Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: January 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 331-336]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04ja07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership initiative (GNEP PEIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) and DOE's
regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part
1021, respectively). GNEP would encourage expansion of domestic and
international nuclear energy production while reducing nuclear
proliferation risks, and reduce the volume, thermal output, and
radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel (spent fuel or SNF) before disposal
in a geologic repository.
    Domestically, GNEP involves a programmatic proposal as well as
project-specific proposals. The programmatic proposal is to begin to
recycle spent fuel and destroy the long-lived radioactive components of
that spent fuel. Toward this end, GNEP includes project-specific
proposals to construct and operate three facilities. The proposed
nuclear fuel recycling center would separate the SNF into its reusable
components and waste components and manufacture new nuclear fuel using
reusable components that still have the potential for use in nuclear
power generation. The proposed advanced recycling reactor would destroy
long-lived radioactive elements in the fuel while generating
electricity. The advanced fuel cycle research facility would perform
research into SNF recycling processes and other aspects of advanced
nuclear fuel cycles. The GNEP PEIS will consider 13 sites as possible
locations for one or more of these facilities, as well as alternative
technologies to be used in these facilities. Internationally, GNEP
involves two programmatic initiatives. First, the United States would
cooperate with countries that have advanced

[[Page 332]]

nuclear programs to supply nuclear fuel services to countries that
refrain from pursuing enrichment or recycling facilities to make their
own nuclear fuel. Such countries would have no need to develop the
technology and infrastructure to enrich uranium or separate plutonium,
both of which have application in the production of nuclear weapons.
Second, the United States would promote proliferation-resistant nuclear
power reactors suitable for use in developing economies.
    The GNEP PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of
these programmatic and project-specific proposals, as well as
reasonable alternatives. The GNEP PEIS also will evaluate at a
programmatic level the potential environmental impacts associated with
the international aspects of GNEP, including alternatives. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice of Intent (NOI)
describes the alternatives that DOE proposes to evaluate in the GNEP
PEIS. This NOI also identifies dates, times, and locations for public
scoping meetings on the GNEP PEIS.

DATES: DOE invites Federal, state, and local governments, Native
American Tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the
public to provide comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and
environmental issues to be analyzed in the GNEP PEIS. The public
scoping period starts with the publication of this NOI in the Federal
Register and will continue through April 4, 2007. All comments received
during the public scoping period will be considered in preparing the
GNEP PEIS. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Public scoping meetings are discussed below in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section. Federal or state agencies, local governments, or
Native American Tribes that want to be considered as a cooperating
agency in preparation of this PEIS should contact Mr. Timothy A.
Frazier at the address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Please direct comments, suggestions, or relevant information
on the GNEP PEIS to: Mr. Timothy A. Frazier, GNEP PEIS Document
Manager, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, Telephone: 866-
645-7803, Fax: 866-645-7807, e-mail to: GNEP-PEIS@nuclear.energy.gov.
Please mark envelopes, faxes, and e-mail: ``GNEP PEIS Comments.''
Additional information on GNEP may be found at http://www.gnep.energy.gov.

    For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact:
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance,
GC-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0103, 202-586-4600, or by leaving a message at 1-
800-472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE's NEPA activities is
available on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa This NOI is 
available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. 
http://www.gnep.energy.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Terminology

