ML25317A564
| ML25317A564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007033 |
| Issue date: | 10/06/2025 |
| From: | Boldman L, Ernstberger A KY Resources Council, Kentuckey Conservation Committee |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2025-1007, 90FR42988 00003 | |
| Download: ML25317A564 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 11/13/25, 9:24 AM Received: October 06, 2025 Status: Posted Posted: October 29, 2025 Tracking No. mgf-vpzn-4hj6 Comments Due: October 06, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2025-1007 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Comment On: NRC-2025-1007-0001 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2025-1007-0004 Comment from KY Resources Center, Inc. on Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Submitter Information Email:audrey@kyrc.org Organization:KY Resources Council, Inc. and Kentucky Conservation Committee General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments KRC and KCC PLEF scoping comments to NRC 11/13/25, 9:24 AM NRC-2025-1007-0004.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2025-1007-0004.html 1/1 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Amy Minor, Mary Neely Comment (3)
Publication Date:
9/5/2025 Citation: 90 FR 42988
1 TO: GLE-PLEF-EIS@nrc.gov Via: email Date: October 6, 2025 I.
Background
A. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), located in McCracken County, Kentucky, began operations in 1952 under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to enrich uranium for defense and commercial purposes. Over its six decades of operation, the plant generated significant quantities of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes, including solvents, heavy metals, long-lived radionuclides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). One of the most serious legacy issues is the widespread trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination which resulted in offsite groundwater contamination plumes. Other contaminants of concern include various uranium isotopes, technetium-99, and PCBs found in soils, sediments, surface water, and drainage creeks.
The site is listed on the Superfund National Priorities List and remains subject to ongoing remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE has undertaken extensive pump-and-treat groundwater systems, decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, and soil/sediment cleanups.
B. Licensing Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF)
Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a joint venture originally formed by General Electric, Hitachi, and Silex Systems, has pursued licensing for a commercial uranium enrichment facility beginning in 2008. GLE initially submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, which included both an Environmental Report (ER) and an Integrated Safety Analysis.
The NRC issued a full construction and operating license in September 2012, authorizing enrichment of natural uranium up to 8% U-235 with an annual capacity of up to 6 million separative work units (SWU).
1 Following the issuance of that license, GLE shifted its focus away from Wilmington toward the Department of Energys (DOE) Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) site in western Kentucky. This shift stemmed from GLEs contract with DOE to re-enrich the departments stockpile of high-assay depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF) tails. These tailsestimated at over 150,000 metric tons across DOE sitescontain residual uranium-235 above 0.34% and could be processed to produce roughly 2,000 tons of natural-grade uranium per year.
GLE began exploring the Paducah site to minimize transportation of DUF cylinders and to establish what would be known as the Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF). In August 2013, GLE proposed a $1 billion facility capable of producing up to 100,000 tons of natural-grade uranium over 40 years. DOE announced in November 2013 that it would proceed with contract negotiations, and in 2016 the parties signed an agreementlater extended in 2020authorizing GLE to purchase high-assay tails for commercial re-enrichment.
The proposed Paducah facility would operate under a new, separate NRC license and ostensibly serve a distinct market from Wilmingtonsfocusing on re-enrichment of legacy DOE material rather than primary enrichment of natural uranium.
I.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Obligations Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing scoping regulations A. NRCs NEPA Analysis The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, establishes a national framework for considering environmental factors in federal decision-making. NEPAs purpose is to require agencies to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their proposed actions before making decisions and to ensure that this information is available to the public and decisionmakers. As articulated in Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2005), the statute obligates agencies to disclose relevant environmental considerations and thereby permit informed public comment on proposed actions and alternatives that might entail less environmental harm. NEPA does not mandate particular outcomes but instead prescribes a process designed to ensure that agencies make informed, transparent decisions. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989), NEPA guarantees that environmental consequences are properly evaluated and disclosed before an agency acts.
