-R45

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 WEST WACKER DRIVECHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601-9703

43 RUE DU RHONE1204 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

CITY POINT1 ROPEMAKER STREET

LONDON, EC2Y 9HT

1400 L STREET, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502

(202) 371-5700

FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950

www.winston.com

333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUELOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1543

200 PARK AVENUENEW YORK, NEW YORK 10166-4193

21 AVENUE VICTOR HUGO75116 PARIS, FRANCE

101 CALIFORNIA STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-5894

DOCKETEDUSNRC

JAMES R. CURTISS(202) 371-5751

jcurfissewinston.com

January 28, 2005

January 31, 2005 (3:37pm)

OFFICE OF SECRETARYRULEMAKINGS AND

ADJUDICATIONS STAFFBY FEDERAL EXPRESS

Administrative Judge G. Paul BollwerkAtomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionTwo White Flint North11545 Rockville PikeMail Stop: T-3F23Rockville, MD 20852

Administrative Judge Paul AbramsonAtomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionTwo White Flint North11545 Rockville PikeMail Stop: T-3F23Rockville, MD 20852

Administrative Judge Charles KelberAtomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionTwo White Flint North11545 Rockville PikeMail Stop: T-3F23Rockville, MD 20852

In the Matter ofLOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.

(National Enrichment Facility)Docket No. 70-3103-ML

Dear Administrative Judges:

In accordance with the Board's Memorandum and Order (Regarding ExhibitSubmission and Other Administrative Matters) of January 18, 2005, enclosed are the exhibitsreferenced by Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. ("LES") in rebuttal testimony filed on the samedate.

ie-4p/ta7e= s-; cy-n - s y-c;-.

NVSTON & STRAWVN LLr

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelJanuary 28, 2005Page 2

Exhibit 73

Exhibit 74

Exhibit 75

Exhibit 76

Exhibit 77

Exhibit 78

Excerpt from "Waste Control Specialists, Section VI,Geology Report," prepared by Cook-Joyce, Inc., and Intera,Inc. (February 2004 (includes pages 4-1 to 4-1 1 only)

Department of Energy, "Record of Decision forConstruction and Operation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, OH,Site," 69 Fed. Reg. 44,649 (July 27, 2004)

Department of Energy, "Record of Decision forConstruction and Operation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, KY,Site," 69 Fed. Reg. 44,654 (July 27, 2004)

Areva-Cogema, "Defluorination of depleted UF6 - The Wdefluorination facility" (Sept. 26, 2004)

Letter from V. Autry, Director of Division of WasteManagement, Bureau of Land and Waste Management,South Carolina Department of Health and EnvironmentalControl, to L. Garner, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator,Starmet CMI (Apr. 1, 1999)

Letter from V. Autry, Director of Division of WasteManagement, Bureau of Land and Waste Management,South Carolina Department of Health and EnvironmentalControl, to L. Garner, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator,Starmet CMI (June 17, 1999)

Yours sincerely,

urtiss

Enclosures

cc: Lindsay Lovejoy, Jr., Esq. (Nv/enclosures)Office of the Secretary (Nv/enclosures)Lisa Clark, Esq. (w/enclosures)

DC:399284.1

4

SECTION VI

GEOLOGY REPORT

AUGUST 2004

Prepared for:

WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS LLCANDREWS, TEXAS

Prepared by:

Cook-Joyce, Inc.812 West Eleventh

Austin, Texas 78701

&

Intera, Inc.9111A Research Boulevard

Austin, Texas 78758

WCSM0347.02%GEOLOGYVR0408060GEOLOGY.DOC

REVISION 06 AUGUST 2004

LES Exhibit 73

4.0 ACTIVE AND INACTIVE GEOLOGIC PROCESSES

This section addresses active geologic processes in the vicinity of the facility. In discussing the

uactive" geologic processes, the "inactive' processes are discussed as well. Active geologic

processes include flooding and submergence, faulting, seismicity, land surface subsidence, and

the potential for surface erosion. Flooding Is addressed by locating the facility out of a 100-year

floodplain and submergence applies only to coastal zones. Faults, seismicity, land surface

subsidence, and surface erosion are discussed In the following sections.

4.1 FAULTS

This section provides an analysis of faults in the vicinity of the facility at the regional and local

scales. Various regulatory requirements for land disposal activities, as well as storage and

processing of wastes, require delineation of all faults within the area of the facility, together with

demonstrations for any such faults that:

(i) fault displacement has not occurred within Holocene time, or if fault displacementhas occurred within Holocene time, that no such faults pass within 200 feet of the

portion of the surface facility where treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes will be

conducted;

(ii) it will not result in structural instability of the surface facility or provide for groundwatermovement to the extent that there is endangerment to human health or the

environment; and

(iii) disposal units will not be located near a capable fault that could cause a maximum

credible earthquake larger than that which the unit could reasonably be expected to

withstand.

The WCS site is situated over the north central portion of a prominent Paleozoic structural

feature known as the Central Basin Platform. Significant faults are known in the deep

subsurface as interpreted from petroleum exploration activities. The faults are expressed in

Paleozoic rocks at depths of thousands of feet. The deep faults lose their expression as

WCSX03047.02OGEOLOGY( 4-1 REVISION 0RO40806 GEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

significant stratigraphic offsets after early Permian (Wolfcampian) time. All of the major faulting

in the vicinity of the Central Basin Platform occurred in response to tectonic forces active before

the global plate tectonic reorganization that created the North American continent. (Bally et al.,

1989). The Paleozoic faults exhibit low natural microseismicity as a result of passive responseto relatively low levels of tectonic stress in the trailing edge of the westward-drifting North

American plate. The closest area of active regional tectonic stress and active faulting offsetting

Quatemary or younger geologic deposits is the Rio Grande Rift that forms the eastern boundary

of the Basin and Range Province. The Rio Grande Rift is over 200 miles west of the WCS area.