    To aid in understanding the information that follows, a brief
explanation of key terms and the three proposed facilities that support
GNEP is provided below:
    ? Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--The Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI) is an ongoing DOE initiative to develop
proliferation-resistant spent nuclear fuel treatment and transmutation
technologies to enable a transition from the current once-through
nuclear fuel cycle to a future sustainable, closed nuclear fuel cycle
where valuable material is separated from spent fuel and recycled,
thereby extracting energy and reducing waste.
    ? Enriched uranium--Uranium in which the proportion of
uranium-235 to uranium-238 has been increased above the naturally
occurring 0.7 percent uranium-235. Reactor-grade uranium is uranium
that has been enriched to about three to five percent uranium-235 for
use in reactors to produce electricity. The same process can be used to
further enrich uranium for weapons use.
    ? Fission--The splitting of an atom into at least two other
atoms and the release of a relatively large amount of energy. Two or
three neutrons are usually released during the transformation. Fission
is the scientific principle by which nuclear power reactors work.
    ? Fission product--The atoms (fission fragments) formed by
the fission of heavy elements such as uranium. Fission products build
up in nuclear fuel as a normal part of reactor operations.
    ? Light-water reactor--A nuclear power reactor that uses
water to cool the reactor and to moderate (slow down) neutrons. It
belongs to the class of nuclear power plants called ``thermal reactors.'' 
Most nuclear power reactors in the world are light-water reactors.
    ? Recycling--The separation of used nuclear fuel into:
Uranium; waste (fission products and fuel element structural materials); 
and transuranics. Uranium and transuranics would be incorporated into new 
fuel to be consumed in reactors to generate electricity.
    ? Spent nuclear fuel (used nuclear fuel)--The fuel that has
been used in a nuclear reactor. As a typical nuclear reactor operates,
the fission process creates energy to generate electricity. During this
process, the uranium is being ``used'' and fission products accumulate
and interfere with efficiency until the fuel can no longer effectively
produce energy. At this point, the used fuel is said to be ``spent''
and is replaced.
    ? Transmutation--The conversion of one element to another by
changing its atomic structure. There are two primary transmutation
processes: Fission, which splits atoms, releasing energy; and neutron
capture, which adds one neutron to an atom. Transmutation can be used
to destroy radioactive elements with very long half-lives, such as
transuranic elements, by converting them to stable elements or elements
with shorter half-lives, while producing energy.
    ? Transuranics (transuranic elements)--Elements with atomic
numbers greater than uranium (atomic number 92), including neptunium
(93), plutonium (94), americium (95), and curium (96). Transuranic
elements are created in nuclear power reactors when uranium absorbs or
captures neutrons.
    ? Uranium enrichment--The physical process of increasing the
proportion (or ratio) of uranium-235 to uranium-238 to make the uranium
more usable as nuclear fuel.
    The three proposed GNEP facilities that DOE will evaluate in the
GNEP PEIS are:
    ? A nuclear fuel recycling center--A nuclear fuel recycling
center would support two of the three key components of an SNF
recycling program: (1) It would separate light-water reactor SNF and
fast reactor SNF into their reusable and non-reusable constituents, and
(2) after completion of transmutation fuel development at the advanced
fuel cycle research facility, it would fabricate such fuel for use in
the destruction of transuranic elements in a fast reactor (the advanced
recycling reactor). A nuclear fuel recycling center could be privately
owned and operated, potentially with government-supplied incentives or
other involvement yet to be determined.
    ? An advanced recycling reactor--A fast neutron spectrum
reactor that would be capable of converting long-lived radioactive
elements (e.g., plutonium and other transuranics) into shorter-lived
radioactive elements while

[[Page 333]]

producing electricity. The advanced recycling reactor could be
privately owned and operated, potentially with government-supplied
incentives or other involvement yet to be determined.
    ? An advanced fuel cycle research facility--A research
facility that DOE would design, build, and operate at a DOE site. Among
other activities, the advanced fuel cycle research facility would
support research and development (R&D) relating to separation and
fabrication of fast reactor transmutation fuel to enable the
destruction of transuranic elements separated from SNF.

