[Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 44649-44654]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy04-49]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, OH, Site
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium
Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site (FEIS)
(DOE/EIS-0360). The FEIS Notice of Availability was published by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register (69
FR 34161) on June 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOE considered the potential
environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance,
and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the proposed depleted
uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility at three
alternative locations within the Portsmouth site, including
transportation of cylinders (DUF6, normal and enriched
UF6, and empty) currently stored at the East Tennessee
Technology Park (ETTP) near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Portsmouth;
construction of a new cylinder storage yard at Portsmouth (if required)
for the ETTP cylinders; transportation of depleted uranium conversion
products and waste materials to a disposal facility; transportation and
sale of the aqueous hydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as a conversion co-
product; and neutralization of aqueous HF to calcium fluoride
(CaF2) and its sale or disposal in the event that the
aqueous HF product is not sold. An option of shipping the ETTP
cylinders to the Paducah, Kentucky, site has also been considered, as
has an option of expanding operations by increasing throughput (through
efficiency improvements or by adding a fourth conversion line) or by
extending the period of operation. A similar EIS was issued
concurrently for construction and operation of a DUF6
conversion facility at DOE's Paducah site (DOE/EIS-0359).
DOE has decided to construct and operate the conversion facility in
the west-central portion of the Portsmouth site, the preferred
alternative identified in the FEIS as Location A. Groundbreaking for
construction of the facility will commence on or before July 31, 2004,
as anticipated by Public Law (Pub. L.) 107-206. Cylinders currently
stored at the ETTP site will be shipped to Portsmouth; a new cylinder
yard will be constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of
storage yard space when the cylinders are received. The aqueous HF
produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of
authorized release limits, as appropriate.
ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on
the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa
and on the Depleted UF6 Management
Information Network Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium. Copies
of the FEIS and this ROD may be requested by e-mail at
Ports_DUF6@anl.gov, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, by toll-free
fax at 1-866-530-0943, or by contacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak Ridge
Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the conversion
facility construction and operation, contact Gary Hartman at the
address listed above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process,
contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
[[Page 44650]]
Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-
2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The United States has produced DUF6 since the early
1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both
civilian and military applications. Production took place at three
gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called
ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky,
and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in
1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001.
The Paducah GDP continues to operate.
Approximately 250,000 t (275,000 tons) of DUF6 is
presently stored in about 16,000 cylinders at Portsmouth and about
4,800 cylinders at ETTP. The majority of the cylinders weigh
approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter,
and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives
for managing this inventory. Also in storage are 3,200 cylinders at
Portsmouth and 1,100 cylinders at ETTP that contain enriched
UF6 or normal UF6 (collectively called ``non-
DUF6'' cylinders) or are empty. [The non-DUF6
cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.] The
Portsmouth FEIS considers the shipment of all ETTP cylinders to
Portsmouth, as well as the management of both the Portsmouth and ETTP
non-DUF6 cylinders at Portsmouth.
As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options
for its DUF6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term
Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6
PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of
Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly
convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide
form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as
possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential
future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert
DUF6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal
were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion
facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review.
Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific
NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD
announcing the siting of a DUF6 conversion facility at
Paducah, Kentucky.
Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management
of its DUF6 inventory. The first law, Pub. L. 105-204,
signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy
to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January
31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at
Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle
DUF6, consistent with NEPA. The second law, Pub. L. 107-206,
signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than
30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of
work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October
2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF6
conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and
Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the
contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than
July 31, 2004, at both sites.
In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the
Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law
105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition
Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion
facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA.
On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in
the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare
an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and
decontaminate and decommission two DUF6 conversion
facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the
enactment of Pub. L. 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of
its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs,
one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the
Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal
Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368).
The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders
in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by
the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824).
Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period
that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and
prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was
published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18,
2004.
II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to more
stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly
from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS,
namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6 inventory as soon as
possible, and (2) Pub. L. 107-206, which directs DOE to award a
contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at
both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site.
III. Alternatives
No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion
would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling,
inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue: Thus the
status quo would be maintained at Portsmouth and ETTP indefinitely.
Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is
to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Portsmouth site
for conversion of the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF6 inventories
into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide
[U3O8]) and other conversion products. The FEIS
review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed
by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a
continuous process in which DUF6 is vaporized and converted
to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U3O8)
by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit.
The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH3). The
depleted U3O8 powder is collected and packaged
for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or
the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also
be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product
and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial
resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100%
of the HF acid to CaF2 for sale or disposal in the future,
if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a
disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility
will be designed with three parallel processing lines to convert 13,500
t (15,000 tons) of DUF6 per year, requiring 18 years to
convert the Portsmouth and ETTP inventories.
Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated,
Locations A (preferred), B, and C. The proposed action includes the
transportation of the cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site to
Portsmouth. In addition, an
[[Page 44651]]
option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah was considered, as
was an option of expanding conversion facility operations.
Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the
preferred location identified in the FEIS for the conversion facility
and is located in the west-central portion of the site, encompassing 26
acres (10 ha). This location has three existing structures that were
formerly used to store containerized lithium hydroxide monohydrate. The
site was rough graded, and storm water ditch systems were installed.
This location was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the
site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities.
Alternative Location B. Location B is in the southwestern portion
of the site and encompasses approximately 50 acres (20 ha). The site
has two existing structures built as part of the gas centrifuge
enrichment project that was begun in the early 1980s and was terminated
in 1985. USEC is currently in the process of developing and
demonstrating an advanced enrichment technology based on gas
centrifuges. A license for a lead test facility to be operated at the
Portsmouth site was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) in February 2004. The lead facility would be located in the
existing gas centrifuge buildings within Location B. In addition, USEC
announced in January 2004 that it planned to site its American
Centrifuge Facility at Portsmouth, although it did not identify an
exact location. Therefore, Location B might not be available for
construction of the conversion facility.
Alternative Location C. Location C is in the southeastern portion
of the site and has an area of about 78 acres (31 ha). This location
consists of a level to very gently rolling grass field. It was graded
during the construction of the Portsmouth site and has been maintained
as grass fields since then.
Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from
packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion
product (primarily U3O8) from the conversion
facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1)
selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2)
authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance
with DOE orders), or licensed by the NRC (in conformance with NRC
regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with
state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC
regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling
and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the
disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the
FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF6
conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and
the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal
location(s) for the depleted U3O8 conversion
product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE
will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any
further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will
give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal
decision and will provide any additional NEPA analysis for public
review and comment.
The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in
detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other
Than Portsmouth, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage
and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and
Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative.
IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives
described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air
quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources,
waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources,
environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts
are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives.
Among the three alternative locations considered at the Portsmouth site
for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts
that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The
discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses,
highlighting the differences among the alternatives.
Human Health and Safety--Normal Operations and Transportation.
Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of
workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals
would be well within applicable public health standards and
regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the
initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some
cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits.
Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck
primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher
number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting
the aqueous HF to CaF2 and transporting the CaF2
to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts
associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal
facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same
if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck.
If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be
higher because of the increased number of shipments.
Human Health and Safety--Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in
safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing
UF6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the
chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly
used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are
well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their
storage and transportation.
Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release
radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both
the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible
that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured
or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or
chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both
crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a
result of traffic accidents.
Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences:
(1) Those involving the DUF6 cylinders during storage and
handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or
generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in
particular NH3 and aqueous HF) under the action
alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of
chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives, The severity of
the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions
at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation
accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant.
However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of
occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the
consequences by the probability of occurrence).
Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder
storage
[[Page 44652]]
and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are
there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated
with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would
decline over time and disappear at the completion of the conversion
project.
In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the
consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the
larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident
probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a
result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either
option.
Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total
(modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most
criteria pollutants--such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
carbon monoxide--would be well within applicable air quality standards.
For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM)
released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of
PM10 and PM2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter
of 10 [mu]m or less and 2.5 [mu]m or less, respectively) at the
construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards
because of the high background concentrations. On the basis of maximum
background values from 5 years of monitoring at the nearest monitoring
station, exceedance of the annual PM2.5 standard would be
unavoidable because the background concentration already exceeds the
standard. Construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize
further impacts on ambient air quality.
Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility,
concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or
groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or
guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion
controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no
impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are
anticipated.
Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and
operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and
personal income in the vicinity of the Portsmouth site than would be
possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be
approximately 190 direct and 280 total during construction, and 160
direct and 320 total during operations.
Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed
during conversion facility construction would be up to 65 acres (26
ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be
impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized (e.g., by
appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and
negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at
all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on
where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by
maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. During
construction, trees with exfoliating bark (such as shagbark hickory or
dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat
(federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the
summer would be saved if possible.
Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated
during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the
Portsmouth site waste management operations, with the exception of
possible impacts from disposal of CaF2. If the aqueous HF
were not sold but instead neutralized to CaF2, it is
currently unknown whether (1) the CaF2 could be sold, (2)
the low uranium content would allow the CaF2 to be disposed
of as nonhazardous solid waste, or (3) disposal as LLW would be
required. The low level of uranium contamination expected (i.e., less
than 1 ppm) suggests that sale or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste
would be most likely. Waste management for disposal as nonhazardous
waste could be handled through appropriate planning and design of the
facilities. If the CaF2 had to be disposed of as LLW, it
could represent a potentially large impact on waste management
operations.
The U3O8 produced during conversion would
amount to about 5% of Portsmouth's annual projected LLW volume.
Cylinder Preparation at ETTP. The cylinders at ETTP will require
preparation for shipment by either truck or rail. Three cylinder
preparation options were considered for the shipment of noncompliant
cylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping ``as-is'' under a U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, and use of a cylinder
transfer facility (there are no current plans to build such a facility
at ETTP). The operational impacts (e.g., storage, handling, and
maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and
limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers.