There is no surface evidence of faulting within 3000 feet the WCS permitted area.

4.1.1 Regional Tectonic Setting and Faults

The WCS facility is located within the Permian Basin region of west Texas. The Permian Basinderives its name from the fact that it is underlain by extensive deposits of Permian sediments.

4.1.1.1 Tectonic Setting

The WCS site is situated over the north-central portion of a prominent structural feature known

as the Central Basin Platform (Figure 6.4-1). The Central Basin Platform is a deep-seated

horst-like structure that extends northwest to southeast from southeastern New Mexico to

eastern Pecos County, Texas. The Central Basin Platform is flanked by two prominentstructural depressions known as the Delaware Basin to the southwest and the Midland Basin to

the northeast, and by the Val Verde Basin to the south.

From the Cambrian to late Mississippian, west Texas and southeast New Mexico experienced

only mild structural deformation that produced broad regional arches and shallow depressions(Wright, 1979). The Central Basin Platform served intermittently as a slightly positive feature

during the early Paleozoic (Galley, 1958). During the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian, the

Central Basin Platform uplifted using ancient lines of weakness (Hills, 1985), and the Delaware,

Midland, and Val Verde Basins began to form as separate basins.

Late Mississippian tectonic events uplifted and folded the platform and were followed by more

intense late Pennsylvanian and early Permian deformation that compressed and faulted theWCS%03047.021GEOLOGY\ 4-2 REVISION 0R040806OGEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

area (Hills, 1963). Highly deformed local structures formed ranges of mountains oriented

generally parallel to the main axis of the platform (Wright, 1979).

This period of intense, late Paleozoic deformation was followed by a long period of gradual

subsidence and erosion that stripped the Central Basin Platform and other structures to near

base-level (Wright, 1979). The expanding sea gradually encroached over broad eroded

surfaces and truncated edges of previously deposited sedimentary strata. New layers of

arkose, sand, chert pebble conglomerate and shale deposits accumulated as erosional products

along the edges and on the flanks of both regional and local structures. Throughout the

remainder of the Permian, the Permian Basin slowly filled with several thousand feet of

evaporites, carbonates, and shales (Figure 6.4-2).

From the end of the Permian until late Cretaceous, there was relatively little tectonic activity.

except for periods of slight regional uplifting and downwarping. During the early Triassic, the

region was slowly uplifted and slightly eroded. These conditions continued until the late

Triassic, when gentle downwarping formed a large land-locked basin in which terrigenousdeposits of the Dockum Group accumulated in alluvial flood plains and as deltaic and lacustrine*deposits (McGowen, et al., 1979). In Jurassic time, the area was again subject to erosion.

During Cretaceous time, a large part of the western interior of North America was submerged,

and the west Texas/southeastern New Mexico region was part of a large continental shelf sea inwhich a thick sequence of Cretaceous rocks was deposited. The Cretaceous sequence of

sediments comprised a basal clastic unit (the Trinity, Antlers or Paluxy sands) and overlying

shallow marine carbonates.

Uplift and southward- and eastward-retreating Cretaceous seas were coincident with the

Laramide Orogeny, which formed the Cordilleran Range west of the Permian Basin. The

Laramide Orogeny uplifted the region to essentially its present position, supplying sediments for

the late Tertiary Ogallala Formation. The major episode of Laramide folding and faulting

occurred in the late Paleocene. There have been no major tectonic events jn North America

since the Laramide Orogeny, except for a period of minor volcanism during the late Tertiary in

northeastern New Mexico and in the Trans-Pecos area. Hills (1985) suggests that slight

Tertiary movement along Precambrian lines of weakness may have opened joint channelsWCS'03047.02%GEOLOGY\ 4.3 REVISION 0R0408060GEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

which allowed the circulation of groundwater Into Permian evaporite layers. The near-surface

regional structural controls may be locally modified by differential subsidence related to

groundwater dissolution of Permian salt deposits (Gustavson, 1980).

4.1.1.2 Faults

Two types of faulting were associated with early Permian deformation. Most of the faults were

long, high-angle reverse faults with several hundred feet of vertical displacement that ofteninvolved the Precambrian basement rocks (Hills, 1985). The traces of these faults are shown

on the Precambrian structure map provided In Figure 6.4-3. The second type of faulting isfound along the western margin of the Central Basin Platform where long strike-slip faults, with

displacements of tens of miles, are found (Hills, 1985; Bebout and Meador, 1985) (Figure 6.4-4).

The large structural features of the Permian Basin are reflected only indirectly in the Mesozoicand Cenozoic rocks, as there has been virtually no tectonic movement within the basin since the

Permian (Nicholson and Clebsch, 1961). The east-west and north-south regional cross-sections provided in Figures 6.4-5 and 6.4-6 illustrate this relationship. Figure 6.4-5 shows the

draping of the Permian and Triassic sediments over the Central Basin Platform structure,located approximately 7000 feet beneath the present land surface. The faults that uplifted theplatform do not appear to displace the younger Permian sediments. The northernmost fault on

Figure 6.4-6, located at the Matador Uplift, terminates in lower Wolfcampian sediments.

A further comparison .of the structure of the Devonian Woodford Formation to the structure ofthe younger Upper Guadalupe Whitehorse Group (Permian) (Figures 6.4-7 and 6.4-8) indicates

that the faults In the Devonian section do not continue upward into the overlying Permian

Guadalupe Whitehorse Group. The regional geologic and tectonic information does not indicate

the presence of significant post-Permian faulting within the regional study area, although minor

post-Permian faulting in the WCS area is discussed below. In addition, the local informationdoes not indicate Holocene displacement of faults within 3000 feet of the proposed WCS landfillsite. The site-specific structural setting Is discussed below.