II. Background

    The United States faces significant energy challenges including
increasing energy supplies in ways that protect and improve the
environment. Meeting each of these challenges is critical to expanding
the United States economy and protecting energy and national security.
    The President's Advanced Energy Initiative has identified three
ways to meet the challenge of generating more electricity: Clean coal
technology, advanced emission-free nuclear power, and renewable
resources such as solar and wind. The GNEP PEIS will evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of alternative ways to recycle spent
nuclear fuel using technologies that increase its usefulness while
reducing the threat of proliferation.
    Nuclear power provides approximately one-fifth of the electricity
that the United States uses to power factories, office buildings,
homes, and schools. Over 100 operating nuclear power plants, located at
65 sites in 31 states, constitute the second-largest source of
electricity generation in the United States. The plants are, on
average, approximately 25 years old and are licensed to operate for 40
years with an option to renew for an additional 20 years. Nuclear
reactors do not emit the air pollutants and greenhouse gases that
result from coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired generation.
Nuclear power contributes to United States energy security.
    Historically, the United States has used a ``once through'' or
``open'' fuel cycle in which nuclear fuel is used a single time by a
nuclear power reactor, and then the spent fuel is stored at that plant
pending disposal. The Federal government has responsibility for the
disposal of SNF, and plans to dispose of it in the geologic repository
located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
    GNEP would establish a ``closed'' fuel cycle by recycling spent
nuclear fuel rather than disposing of it after one use. Recycling spent
fuel rather than disposing of it potentially would extend the stock of
nuclear fuel available to meet growing electricity demand and reduce
waste from the generation of nuclear power. DOE has been researching
and developing recycling technologies in its laboratories for many
years and has identified processes that would be needed for GNEP to
accomplish its objectives. However, additional R&D is necessary to
implement the proposed GNEP recycling associated with the transmutation
fuel.
    GNEP also offers the potential for more efficient nuclear waste
disposal. Technological advancements through GNEP could reduce the
volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of waste requiring permanent
disposal at the Yucca Mountain geologic repository. It is important to
emphasize, however, that GNEP does not diminish in any way the need
for, or the urgency of, the nuclear waste disposal program at Yucca
Mountain. Yucca Mountain is still required under any fuel cycle scenario.
    The Energy Information Administration projects that the world's
electricity consumption will double from 2003 to 2030. GNEP as
envisioned would promote the expanded use of carbon-free nuclear energy
to meet growing electricity demand throughout the world, while reducing
nuclear proliferation risks. GNEP would achieve this goal by having
nations with secure, advanced nuclear capabilities provide fuel
services--fresh fuel and recovery of used fuel--to other nations that
refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment or recycling activities. The
closed fuel cycle model envisioned by this partnership requires
development and deployment of technologies that enable recycling and
reduction of long-lived radioactive waste.
    As these technologies are developed, the United States would work
with partners to provide developing countries with reactors that would
be secure, cost-effective, and able to meet their energy needs, as well
as related nuclear services that would ensure that they have a reliable
fuel supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear
power only for electricity and refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment
and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear
weapons. By working with other nations under the GNEP, the United
States could provide safe and reliable energy that growing economies
need, while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
    The commercial marketplace will ultimately determine how to meet
future increased demand for electricity. By recycling SNF, GNEP is
designed to provide an alternative to the once-through fuel cycle. DOE
is not proposing in this PEIS that DOE would construct and operate any
facilities for the primary purpose of generating electricity. The
proposed advanced recycling reactor would demonstrate the feasibility
of consuming transuranics in transmutation fuel in a reactor, while
also generating electricity.

III. The Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    DOE's underlying purpose and need in proposing this action is to
encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy
production while reducing the risks associated with nuclear
proliferation, and to reduce the volume, thermal output, and
radiotoxicity of SNF before disposal in a geologic repository. To meet
its non-proliferation goals with regard to SNF recycling, DOE will only
assess as reasonable alternatives those technologies that do not
separate pure plutonium.

IV. Advance Notice of Intent; Funding Opportunity Announcement;
Requests for Expressions of Interest

    On March 22, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register (71 FR
14505) an Advance NOI (ANOI) related to the then-proposed GNEP
Technology Demonstration Program EIS. That ANOI explained the goals of
GNEP as it was then conceived and identified the three major project-
specific elements (the demonstration of advanced separations processes,
conversion of transuranics, and advanced fuel fabrication) of a GNEP
Technology Demonstration Program, which was intended to demonstrate
closed fuel cycle technologies at an engineering scale. The ANOI also
invited comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and environmental
issues to be analyzed in that EIS. DOE received over 800 comment
documents, more than 750 of which contained similar substantive comments.
    DOE considered all comments received. One of the main comments
received was that DOE should do a programmatic NEPA review instead of
limiting its review to the three facilities. Comments received on the
ANOI also included the following:
    ? The proposed technologies are not sufficiently advanced to
proceed with engineering-scale demonstrations;
    ? DOE should pursue and analyze alternatives to nuclear
power in a PEIS;