As an independent regulatory agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is fully subject to NEPA and must integrate its requirements into its licensing and regulatory activities. When the NRC considers actions such as issuing licenses,
2 renewals, amendments, or decommissioning approvals for nuclear facilities, it must comply with the procedural framework outlined in NEPA as well as NRCs implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 51. These regulations require the NRC to prepare either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, if the proposed action may significantly affect the human environment, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In either case, the NRC must demonstrate that it has taken a systematic and comprehensive look at environmental effects, considered reasonable alternativesincluding the no action alternativeand has evaluated potential mitigation measures. The agency must also provide opportunities for public notice and comment and coordinate its environmental review with other state, tribal, and federal agencies to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication.
B. NRCs scoping process The scoping process is a foundational element of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, serving to identify the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1501.9 and 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.26-51.29, scoping ensures that the EIS is focused on significant environmental matters and excludes issues that are not relevant or have been previously resolved.
Under 10 C.F.R. § 51.29, the NRC defines the proposed action; determines the scope of the statement and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth; and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are peripheral, insignificant, or adequately addressed in prior environmental reviews. The regulation also requires identification of related environmental assessments or impact statements, integration of other environmental review and consultation requirements, coordination of the timing of analyses with the Commissions decision schedule, identification of cooperating agencies, and delineation of responsibilities for preparation of the EIS, including the use of contractor assistance.
Certain categories of issues are excluded from consideration in NRC environmental reviews, including changes to nuclear power plant cooling systems for operating reactors, disposition of spent nuclear fuel (10 C.F.R. § 51.23), emergency preparedness, safeguards and security, seismicity and other natural hazards, nuclear safety matters, operational issues requiring separate NEPA review (such as independent spent fuel storage installations), and economic feasibility.
II.
Comments A. Overview The NRC cannot treat the Paducah site as a generic or pre-evaluated location.
The environmental conditions, contamination history, and seismic characteristics of this
3 site are unique and demand a thorough site-specific analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must therefore distinguish between Category 1 and Category 2 issues, ensuring that all site-specific Category 2 concerns are fully evaluated. 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A Environmental Effect of Renewing Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants (Table B-1). Additionally, the NRC must consider direct, and foreseeable indirect
( downstream), and cumulative effects, as well as all reasonable alternativesincluding the no-action alternativeconsistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 and 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
B. Direct Effects
- 1. Seismic activity and Climate Related Hazards Direct environmental effects that must be fully evaluated include the impacts of effluent discharges to Little Bayou Creek and the Ohio River, as well as risks to downstream and downwind populations in the event of seismic damage to the facility and of accidental releases due to equipment failure, malfunction or operator error.
Groundwaterand, through the groundwater-surface water nexus, surface waterwill be particularly vulnerable to seismic impacts given the proposed system of underground pipes used to convey liquid wastes. The potential for widespread contamination of agricultural and residential areas in the event of a seismic event must also be analyzed.
Paducah lies within the New Madrid Seismic Zone, making seismic activity a reasonably foreseeable risk, even though NRC often categorizes it as a nuclear safety rather than a NEPA issue. Moreover, if seismic activity could exacerbate contaminant migration or compromise containment systems, the resulting effects constitute environmental impacts within NEPAs scope and must therefore be analyzed as such.
Additionally, plausible mechanisms for anthropogenic seismicity exist, including those related to groundwater remediation, heavy construction, and subsurface alteration.
These activities may influence local stress fields particularly given the sites proximity to the New Madrid Seismic Zone.
NEPA requires the agency to evaluate site-specific and cumulative interactions between human-induced ground disturbance and natural seismic hazards, especially where such interactions could exacerbate contaminant migration or damage containment infrastructure. The NRC should also consider the potential for common cause errors (where multiple safety/containment systems fail due seismic or unforeseen climate events such as, loss of electricity to the plant, etc.) and propagation errors (where one system failure leads to another).
In addition to seismic hazards, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must address the increasing frequency and intensity of tornadoes and other extreme weather events in Western Kentucky. The December 2021 tornado outbreakone of the deadliest in Kentuckys historydemonstrates that this region is no longer insulated
4 from catastrophic weather events historically considered rare. Tornadoes pose a unique risk to facilities that handle or store hazardous and radioactive materials, as structural damage or loss of power could lead to releases of contaminants into the air, soil, and waterways. Climate change projections indicate that the Ohio River Valley is likely to experience more severe and unpredictable weather patterns, including higher wind speeds and heavier rainfall events. These factors heighten the risk of flooding, surface water mobilization of contaminants, and infrastructure failures.