Two regional stratigraphic cross sections constructed in the vicinity of the WCS site using oil

and gas well logs are shown as Plates 6.2-2 and 6.2-3. The locations of the cross sections areWCSW3047.02ZGEOLOGY% 4.4 REVISION 0R040806LGEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

shown In Figure 6.2-1. These cross sections depict the major stratigraphic units that occur

within about 2000 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the site. The stratigraphic units

depicted on Plates 6.2-2 and 6.2-3 include the upper OAG unit of a few tens of feet in thickness,

the underlying Triassic red beds of the Dockum Group with a thickness of 1,000 to 1,500 feet,

the underlying Permian Dewey Lake Formation red beds, and the Permian evaporites of the

Rustler and Salado Formations. These cross sections do not indicate the presence of

significant faulting In the upper 2,000 feet of sediments within 3 to 4 miles of the WCS site. The

base of the underground source of drinking water (USDW) is the bottom of the Santa Rosa

Formation at about 1,400 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the WCS facility. TheSanta Rosa Formation is the lowermost formation of the Triassic Dockum Group.

4.1.1.3 Post-Pemrnian/Pre-Cretaceous Fault Investigation

Faulting in a sandstone in the upper portion of the Triassic red beds of the RCRA landfill was

anecdotally identified at a WCS project meeting February 11, 2004. Subsequently, photos

taken In 1996 of an apparent southward-dipping reverse fault were located (Figure 6.4-9).Since regulatory criteria address the age of faults and the age of any geologic units affected or

displaced by faulting, a geologic investigation of the fault was undertaken. The southeast wallof the RCRA landfill was extended about 200 feet to the southeast In May and June 2004,

yielding about 60 feet of vertical geologic exposure along a length of about 400 feet. Two

benches with subvertical walls were exposed.

The upper wall was approximately 25 feet high, extending about 6 feet into the Triassic red bedsof the Dockum Group. The upper wall exposed caprock caliche developed on Cretaceous

Antlers Formation sand and gravel, underlain by non-calichified Antlers sands and gravels, in

turn underlain by the red bed clays of the Triassic Dockum Group. The upper 3 to 4 feet of the

red beds have been altered from red to gray. Along the relatively sharp contact between the

altered gray clay and unaltered red clay were numerous small faults with offsets ranging from a

few inches to a few feet.

The lower wall was excavated an additional 30 to 35 feet into the red beds exposing a 10- to 15-

foot thick sandstone layer in the upper part of the wall. The sandstone exhibited two opposing

reverse faults with offsets of about 20 feet on the southward-dipping southern fault and about 3WCS\03047.02%GEOLOGY% 4-5 REVISION 0R040806_GEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

feet on the northward-dipping northern fault (Figure 6.4-10). The southern reverse fault in the

Triassic sandstone bed is the southeastern extension of the southward-dipping reverse fault in

the 1996 photographs.

Geologic marping

Geologic mapping of the upper and lower walls was completed by two field mapping teams,

supervised by a senior coordinating geologist.. Elevation baselines were surveyed onto both the

upper and lower walls, and the walls were subdivided into five-foot square townships and

ranges. Detailed geologic mapping was conducted on parts of the upper and lower walls using

moveable five-foot square grids, subdivided into 25 one-foot square sections. The mapping

focused on geologic contacts and distinguishable geologic features, including faults, joints,slickensides, bedding planes, partings, channels, alteration and weathering zones. The

mapped geologic sections are provided In Figure 6.4-11.

The upper wall was mapped in considerably more detail than the lower wall in order to

determine the youngest geologic units affected by faulting. The southern end of the upper wall,

where the largest faults and offsets were observed, was mapped in the greatest detail. Parts ofthe upper wall were mapped by field sketching and photographic interpretation. The two faults in

the lower wall were mapped in detail using the 5-foot grids, while the remainder of the lower wallwas documented using photo mosaics.

Observations - Lower wall

The geologic materials exposed on the lower wall are part of the Triassic Dockum Group,

specifically the Cooper Canyon Formation (Lehman, 1994b). The red beds are

characteristically red and purple claystones, with interbedded discontinuous siltstone and

sandstone units. As indicated above, a fine grained sandstone layer about 10 to 15 feet thick

occurred in the upper third of the lower wall. The claystones were relatively plastic on

excavation, drying within a week to a stiff, blocky structure.

The red beds exhibited nominally orthogonal, subvertical jointing with well-developed joints at

about 0.5 to 1 foot spacing. Lower hemisphere stereonet projections of the poles to the

WCSM03047.02GEOLOGYU 4-6 REVISION 0R040806_GEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

subvertical joints show a maximum concentration at about 3200 (north 400 west) with a

secondary concentration at about 400 (north 40° east) (Figure 6.4-12). The subvertical joints

are an expression of the orthogonal regional jointing system.

The concentration of subvertical joint directions at about 3200 is partially due to bias induced by

the orientation of the northeast-striking wall. If a similar length northwest-striking wall were

available for measurement of subvertical joints, it is likely that the secondary concentration atabout 400 would be more pronounced and the orthogonal pattern of the regional jointing system

would be more obvious on the stereonet plot. There was only about 50 feet of northwest-

striking wall exposed beneath the sandstone at the north end of the excavation, yielding a

limited opportunity to eliminate the bias of the longer northeast-striking exposure of about 400feet. The subvertical joints were often coated or partially coated with dark brown to purplish-black weathering products, likely manganese oxide. Slickensides on the subvertical joints were

not observed.