[[Page 334]]

    ? DOE is proceeding with Federal action related to GNEP
before conducting the required NEPA analysis.
    These issues will be addressed in the GNEP PEIS.
    In addition, a number of foreign governments and private companies
have expressed interest in cooperating with DOE to develop and deploy
advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies. Some of these entities
indicated they are pursuing technologies that may be ready for
deployment faster, and at a larger, commercial scale, than those
currently under development by DOE.
    In response to the comments and the interest expressed, DOE has
made two fundamental changes to its GNEP NEPA strategy: (1) DOE will
prepare a PEIS to assess the programmatic elements of GNEP, as well as
the three proposed projects; and (2) DOE is now proposing to analyze
engineering-scale and commercial-scale demonstrations of GNEP
technologies at two of the three proposed facilities, rather than only
at the smaller engineering scale.
    Since publication of the ANOI, DOE has taken several steps to
determine the level of interest in GNEP and obtain useful information.
First, DOE has sought input regarding potential hosting sites in the
United States for a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced
recycling reactor. On August 3, 2006, DOE issued a Financial Assistance
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for public or commercial
entities interested in hosting GNEP facilities to conduct detailed
siting studies. These siting studies will be used by DOE to help
evaluate potential locations for a nuclear fuel recycling center and an
advanced recycling reactor. Applications for these financial assistance
grants were due to DOE by September 7, 2006. On November 29, 2006, DOE
announced that 11 commercial and public consortia had been selected to
receive grants under this FOA. The study sites and sponsors are:
    Atomic City, Idaho--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Barnwell, South Carolina--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Hanford Site, Washington--Tri-City Industrial Development Council/
Columbia Basin Consulting Group,
    Hobbs, New Mexico--Eddy Lea Energy Alliance,
    Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho--Regional Development Alliance, Inc.,
    Morris, Illinois--General Electric Company,
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee--Community Reuse
Organization of East Tennessee,
    Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky--Paducah Uranium Plant
Asset Utilization, Inc.,
    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio--Piketon Initiative for
Nuclear Independence, LLC,
    Roswell, New Mexico--EnergySolutions, LLC,
    Savannah River National Laboratory, South Carolina--Economic
Development,
    Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties.
    Second, on August 7, 2006, DOE issued two requests for Expressions
of Interest (EOIs) related to GNEP (see 44 FR 44673 and 44 FR 44676).
The purpose of the EOIs was to obtain information from the domestic and
international nuclear industry on the potential development of a
commercial-scale nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced
recycling reactor using advanced technologies available now or in the
near future. DOE is using the industry responses to the EOIs to help
identify available technologies, alternative facility sizes, potential
financial arrangements, and other factors related to the development of
a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. This
information will contribute to the development of reasonable
alternatives for evaluation in the GNEP PEIS.
    DOE also would pursue an R&D program using an advanced fuel cycle
research facility to develop additional technologies (not yet
available) to separate and fabricate transmutation fuel for a fast
reactor. DOE did not include an advanced fuel cycle research facility
in the FOA or EOI processes because an advanced fuel cycle research
facility is intended to be an R&D facility on a DOE site. Like a
nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor, an
advanced fuel cycle research facility will be evaluated in the GNEP PEIS.

V. Description of GNEP Recycling

    In general terms, GNEP recycling would work as follows. Spent fuel
would be received from commercial nuclear reactors and would be
processed in a nuclear fuel recycling center to separate the
potentially reusable constituents (uranium and transuranic elements)
from the non-reusable constituents (e.g., fuel element structural
materials and fission products). The reusable constituents would be
used to make transmutation fuel for an advanced recycling reactor and,
possibly, other reactor fuels (e.g., uranium could be re-enriched and
made into light-water reactor fuel). The transmutation fuel would be
consumed in an advanced recycling reactor, and the advanced recycling
reactor would also produce electricity during these operations. The
spent transmutation fuel would then be separated and the remaining
transuranics used to make new transmutation fuel to be further
destroyed in the advanced recycling reactor while producing
electricity. Non-reusable constituents would be converted to waste
forms for eventual disposal in a geologic repository or for other long-
term storage or disposal, as appropriate. This fuel cycle has the
potential to reduce the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of
waste that would need to be placed in a geologic repository, thereby
increasing the geologic repository's effective capacity and lessening
the need for additional repository capacity.

