[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44649-44654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17048]


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

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 [email protected], 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