Relatively large, continuous and 'wavy' lower-angle joints at about 30° to 600 from horizontalwere also present, without an apparent well-developed spacing or repetition, as in the

subvertical joints. The lower angle joints exhibited continuity over 10 to 15 feet of exposure on

the lower wall, and slickensides were numerous and well developed on the wavy joints. Thestrike of the irregular, wavy joint planes show a maximum at about 3000 (Figure 6.4-13),

however the strikes of the Irregular joint planes appear to be quite well distributed about the

stereonet.

The sandstone exposed in the upper third of the lower wall was 10 to 15 feet in thickness. Thesandstone exhibited two opposing reverse faults about 200 feet apart with apparent dips of the

order of 300 to 400. The southern reverse fault Is the southeastern extension of the southward-

dipping reverse fault in the 1996 photographs. The reverse fault in the southern end of the wall

was south-dipping with a south-hanging-wall-up offset of about 20 feet. The reverse fault in the

northern part of the wall was north-dipping with a north-hanging-wall-up offset of about 3 feet.

The poles of the measured fault planes show a strike of the fault planes of about 2770 to 2800

(north 83° west to north 800 west) (Figure 6.4-14). Slickensides were measured on both the

south and north fault planes, indicating dip slip with a compressional stress azimuth of about 150

WCSX03047.02%GEOLOGY\ 4-7 REVISION 0R04080qGEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

(north 150 east) (Figure 6.4-15). The sandstone was lower In the section on the northern third of

the wall. The change in altitude may be related to possible fold development in the red beds in

the vicinity of the reverse faults, or it may be depositionally-related in that the poorly developed

bedding appeared to remain subhorizontal for much of the exposure.

Observations - Upper Wall

The geologic materials exposed on the upper wall include the upper 3 to 10 feet of Triassic red

beds, overlain by Cretaceous Antlers Formation sands and gravels. The upper 10 to 15 feet of

the Antlers Formation has been highly calichified and has developed into the characteristic

caprock caliche of the Southern High Plains. The joint system in the red beds in the upper wall

provided fewer subvertical joints to measure due to the limited exposure of only the upper few

feet of the red beds over most of the upper wall. Of the comparatively limited number of

measured subvertical joints, the strike maximum occurred at about 290° to 295° (Figure 6.4-16).

The upper wall irregular, lower-angle, wavy joints with well-developed slickensides plotted

similar to the lower wall irregular, low-angle, wavy joints, with a strike maximum at about 3300

but also with a well distributed pole pattern throughout the stereonet (Figure 6.4-17).

There are numerous fault planes in the red beds on the upper wall. The faults in the red beds

on the upper wall are very apparent, since the offsets occurred after the development of a

grayish-colored altered layer approximately 3 to 4 feet thick at the top of the red beds. The

sharp lower contact of the altered layer shows the offsets very well.

The faults in the red bed on the upper wall are virtually all reverse faults, with both south and

north apparent dips on the fault planes. The offsets on the reverse faults range from inches to

as much as several feet. The largest fault in the red beds on the upper wall, with an offset of

about 4 feet, is in the southern third of the exposed wall. This fault is an upward continuation of

the southern hanging-wall-up reverse fault In the sandstone on the lower wall, which shows an

offset of about 20 feet. The fault appears to die out quickly in the vertical direction. The stress

which caused the brittle failure and 20 feet of offset of the sandstone on the lower wall appears

to be accommodated throughout the remainder of the red bed claystone/clay in the upper wall

by a number of smaller faults and perhaps plastic deformation in the clays.

WCS\03047.02%GEOLOGY 4.-8 REVISION 0R040806.GEOLOGY.DOC 6 AUGUST 2004

The faults in the red beds on the upper wall show a pattern of anastamozing slip surfaces, with

many of the south- and north-dipping slip planes appearing to pair up and join into a primary slip

plane with smaller dendritic slip surfaces splaying off the primary plane. The fault planes on the

upper wall dip at about 300 to 400 to the northeast and southwest. Strikes of the fault planes on

the upper wall show a maximum at about 284° (north 760 west) (Figure 6.4-18). Slickensides on

the fault planes show dip-slip movement, with slickenside azimuths between about 3400 and 300

(north 200 west and north 300 east) (Figure 6.4-19), consistent with the 150 apparent

compressional stress azimuth of the faults on the lower wall.

During late Jurassic or early Cretaceous time, it appears that the upper part of the red beds wassubjected to geochemically reducing conditions that aftered the red bed clays from red to gray.

The thickness of the altered layer is very uniform along the upper wall, which suggests that thealteration occurred while the top of the red beds were at some relatively uniform elevation, prior

*to faulting or folding. The reducing conditions and vertical downward advance of the alteration

front suggest that the area may have been a submerged bog or shoreline with relativelystagnant, marshy conditions.

The alteration occurs to a very uniform depth marked by a sharp vertically delimited alterationfront of about % to 1/2 inch where the color of the red beds changes from gray to red. The sharp

alteration front is most likely a diffusion front within the relatively impermeable clays. The

uniform depth of penetration suggests matrix-dominated transport of a diffusion front, since thealteration front does not extend significantly further downward adjacent to the joints or fractures.

The joints, though preferred fluid paths and perhaps marginally more transmissive than theunfractured matrix, apparently did not allow any significant additional downward penetration of

alteration fluids. The joints were essentially non-transmissive to alteration fluids, likely due to

the presence of swelling montmorillonite clays (Glass et al., 1973) and joint closure.