VI. Current Research and Development Activities

    DOE has been conducting R&D related to the nuclear fuel cycle and
nuclear reactor programs for many decades. Current R&D efforts are
focused on exploring new, innovative concepts for advanced nuclear
energy technologies that can address the key issues facing the long-
term viability and expansion of nuclear power, including: The need to
reduce and deal satisfactorily with nuclear wastes; improving economic
performance; further advancing the safety of nuclear power generation;
and addressing issues associated with the proliferation of fissile
materials and sensitive nuclear technologies. GNEP would build upon
these activities. While these activities share a common purpose with
GNEP, they are outside the scope of the GNEP PEIS.

VII. Proposed Alternatives

    The GNEP PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of
programmatic and project-specific proposals, as well as reasonable
alternatives.

A. International Programmatic Alternatives

    The GNEP PEIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
two proposed international initiatives and, for each, a No Action
Alternative. The No Action Alternative would reflect the continuation
of the status quo.
    The two initiatives are the reliable fuel services program and the
reactor program. Under the reliable fuel services program, the United
States would work with partner nations to provide assurances of fuel
availability for operators of nuclear power reactors in nations that
refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing

[[Page 335]]

programs. DOE is not proposing any specific action with regard to the
reliable fuel services program, and the GNEP PEIS will include only a
general, qualitative analysis of the potential impacts on the United
States or the global commons that might be involved with such activities.
    Under the reactor program, the United States would explore
promoting proliferation-resistant reactors designed to meet the needs
of developing economies. Because the designs for these reactors are not
yet determined and DOE is not proposing any specific action to make the
reactors available, the GNEP PEIS will include only a general,
qualitative analysis of the potential impacts on the United States or
the global commons that might be involved with such activities.

B. Domestic Programmatic Alternatives

    The domestic programmatic alternatives currently envisioned are:
    Programmatic Alternative 1, No Action Alternative: Continue the
status quo by relying upon a ``once through'' or ``open'' fuel cycle in
which commercial reactors generate and store SNF until DOE can dispose
of it in a geologic repository, while continuing the ongoing nuclear
fuel cycle R&D activities, including those activities associated with
DOE's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI).
    Programmatic Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Pursue the GNEP closed
fuel cycle and recycle SNF in a system that includes one or more
nuclear fuel recycling centers and one or more advanced recycling
reactors to process SNF generated after their deployment. The PEIS
analysis would be based upon alternative assumptions regarding the
amount of SNF processed and the corresponding potential cumulative
impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions as a result of this alternative.
    The closed fuel cycle programmatic alternative will include an
analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with broad
implementation of a closed fuel cycle. In addition, DOE is now
proposing to site, construct, and operate a single set of closed fuel
cycle facilities.