NEPA requires the NRC to evaluate these compounding risksthe interaction of seismic hazards, anthropogenic ground disturbance, and climate-driven extreme weatherbecause their combined effects could significantly increase the likelihood of contaminant migration or damage to containment systems. The EIS must therefore include a climate resilience and natural hazard vulnerability assessment, consistent with best practices in federal environmental review.
- 2. Legacy Contamination The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) is a federally recognized contaminated site subject to ongoing remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Any new construction or operational activitysuch as Global Laser Enrichments (GLE) proposed uranium enrichment facilityhas the potential to disturb contaminated soils, groundwater plumes, or legacy infrastructure, thereby mobilizing existing contaminants including trichloroethylene (TCE), technetium-99, uranium, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must evaluate cumulative impacts in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(i)(3), which requires consideration of how new discharges, emissions, or subsurface disturbances may interact with pre-existing contamination and ongoing cleanup efforts. Therefore, past environmental reports and assessmentsdeveloped for different conditions, purposes, or facility configurationscannot satisfy the NRCs present obligation to conduct a full, site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts associated with this project. The impact of the proposed facility and related infrastructure on the thorough remediation of past contamination, must also be evaluated.
- 3. Lifecycle Analysis Because the proposed laser enrichment process would generate fissile material for nuclear reactors, the EIS must assess not only site-specific effects but also the foreseeable consequences of storage and transportation of the fuel and the inevitability that the fissile material will become spent nuclear fuel. This outcome is an inherent,
5 short-term result of reactor use and directly linked to the enrichment activity. Omitting it would understate the projects true environmental footprint.
The EIS should also evaluate the full lifecycle impacts of the laser enrichment facility, including decommissioning and the management of process wastes and contaminated materials. These stages can pose significant radiological and chemical risks that extend well beyond the operating period and must be considered alongside ongoing storage and disposal requirements.
Furthermore, the analysis should address timeframes consistent with the radioactive half-lives of materials producednot just the 40-year operating period. Radioactive contamination can persist for millennia, and NEPA requires consideration of reasonably foreseeable long-term effects.
Finally, GLEs Environmental Report lacks a substantive comparison between re-enriching depleted uranium tails and using natural uranium feedstock. Without such analysis, it remains unclear whether the proposed laser enrichment project offers any net environmental advantage over existing alternatives.
- 4. Critical Habitat and Endangered Species Along the Ohio River includes designated critical habitat for the Rabbitsfoot mussel (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), a federally listed threatened species.
Additionally, the Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), a federally endangered species, is known to occur in the Ohio River near the site. Both species are sensitive indicators of water quality. The NRCs EIS must therefore assess potential direct and indirect impacts to these mussel populations and their habitats, including effects from construction activities, effluent discharges, altered hydrology, and contamination migration from the site, including cumulative contamination from the legacy site conditions.
Additionally, the relict darter, a fish native to the Bayou de Chien stream system in Western Kentucky which encompasses Little Bayou Creek, remains a federally threatened species. It was downlisted from endangered to threatened in 2023 following successful conservation efforts and it is essential that the NRC evaluate whether this project will jeopardize that species continued recovery.
C. Indirect Effects
- 1. Transportation The indirect effects of the proposed action must also be fully evaluated in accordance with NEPA and 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(2). These include the environmental
6 and safety risks associated with transporting enriched uranium products to and from the site. Moreover, because approval of this project appears likely to lead to the siting in Paducah of a fuel fabrication facility currently licensed for Wilmington, the NRC must evaluate the indirect environmental effects of that foreseeable development as part of this review. The agency must also consider the broader system-level impacts associated with the proposed increase in nuclear power generation, including the risks of deploying unproven high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel technologies.
These indirect and cumulative effects are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed action and therefore must be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement.