Liesegang banding between joints is very well developed within the altered layer. The

liesegang banding parallels and mimics the joint surfaces in three dimensions. Alteration clearly

occurred post-jointing, most likely as successive diffusion fronts moved inward from the joints

from all directions under saturated conditions. The altered layer may have developed under

WCS%03047.O2XGEOLOGYAR040806_GEOLOGY.DOC 4-9 REVISION 0

6 AUGUST 2004

successive, perhaps seasonal, wetting and drying conditions, with liesegang bandingdeveloping between joints as the joints swelled closed on passage of the wetting fronts.

At the top of the gray altered layer was a readily apparent parting that was present over

approximately 80 to 90% of the exposed wall. The parting appears to be anerosional/depositional surface of either late Jurassic or early Cretaceous age based on the

presence of some Cretaceous-aged gravels mixed into the upper portion of the zone above theparting. Above the parting are both reworked altered red beds (reworked and redeposited claysof the altered layer) as well as a second zone of alteration in the southern part of the wall where

the reworked clays of the gray altered layer have apparently been further altered to a mixture ofsilt- to sand-sized crystalline carbonates and sulfates.

Above the reworked or reworked and altered clays are the Cretaceous-aged Antlers Formationsands and gravels. The lower part of the Antlers Formation contains numerous clasts andangular blocks of altered upper red beds or reworked altered red beds. The Antlers Formationexhibits a depositional pattern characteristic of braided streams, with a sequence of youngerchannels cross-cutting older channels and smaller channels a few tens of feet in widthembedded within larger channel deposits. The Antlers Formation sands and gravels range fromwell-sorted fine to medium grained sands to poorly sorted sands and gravels with occasionalcobble-sized particles. The lower few feet of the Antlers Formation is poorly to partially

cemented sands and gravels apparently unaffected by the calichification process which isreadily apparent In the upper parts of the section. Some of the finer sands higher in the sectionexposed on the upper wall appear well cemented, although the cementing may be due in part to

the development of the caprock caliche.

The relationship between faulting in the Triassic red beds and the overlying Cretaceous AntlersFormation was carefully evaluated to determine if any displacement of the younger Cretaceousdeposits had occurred. The Triassic red beds are separated from the overlying Cretaceous

Antlers Formation sands and gravels by the distinct and mappable parting at the top of the gray

altered layer of red beds. None of the observed fault planes or slip surfaces in the Triassic red

beds in the extensively mapped section cross or offset the parting. In addition, the bedding in

the Antlers Formation is continuous where observable and not calichified, and in particular,

WCS03047.02%GEOLOGYR040806_GEOLOGYDOC 4-10 -REVISION 0

6 AUGUST 2004

there are no Triassic/Cretaceous contact offsets or bedding offsets in the Cretaceous Antlers

Formation above the area In the Triassic red beds where the largest displacements occur nor is

there any apparent folding of the Antlers Formation in this area. Therefore, there are no

indications that the Cretaceous-aged Antlers Formation was affected by the faulting in the

Triassic red beds. There are clearly no geologic Formations present in the excavation younger

than Triassic that are affected by faulting and there are no regulatory issues related to faulting at

the WCS site. Additionally, there are no Issues with respect to potential migration pathways

resulting from the faulting at the WCS site. The.uppermost faulting occurred completely within

the Triassic red beds; which have great capacity for healing and closing fault planes and joints

to fluid migration as indicated by the limited penetration of the alteration front in the red beds.

4.1.1.4 Red Bed Ridge Development

Faulting of any significance in the vicinity of the WCS site or the Central Basin Platform is

generally considered to be Permian or earlier (Nicholson and Clebsch, 1961). Galley (1958,p:439-441) indicates that although "events associated with Laramide and several Tertiaryorogenies have broken, destroyed, submerged, or obscured various segments of Paleozoic

structures at the southwest edge of the Permian Basin", "Elsewhere the Paleozoic strata lie at

almost the same attitudes they had attained at the end of Ochoa time, having been affected

subsequently only by regional tilting and local folding or faulting of small vertical displacement."These statements indicate that the Central Basin Platform area has not been significantlydisturbed by tectonic events since late Permian (Ochoa) time.

The post-Permian/pre-Cretaceous tilting, folding and faulting discussed in the previous section

may have contributed to the development of the red bed ridge by creating a relatively local

topographic high uplifted by the minor compressional faulting/folding of the red beds. The local

geology discussed in Section 5.3 indicates that the first continuous red bed sandstone, which.

occurs at an approximate depth of about 225 feet below ground surface, has a

south/southwestward dip of about 80 feet per mile. The south/southwestward dipping. bedding

may represent the southwestern limb of an anticline or monocline with the red bed ridge as the

fold axis. The red bed ridge area may have been an inter-drainage topographic high since the

compressional event.

WCSM0347.02%GEOLOGY1R040806JGEOLOGYDOC 4-11 REVISION 0

6 AUGUST 2004

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices 44649

halseypjiaro.doe.gov or check the Website at wwwuoakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Board: The purpose ofthe Board is to make recommendationsto DOE in the areas of environmentalrestoration, waste management, andrelated activities.