C. Domestic Project-Specific Alternatives

    The project-specific alternatives are:
    Project Alternative 1, No Action Alternative: Continue relying upon
a ``once through'' or ``open'' fuel cycle in which commercial reactors
generate and store SNF until DOE can dispose of it in a geologic
repository, while continuing the ongoing nuclear fuel cycle R&D
activities, including those activities associated with DOE's AFCI. A
nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor, and an
advanced fuel cycle research facility would not be built.
    Project Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Select site(s) and
construct and operate the following GNEP facilities: (1) A nuclear fuel
recycling center, (2) an advanced recycling reactor, and (3) an
advanced fuel cycle research facility. The GNEP PEIS will assess
alternative technologies and implementation approaches (e.g.,
engineering or commercial facility scale) that are deemed reasonable,
based in part on the EOIs discussed in the BACKGROUND section above.
With respect to a nuclear fuel recycling center, DOE plans to evaluate
alternative separations technologies for SNF from commercial light-
water reactors and the advanced recycling reactor. For each technology,
DOE would evaluate potential waste streams and alternative waste forms
(e.g., borosilicate glass, ceramic).
    For a nuclear fuel recycling center, DOE will analyze several
alternative SNF throughputs from approximately 100 metric tons of heavy
metal (MTHM) annually, up to 3,000 MTHM annually. At the low range of
throughputs, the analyses would correspond to engineering-scale
capacities consistent with the ANOI. At the high range of throughput,
the Department expects that a nuclear fuel recycling center would have
the capacity to recycle up to 2,000-3,000 MTHM annually, which would
enable a nuclear fuel recycling center to recycle commercial SNF
inventories at approximately the same rate that such inventories are
now generated. DOE also will assess appropriate storage alternatives
for the recycling facilities. DOE will evaluate storage of spent fuel
prior to recycling, as well as storage of waste generated from
recycling, at a level related to the projected throughput for a nuclear
fuel recycling center.
    For an advanced recycling reactor, the baseline technology that
will be assessed is a sodium-cooled fast reactor. DOE plans to evaluate
alternative fuel types (e.g., oxide, metal) and power ratings (250--
2,000 MW_thermal) for an advanced recycling reactor. DOE also
will assess appropriate storage alternatives for spent fuel generated
by an advanced recycling reactor prior to recycling, at a level related
to the projected size of an advanced recycling reactor.
    DOE envisions that a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced
recycling reactor could begin operation before DOE has fully completed
its research and development of the transmutation fuel recycling at an
advanced fuel cycle research facility. During this interim period, DOE
may use a nuclear fuel recycling center to separate light-water reactor
SNF and support the fabrication of fast reactor driver fuel which would
be consumed in the advanced recycling reactor. This fuel could be made
of uranium and plutonium, but would likely not contain other
transuranics. Once DOE completes the R&D required to fabricate fuel
containing other transuranic elements, it would use a nuclear fuel
recycling center to fabricate fast reactor fuels containing other
transuranics, and demonstrate the consumption of transuranic elements
in an advanced recycling reactor. DOE would then separate the resulting
spent transmutation fuel and fabricate new transmutation fuel in a
nuclear fuel recycling center.
    At this time, the following DOE sites are under consideration for
the location of a nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced
recycling reactor: Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho Falls, Idaho);
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, Kentucky); Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (Piketon, Ohio); Savannah River Site (Aiken, South
Carolina); Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee); and
Hanford Site (Richland, Washington). In addition, non-DOE sites in the
following locations also are under consideration for the location of a
nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced recycling reactor:
Atomic City, Idaho; Morris, Illinois; Hobbs, New Mexico; Roswell, New
Mexico; and Barnwell, South Carolina.
    DOE is proposing that the advanced fuel cycle research facility be
located at a DOE site. The DOE sites under consideration include: Idaho
National Laboratory (Idaho Falls, Idaho); Argonne National Laboratory
(DuPage County, Illinois); Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos,
New Mexico); Savannah River Site (Aiken, South Carolina); Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee); and Hanford Site (Richland,
Washington).
    To determine reasonable site alternatives for an advanced fuel
cycle research facility, DOE is conducting a site screening process
that is considering criteria specific to an advanced fuel cycle
research facility. Similarly, for a nuclear fuel recycling center and
an advanced recycling reactor, DOE will use the information received
through the FOA process, as well as other information, to develop the
reasonable site alternatives. As a result of these site screening
processes, some sites may be eliminated from

[[Page 336]]

consideration as reasonable site alternatives. DOE will document the
results of the site screening processes in the GNEP PEIS Site
Alternative Screening Report.
    DOE intends that the alternatives and analyses in the GNEP PEIS
will provide the maximum amount of flexibility in making decisions
related to GNEP. In any event, however, in order for a site to be
selected as the preferred site for a facility, DOE will require
adequate assurances that there are no legal impediments to the siting
and operation of that facility in that State.
    The GNEP PEIS analysis will address the potential environmental
impacts of proceeding with a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced
recycling reactor, and an advanced fuel cycle facility, either
individually or in any combination. In addition, the PEIS will analyze
the environmental impacts of not developing transmutation fuel in a
timely manner.

