive issues or
potential for impacts. Construction of additional facilities at NFS is
not explicitly addressed in the DOE FEIS. Construction would require
about 4 years, with a maximum employment of about 105 workers. This
activity would have a positive socioeconomic impact on the area. At
maximum employment, the number of jobs in Unicoi County, where the
facility is located, would increase about 1.6 percent. However, the
Labor Market Area within which most construction workers would live,
also includes Carter, Sullivan and Washington Counties. This Labor
Market Area (LMA) has a combined employment level of over 189,000
workers. Therefore the maximum LMA employment increase during
construction would be less than one-tenth of one percent and would
constitute a minor, insignificant addition to employment in the LMA.
Other Considerations
As discussed, the DOE FEIS bounds the expected environmental
impacts from the proposed TVA actions. Furthermore, the alternative of
obtaining low enriched uranium through conventional mining, milling,
conversion, and enrichment has far greater environmental impacts than
the proposed action. To produce an equivalent amount of LEU for fuel
rod assemblies would require 14 million pounds of U3O8 which would
conservatively require mining about 140,000 tons of ore. Finally, the
following should be considered. The Department of Transportation
estimates that 3.6 billion tons of regulated hazardous materials are
transported each year in the United States with approximately 500,000
shipments of hazardous materials occurring each day (FEIS page 4-101).
There are approximately 2 million annual shipments of radioactive
materials representing about 2 percent of the annual hazardous material
shipments. As discussed, TVA's proposed actions will replace some of
those shipments with other shipments in the form of natural uranium and
low enriched uranium. All of the shipments anticipated resulting from
the TVA actions would represent less than a 0.01 percent increase in
the number of expected radioactive material shipments over the same
time period, and constitute an insignificant addition to the amount of
such material shipped.
Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Harm
As discussed, implementation of the decisions in this ROD will
result in low environmental and health impacts during normal
operations. These impacts were adequately addressed in the DOE FEIS.
However, DOE, TVA, and its contractors will take all reasonable steps
to avoid or minimize harm, including the following:
DOE and TVA will use current safety and health programs
and practices to reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation
exposure as low as reasonably achievable.
DOE, TVA and its contractors will meet appropriate waste
minimization and pollution prevention objectives consistent with the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. As discussed in the HEU FEIS,
segregation of activities that generate radioactive and hazardous
wastes will be employed, where possible to avoid the generation of
mixed wastes. Treatment to separate radioactive and non-radioactive
components will be employed to reduce the volume of mixed wastes. Where
possible, non-hazardous materials will be substituted for those that
contribute to the generation of hazardous or mixed waste. Waste streams
would be treated to facilitate disposal as nonhazardous wastes, where
possible. In addition to following such practices at its own federal
facilities, TVA and DOE will seek to include comparable requirements in
contracts with commercial facilities.
Dated: November 4, 2001.
John Scalice,
Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President.
[FR Doc. 01-28844 Filed 11-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}