Tentative Agenda8 a.m.-Introductions, overview of

meeting agenda and logistics (DaveMosby)

8:15 a.m.-Past year evaluation-Boardand stakeholder survey results,what worked, what can beimproved (Facilitator)

9:50 a.m.-Break10:05 a.m.-Past year evaluation

continued10:45 a.m.-Summaries and Q&A on the

most important issues to DOE, TNDepartment of Environment &Conservation, and EPA (Facilitator)

11:30 a.m.-Lunch12:30 p.m.-Environmental

Management Committee (LutherGibson)

. Accomplishments and impacts

. Review FY 2004 Work Plan

. Identify issues for FY 2005

. Assignment of new issues/issuesmanagers

1:30 p.m.-Stewardship Committee(Ben Adams)

. Accomplishments and impacts

. Review FY 2004 Work Plan

. Identify issues for FY 2005

. Assignment of new issues/issuesmanagers

2:30 p.m.-3reak2:45 p.m.-Public Outreach Committee

(Committee Chair). Accomplishments and impacts. Review FY 2004 Work Plan. Identify issues for FY 2005

3:15 p.m.-Board Finance Committee(Kerry Trammell)

. Accomplishments and impacts

. Review FY 2004 Work Plan

. Identify issues for FY 20053:45 p.m.-Convene Board meeting to

elect officers and conduct otherbusiness as needed

. Public Comment Period4:45 p.m.-Set date for next retreat and

adjournPublic Participation: The meeting is

open to the public. Written statementsmay be filed with the Committee eitherbefore or after the meeting. Individualswho wish to make oral statementspertaining to agenda items shouldcontact Pat Halsey at the address ortelephone number listed above.Requests must be received five days

prior to the meeting and reasonableprovision will be made to include thepresentation In the agenda. The DeputyDesignated Federal Officer isempowered to conduct the meeting in afashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment twillbe provided a maximum of five minutesto present their comments. This FederalRegister notice Is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting dueto programmatic issues that had to beresolved prior to the meeting date.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting willbe available for public review andcopying at the Department of Energy'sInformation Center at 475 Oak RidgeTurnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,or by writing to Pat Halsey, Departmentof Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office,P.O. Box 2001, EM-9O, Oak Ridge, TN37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

Issued at Washington, DC, on July 20,2004.Rachel M. Samuel,DeputyAdvisory Committee ManagementOfficer.[FR Doc. 04-17049 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 6450-01P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for Constructionand Operation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluorlde Conversion Facility at thePortsmouth, OH, Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Record of decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) prepared a Final EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor Construction andOperation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at thePortsmouth, Ohio, Site (FEdS) (DOE/EIS-0360). The FEIS Notice ofAvailability was published by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) onJune 18,2004. In the FEIS, DOEconsidered the potential environmentalimpacts from the construction,operation, maintenance, anddecontamination and decommissioning(D&D) of the proposed depleteduranium hexafluoride (DUF6)conversion facility at three alternativelocations within the Portsmouth site,including transportation of cylinders(DUF6, normal and enriched UF6, andempty) currently stored at the EastTennessee Technology Park (ETTP) nearOak Ridge, Tennessee, to Portsmouth;construction of a new cylinder storage

yard at Portsmouth (if required) for theETTP cylinders; transportation ofdepleted uranium conversion productsand waste materials to a disposalfacility; transportation and sale of theaqueous hydrogen fluoride (HF)produced as a conversion co-product;and neutralization of aqueous HF tocalcium fluoride (CaF2) and its sale ordisposal in the event that the aqueousHF product is not sold. An option ofshipping the ETTP cylinders to thePaducah, Kentucky, site has also beenconsidered, as has an option ofexpanding operations by increasingthroughput (through efficiencyimprovements or by adding a fourthconversion line) or by extending theperiod of operation. A similar EIS wasissued concurrently for constructionand operation of a DUF6 conversionfacility at DOE's Paducah site (DOE/EIS-0359).

DOE has decided to construct andoperate the conversion facility in thewest-central portion of the Portsmouthsite, the preferred alternative identifiedin the FEIS as Location A.Groundbreaking for construction of thefacility will commence on or before July31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law(Pub. L.) 107-206. Cylinders currentlystored at the ETTP site-will be shippedto Portsmouth; a new cylinder yard willbe constructed, if necessarybased onthe availability of storage yard spacewhen the cylinders are received. Theaqueous HF produced duringconversion will be sold for use, pendingapproval of authorized release limits, asappropriate.ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record ofDecision (ROD) are available on theDOE National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) Web site at httpi/ivww.eh.doe.gov/nepa and on theDepleted UF 6 Management InformationNetwork Web site at http.//web.ead.anl.gov/uranium. Copies of theFEIS and this ROD may be requested bye-mail at PortsDUF6@anl.gov, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944. bytoll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or bycontacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak RidgeOperations Office, U.S. Department ofEnergy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, OakRidge, Tennessee 37831.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation on the conversion facilityconstruction and operation, contactGary Hartman at the address listedabove. For general information on theDOE NEPA process, contact CarolBorgstrom, Director, Office of NEPAPolicy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S.Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,

LES Exhibit 74

'44650 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices- - ___ ___ ___ - - ---

Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600,or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundThe United States has produced DUF6

since the early 1950s as part of theprocess of enriching natural uranium forboth civilian and military applications.Production took place at three gaseousdiffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge,Tennessee, and subsequently atPaducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth,Ohio. The K-25 plant ceasedenrichment operations in 1985, and thePortsmouth pant ceased enrichmentoperations in 2001. The Paducah GDPcontinues to operate.

A pproximately 250,000 t (275,000tons) of DUF6 is presently stored inabout 16,000 cylinders at Portsmouthand about 4,800 cylinders at ETTP. Themajority of the cylinders weighapproximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and arestored on outside pads. DOE has beenlooking at alternatives for managing thisinventory. Also in storage are 3,200cylinders at Portsmouth and 1,100cylinders at ETTP that contain enrichedUF6 or normal UF6 (collectively called"non-DUF6 " cylinders) or are empty.[The non-DTF 6 cylinders would not beprocessed in the conversion facility.]The Portsmouth FEIS considers theshipment of all ETTP cylinders toPortsmouth, as well as the managementof both the Portsmouth and ETTP non-DUF6 cylinders at Portsmouth.