If a decision was made to construct and operate a transfer facility at
ETTP in the future, additional NEPA review would be conducted.
Conversion Product Sale and Use. The conversion of the
DUF6 inventory produces products having some potential for
reuse. These products include aqueous HF and CaF2, which are
commonly used as commercial materials. DOE is currently pursuing the
establishment of authorization limits (allowable concentration limits
of uranium) in these products to be able to free-release them to
commercial users. In addition, there is a small potential for reuse of
the depleted uranium oxide product.
D&D Activities. D&D impacts would be primarily from external
radiation to involved workers and would be a small fraction of
allowable doses. Wastes generated during D&D operations would be
disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility and would result in low
impacts in comparison with projected site annual generation volumes.
Cumulative Impacts. The FEIS analyses indicated that no significant
cumulative impacts at either the Portsmouth or the ETTP site and its
vicinity would be anticipated due to the incremental impacts of the
proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput
of the Portsmouth facility could be increased either by making process
efficiency improvements or by adding an additional (fourth) process
line. The addition of a fourth process line at the Portsmouth facility
would require the installation of additional plant equipment and would
result in a nominal 33% increase in throughput compared with the
current base design. This throughput increase would reduce the time
necessary to convert the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF6
inventories by about 5 years. The construction impacts presented in the
FEIS would be the same if a fourth line was added, because the analyses
in the FEIS used a footprint sized to accommodate four process lines.
In general, a 33% increase in throughput would not result in
significantly greater environmental impacts during operations than with
three parallel lines. Although annual impacts in certain areas might
increase up to 33% (proportional to the throughput increase), the
estimated annual impacts during operations would remain well within
applicable guidelines and regulations, with collective and cumulative
impacts being quite low.
The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any
additional DUF6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by
operating the
[[Page 44653]]
facility longer than the currently anticipated 18 years. With routine
facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements
or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be
operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended
beyond 18 years and if the operational characteristics (e.g., estimated
releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained
unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially
unchanged.
V. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action
alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating
the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher
radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management
operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated
risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the
uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts,
the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action
alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with
uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated
under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic
impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no
action alternative.
The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites
would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail.
With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high-
consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such
accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the
DUF6 inventory has been completed.
Although there are some differences in impacts among the three
alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences
are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods
used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small
risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any
clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes
that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly
environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives.
VI. Comments on Final EIS
The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and
the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June
18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide
Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF6
Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it
had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in
conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth
Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the
Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns.
Decision
I. Bases for the Decision
DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the
FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix);
cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as
included in Pub. L. 105-204 and Pub. L. 107-206; agreements among DOE
and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the
management of DUF6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP,
and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its
decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the
Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, DOE considered
environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting
construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage
areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE
has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes
that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals
and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws.
II. Decision
DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred
alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the
following actions:
DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at
Location A within the Portsmouth site. Construction will commence on or
before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Pub. L. 107-206.
DUF6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP will be
shipped to Portsmouth for conversion; a new cylinder yard will be
constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of storage yard
space when the cylinders are received.
All shipments to and from the sites, including the
shipment of UF6 cylinders (DUF6 and non-
DUF6) currently stored at ETTP to Portsmouth, will be
conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be
shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the
transportation of UF6 cylinders.
Although efficiency improvements can be accomplished,
which would increase the conversion facility's throughput and decrease
the operational period, DOE has decided not to add the fourth
processing line to the conversion facility at this time.
Current cylinder management activities (handling,
inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with
the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Plan included in the Ohio
EPA Director's final findings and orders effective February 1998 and
March 2004, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental
requirements, until conversion could be accomplished.
The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for
use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If
necessary, CaF2 will be produced and reused, pending
approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate.
The depleted U3O8 conversion product
will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in
emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to
decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted
U3O8 conversion product after additional
appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its
disposal options and will consider any further information or comments
relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before
making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental
NEPA analysis for public review and comment.
III. Mitigation
On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will
adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or
minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from
constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These
measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already
performed as part of routine operations.
The conversion facility will be designed, constructed, and
operated in
[[Page 44654]]
accordance with the comprehensive set of DOE requirements and
applicable regulatory requirements that have been established to
protect public health and the environment. These requirements encompass
a wide variety of areas, including radiation protection, facility
design criteria, fire protection, emergency preparedness and response,
and operational safety requirements.
Cylinder management activities will be conducted in
accordance with applicable DOE safety and environmental requirements,
including the Cylinder Management Plan.
Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust
emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of
any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as
necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM10
and PM2.5.
During construction, impacts to water quality and soil
will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment
and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with
the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction
Management Plan.
If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on
construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying
potential habitat for the Indiana bat.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of July, 2004.
Paul M. Golan,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 04-17048 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P