D. Cumulative Effects
- 1. Physical, Psychological, and Socioeconomic The NRC should include a robust health risk assessment evaluating direct and indirect exposure pathways, including airborne particulates, contaminated groundwater and surface water, bioaccumulation in fish and crops, and residual contamination in soils. Epidemiological studies of workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant have shown elevated rates of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma associated with trichloroethylene exposure.1 These findings suggest that certain subpopulations of workers may be at elevated risk and underscore the need for a health analysis for surrounding residents.
To date, there is more limited published data concerning health outcomes in the non-worker population, but the existing evidence justifies inclusion of exposure pathways-including water, air, fish, and soil-in the EISs human health assessment. The EIS must also assess the adequacy of DOEs ongoing remediation to protect future facility workers and the general public from incremental exposure risks.
In addition, limited access to safe greenspace and outdoor recreation areas affects community wellbeing. To the extent that land and water resources remain contaminated or unusable for fishing, gardening, or recreation, local residents experience compounded harm to both mental and physical health. Community members have reported being unable to fish from local waterways due to unsafe contaminant levels in fish tissuean example of how legacy contamination continues to undermine health and quality of life.
1 Bahr DE, Aldrich TE, Seidu D, Brion GM, Tollerud DJ; Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Project Team; Muldoon S, Reinhart N, Youseefagha A, McKinney P, Hughes T, Chan C, Rice C, Brewer DE, Freyberg RW, Mohlenkamp AM, Hahn K, Hornung R, Ho M, Dastidar A, Freitas S, Saman D, Ravdal H, Scutchfield D; Contractors; Eger KJ, Minor S. Occupational exposure to trichloroethylene and cancer risk for workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2011 Mar;24(1):67-77. doi:
10.2478/s13382-011-0007-1. Epub 2011 Feb 16. PMID: 21468904; PMCID: PMC5053621.
7
- 2. PLEF contribution to greenhouse gases The EIS should evaluate the energy demand and carbon footprint of PLEF operations. Laser enrichment consumes significant electricity, and regional power generation relies heavily on fossil fuels. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions and resource use are integral components of the projects cumulative impact and cannot be dismissed as covered under other EIS documents.
E. Reasonable alternatives Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 and 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative.
Reasonable alternatives should include broader energy policy options that would reduce or eliminate the need for expanded uranium enrichment capacity. These alternatives may involve phasing out or limiting nuclear expansion in favor of safer, more reliable, and cost-effective energy systemssuch as solar with storage, distributed solar generation, wind, and hydroelectric powersupported by enhanced demand-side management and conservation measures.
The EIS should also examine energy system alternatives that achieve national energy goals through accelerated investment in renewable generation and improved energy efficiency, thereby mitigating the need for additional nuclear fuel production. In addition, the NRC must consider the growing influence of artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers on energy demand and evaluate policy mechanisms ensuring that large-scale computing and AI operations internalize the true social cost of their energy use.
Finally, a no-action alternative must be fully developed, emphasizing continued Department of Energy (DOE) remediation and environmentally responsible reuse of the Paducah site, prioritizing long-term restoration and protection of human and ecological health over new nuclear processing activities.
III.
Conclusion In conclusion, the NRCs environmental review for the proposed Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility must fully satisfy the procedural and substantive obligations of NEPA by conducting a rigorous, site-specific analysis of all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with this project. The Paducah sites unique contamination history, seismic vulnerability, and ongoing remediation activities preclude reliance on prior environmental assessments prepared for different facilities or conditions. Any attempt to incorporate outdated analyses would fail to meet NEPAs hard look requirement and would undermine the statutes purpose of informed,
8 transparent decision-making. The Environmental Impact Statement must therefore independently and comprehensively evaluate the environmental consequences of siting and operating a new uranium enrichment facility at Paducah, using untested technology, including alternatives that avoid or minimize harm, prioritize renewable energy pathways, and advance long-term environmental restoration of this historically burdened site.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Audrey Ernstberger Audrey Ernstberger Staff Attorney KY Resources Council
/s/ Lane Boldman Lane Boldman Executive Director Kentucky Conservation Committee