As a first ste p, DOE evaluatedpotential broad management options forits DUF6 inventory in a ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement forAlternative Strategies for the Long-TermManagement and Use of DepletedUranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS)(DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. Inthe PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decidedto promptly convert the DUF6 inventoryto a more stable uranium oxide formand stated that it would use thedepleted uranium oxide as much aspossible and store the remainingdepleted uranium oxide for potentialfuture uses or disposal, as necessary. Inaddition, DOE would convert DUF6 todepleted uranium metal, but only if usesfor metal were available. DOE did notselect specific sites for the conversionfacilities but reserved that decision forsubsequent NEPA review. Today'sRecord of Decision announces theoutcome of that site-specific NEPAreview. DOE is also issuing today aseparate but related ROD announcingthe siting of a DUF6 conversion facilityat Paducah, Kentucky.

Congress enacted two laws thatdirectly addressed DOE's managementof its DUF6 Inventory. The first law,Pub. L. 105-204, signed by the Presidentin July 1998, required the Secretary ofEnergy to prepare a plan to commenceconstruction of, no later than January31, 2004, and to operate an on-sitefacility at each of the GDPs at Paducah,Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, totreat and recycle DUF6, consistent withNEPA. The second law, Pub. L. 107-206, signed by the President on August2, 2002, required that no later than 30days after enactment, DOE must awarda contract for the scope of workdescribed in its Request for Proposals(RFP) issued In October 2000 for thedesign, construction, and operation of aDUF6 conversion facility at each of theDepartment's Paducah, Kentucky, andPortsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusionsites. It also stipulated that the contractrequire ground breaking for constructionto occur no later than July 31, 2004, atboth sites.

In response to these laws, DOE issuedthe Final Plan for the Conversion ofDepleted Uranium Hexafluoride asRequired by Public Law 105-204 in July1999, and awarded a contract toUranium Disposition Services (UDS) forconstruction and operation of twoconversion facilities on August 29,2002, consistent with NEPA.

On September 18,2001, DOEpublished a Notice of Intent (NOI) in theFederal Register (66 FR 48123)announcing its intention to prepare anEIS for the proposed action to construct,operate, maintain, and decontaminateand decommission two DUF6conversion facilities: One at Portsmouthand one at Paducah. Following theenactment of Pub. L. 107-206, DOEreevaluated the appropriate scope of itssite-specific NEPA review and decidedto prepare two separate ElSs, one for theplant proposed for the Paducah site anda second for the Portsmouth site. Thischange in approach was announced inthe Federal Register on April 28, 2003(68 FR 22368).

The two draft conversion facility ElSswere mailed to stakeholders in lateNovember 2003, and a Notice ofAvailability was published by the EPAin the Federal Register on November 28,2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on thedraft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended onFebruary 2, 2004. DOE considered thesecomments and prepared two FEISs. TheNotice of Availability for the two FEISswas published by the EPA In theFederal Register (69 FR 34161) on June18, 2004.

II. Purpose and Need for Agency ActionDOE needs to convert its inventory of

DUF6 to more stable chemical form(s)for use or disposal. This need followsdirectly from (1) the decision presentedIn the August 1999 ROD for the PETS,namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6Inventory as soon as possible, and (2)Pub. L. 107-206, which directs DOE toaward a contract for construction andoperation of conversion facilities at boththe Paducah site and the Portsmouthsite.III. Alternatives

No Action Alteinative. Under the noaction alternative, conversion would notoccur. Current cylinder managementactivities (handling, inspection,monitoring, and maintenance) wouldcontinue: Thus the status quo would bemaintained at Portsmouth and ETTPindefinitely.

Action Alternatives. The proposedaction evaluated in the FEIS Is toconstruct and operate a conversionfacility at the Portsmouth site forconversion of the Portsmouth and ETTPDUF6 inventories into depleted uraniumoxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide[U30g]) and other conversion products.The FEIS review is based on theconceptual conversion facility designproposed by the selected contractor,UDS. The UDS dry conversion processIs a continuous process in which DUF6is vaporized and converted to a mixtureof uranium oxides (primarily U308) byreaction with steam and hydrogen in afluidized-bed conversion unit. Thehydrogen Is generated from anhydrousammonia (NH3). The depleted U30spowder is collected and packaged fordisposition in bulk bags (large-capacity,strong, flexible bags) or the emptiedcylinders to the extent practicable.Equipment would also be installed tocollect the aqueous HF (also called HFacid) co-product and process it into HFat concentrations suitable forcommercial resale. A backup HF acidneutralization system would convert upto 100% of the HF acid to CaF2 for saleor disposal in the future, if necessary.The conversion products would betransported to a disposal facility or tousers by truck or rail. The conversionfacility will be designed with threeparallel processing lines to convert13,500 t (15,000 tons) of DUF6 per year,requiring 18 years to convert thePortsmouth and ETTP inventories.

Three alternative locations within thesite were evaluated, Locations A(preferred), B, and C. The proposedaction includes the transportation of thecylinders currently stored at the ETTPsite to Portsmouth. In addition, an

. I Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices 44651

*option of transporting the ETTPcylinders to Paducah was considered, aswas an option of expanding conversionfacility operations.

Alternative Location A (PreferredAlternative). Location A is the preferredlocation identified in the FEIS for theconversion facility and is located in thewest-central portion of the site,encompassing 26 acres (10 ha). Thislocation has three existing structuresthat were formerly used to storecontainerized lithium hydroxidemonohydrate. The site was roughgraded, and storm water ditch systemswere installed. This location wasidentified in the RFP for conversionservices as the site for which bidderswere to design their proposed facilities.

