Despite a major makeover in plans for the Uranium Processing Facility, which has been scaled down and supplemented with the use of existing facilities, the National Nuclear Security Administration has determined it doesn’t need to redo the 2011 site-wide environmental impact statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee – which was the information base for the multibillion-dollar UPF.
Over the past 18 months, NNSA compiled a “supplement analysis” to the SWEIS, and the 54-page report concluded that the environmental impacts of the new plans for the Uranium Processing Facility would not “differ significantly” from those impacts identified in the 2011 report. Therefore, they do not require a more substantial refurbishing of the environmental studies for the Oak Ridge project, the federal agency said.
“Based on the analysis in this SA (supplement analysis), the proposed action is adequately supported by existing National Environmental Policy Act documentation and consistent with (DOE rulemaking), the existing Record of Decision for the SWEIS can be amended, and no further NEPA documentation is required to implement the proposed action at Y-12,” the report’s summary states.
Not surprisingly, the UPF’s critics do not agree with the government’s conclusion.
The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, which has consistently pushed the NNSA to do the supplemental analysis and address impacts of the giant construction project, strongly rebuked the report and suggested it does not meet the intent nor the specifics of the National Environmental Policy Act. The activist group has called on NNSA to issue a new site-wide environmental impact statement for the nuclear weapons plant, particularly addressing the plans to lengthen the lifetime of two major production facilities at Y-12 – Beta-2E and Building 9215.
“The decision to continue to press old, unsafe buildings into service for another 25 years has profound environmental consequences,” Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said in a statement. “It also raises questions about worker and public safety as well as mission integrity. The SA (supplemental analysis) declares, without analyzing the environmental impacts in any way, that under the new proposal, the upgrade of existing facilities — which will be engaged in enriched uranium operations — will not meet current seismic standards.”
The NNSA said it continues to “develop and refine” more specific information on the changes and upgrades being made to the existing facilities to improve worker health and safety and make the old buildings last longer. The improvements include electrical upgrades, ventilation work, fire suppression improvements, and replacement or upgrade of some process and laboratory equipment.
However, Hutchison’s organization underscored a section of the report that addresses one of the problem areas: “With regard to seismic hazards, it would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade 50+ year old facilities to current seismic standards. As such, the plan is not to bring the long-range Y-12 (enriched uranium) facilities to current seismic standards, but to improve worker safety and reduce mission risk.”
The NNSA said modifications and improvements to the Building 9215 and Beta-2E will take place over the next six years.
Hutchison suggested there’s no way to create safety for workers via those construction improvements and said that giving workers hard hats and reducing the uranium inventory in those buildings would not meet the NEPA’s requirements.