VIII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis

    DOE has identified the following potential environmental issues for
analysis in the GNEP PEIS. The list is presented to facilitate comment
on the scope of the PEIS; it is not intended to be comprehensive or to
predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential
impacts. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the public
scoping process. The current list includes the following issues:
    ? Potential impacts to the general population and workers
from radiological and nonradiological releases
    ? Potential impacts of emissions on air and water quality
    ? Potential impacts on flora and fauna of a region
    ? Potential impacts from transportation--in the United
States and across the global commons
    ? Potential impacts from treatment, storage, and disposal of
radioactive materials and waste
    ? Potential impacts from postulated accidents, as well as
potential impacts from acts of terrorism or sabotage
    ? Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on
low-income and minority populations (environmental justice)
    ? Potential Native American concerns (cultural and archaeological)
    ? Short-term and long-term land use impacts
    ? Compliance with applicable Federal and state regulations
    ? Long-term health and environmental impacts
    ? Long-term site suitability
    ? Consumption of natural resources and energy
    ? Socioeconomic impacts to potentially affected communities
    ? Potential impacts to cultural resources
    ? Cumulative impacts
    ? Pollution prevention and waste management practices
    ? Potential impacts from decontamination and decommissioning
(D&D) of facilities

IX. Public Scoping Meetings

    Public scoping meetings will be held to provide the public with an
opportunity to present comments, ask questions, and discuss the scope
of the GNEP PEIS with DOE officials. DOE selected the following scoping
meeting locations based on the responses received to the Financial
Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement and a preliminary
identification of DOE sites that could support the proposed DOE-
directed R&D facility.
    As discussed in this NOI, inclusion on the list below does not
necessarily mean that a particular location will be considered as a
reasonable site alternative for any GNEP facilities.
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee: DoubleTree Hotel (Salons A and B) 215 South
Illinois Avenue Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tuesday, February 13, 2007,
6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    North Augusta, South Carolina: North Augusta Community Center 495
Brookside Avenue North Augusta, South Carolina 29841 Thursday, February
15, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Joliet, Illinois: Barber & Oberwortmann Horticultural Center 227
North Gougar Road Joliet, Illinois 60435 Thursday, February 22, 2007, 6
p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Hobbs, New Mexico: Lea County Event Center 5101 N Lovington-Hobbs
Hwy Hobbs, New Mexico 88240 Monday, February 26, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Roswell, New Mexico: Best Western Sally Port Inn & Suites
(Ballroom) 2000 N Main Street Roswell, New Mexico 88201-6450 Tuesday,
February 27, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Los Alamos, New Mexico: Hilltop House Best Western (La Vista Room)
400 Trinity Drive (at Central) Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Thursday,
March 1, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Paducah, Kentucky: Executive Inn Riverfront (Meeting Room
International D) One Executive Blvd. Paducah, Kentucky 42001 Tuesday,
March 6, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Piketon, Ohio: Ohio State University Endeavor Center, Room 160 1862
Shyville Road Piketon, Ohio 45661 Thursday, March 8, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Pasco, Washington: Red Lion Hotel (Gold Room) 2525 N. 20th Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301 Tuesday, March 13, 2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Idaho Falls, Idaho: Red Lion Hotel on the Falls (Yellowstone/Teton
Rooms) 475 River Parkway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 Thursday, March 15,
2007, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
    Washington, DC: Hotel Washington (Washington Room) 15th and
Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20004 Monday, March 19, 2007, 1
p.m.-5 p.m.
    DOE also will publish notices in local media in advance of the
scheduled public scoping meetings with the dates, times, and locations.

X. NEPA Process

    DOE plans to publish the GNEP Draft PEIS in 2007 and the GNEP Final
PEIS in 2008. Following the 90-day public scoping period that commences
with publication of this NOI, DOE will prepare the GNEP Draft PEIS.
Once approved, DOE will announce the availability of the GNEP Draft
PEIS in the Federal Register and hold public hearings to solicit
comments on the GNEP Draft PEIS from Federal, state, and local
governments, Native American Tribes, industry, other organizations, and
members of the public. These comments will be considered and addressed
in the GNEP Final PEIS. DOE will issue one or more Records of Decision
no sooner than 30 days after publication of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the GNEP Final PEIS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2006.
David R. Hill,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6-22548 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Local Navigation