Alternative Location B. Location B isin the southwestern portion of the siteand encompasses approximately 50acres (20 ha). The site has two existingstructures built as part of the gascentrifuge enrichment project that wasbegun in the early 1980s and wasterminated in 1985. USEC is currentlyin the process of developing anddemonstrating an advanced enrichmenttechnology based on gas centrifuges. Alicense for a lead test facility to beoperated at the Portsmouth site wasissued by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) in February 2004.The lead facility would be located in theexisting gas centrifuge buildings withinLocation B. In addition, USECannounced in January 2004 that Itplanned to site its American CentrifugeFacility at Portsmouth, although it didnot identify an exact location.Therefore, Location B might not beavailable for construction of theconversion facility.

Alternative Location C. Location C isin the southeastern portion of the siteand has an area of about 78 acres (31ha). This location consists of a level tovery gently rolling grass field. It wasgraded during the construction of thePortsmouth site and has beenmaintained as grass fields since then.

Under the action alternatives, DOEevaluated the Impacts from packaging,handling, and transporting depleteduranium oxide conversion product(primarily U308 ) from the conversionfacility to a low-level waste (LLW)disposal facility that would be (1)selected In a manner consistent withDOE policies and orders and (2)authorized to receive the conversionproducts by DOE (in conformance withDOE orders), or licensed by the NRC (inconformance with NRC regulations), oran NRC Agreement State agency (inconformance with state laws andregulations determined to be equivalentto NRC regulations). Assessment of the

impacts and risks from on-site handlingand disposal at an LLW disposal facilityhas been deferred to the disposal site'ssite-specific NEPA or licensingdocuments. While the FEIS presents theimpacts from transporting the DUF6conversion products to both theEnvirocare of Utah, Inc.. facility and theNevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans todecide the specific disposal location(s)for the depleted U308 conversionproduct after additional NEPA review,as necessary. Accordingly, DOE willcontinue to evaluate its disposal optionsand will consider any furtherinformation or comments relevant tothat decision. DOE will give a minimum45-day notice before making its specificdisposal decision and will provide anyadditional NEPA analysis for publicreview and comment.

The following alternatives wereconsidered but not analyzed in detail inthe FEIS: Use of Commercial ConversionCapacity, Sites Other Than Portsmouth,Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives,Transportation Modes Other ThanTruck and Rail, and One ConversionPlant Alternative.IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts

The FEIS evaluated potential impactsfrom the range of alternatives describedabove. The impact areas includedhuman health and safety, air quality,noise, water end soil, socioeconomics,ecological resources, wastemanagement, resource requirements,land use, cultural resources,environmental justice, and cumulativeimpacts. In general, the impacts are lowfor both the no action and the proposedaction alternatives. Among the threealternative locations considered at thePortsmouth site for the conversionfacility, there are no major differences inImpacts that would make one locationclearly environmentally preferable. Thediscussion below summarizes theresults of the FEIS Impact analyses,highlighting the differences among thealternatives.

Human Health and Safety-NormalOperations and Transportation. Underall alternatives, it is estimated thatpotential exposures of workers andmembers of the general public toradiation and chemicals would be wellwithin applicable public healthstandards and regulations. UDS wouldconfirm, prior to conversion or at theinitiation of the conversion operations,that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)releases to the workplace from the paintcoating of some cylinders manufacturedprior to 1978 would be withinapplicable Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) limits.

Transportation by rail would tend tocause fewer impacts than by truckprimarily because of exhaust emissionsfrom the trucks and the higher numberof shipments for trucks than for rail. Theoption of converting the aqueous HF toCaF 2 and transporting the CaF 2 to adisposal facility would result inincreased shipments. The Impactsassociated with transportation ofuranium oxide product to a disposalfacility in the western United States bytruck would be about the same if bulkbags are used or two filled cylinders areloaded onto a truck. If only one cylinderis loaded onto a truck, the impactswould be higher because of theincreased number of shipments.

Human Health and Safety-Accidents. DOE has extensiveexperience in safely storing, handling,and transporting cylinders containingUF6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). Inaddition, the chemicals used orgenerated at the conversion facility arecommonly used for industrialapplications in the United States, andthere are well-established accidentprevention and mitigative measures fortheir storage and transportation.

Under all alternatives, it is possiblethat accidents could release radiation orchemicals to the environment,potentially affecting both the workersand members of the general public. It isalso possible that, similar to otherIndustrial facilities, workers could beinjured or killed as a result of on-the-jobaccidents unrelated to radiation orchemical exposure. Similarly, duringtransportation of materials, both crewmembers and members of the publicmay be injured or killed as a result oftraffic accidents.

Three kinds of accidents have thelargest possible consequences: (1) Thoseinvolving the DUF6 cylinders duringstorage and handling under allalternatives, (2) those involvingchemicals used or generated by theconversion process at the conversionsite (in particular NH3 and aqueous HF)under the action alternatives, and (3)those occurring during transportation ofchemicals and cylinders under theaction alternatives, The severity of theconsequences from such accidentswould depend on weather conditions atthe time of the accident, and, in the caseof the transportation accidents, thelocation of the accident, and could besignificant. However, those accidentswould have a low estimated probabilityof occurring, making the risk low. (Riskis determined by multiplying theconsequences by the probability ofoccurrence).

Under the no action alternative, therisks associated with cylinder storage

'44652 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143ITuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices

and handling would continue to exist aslong as the cylinders are there.However, under the action alternatives,the risks associated with both thecylinder accidents and the chemicalaccidents would decline over time anddisappear at the completion of theconversion project.

In comparing truck versus railtransportation, even though theconsequences of rail accidents aregenerally higher (because of the largercargo load per railcar than per truck),the accident probabilities tend to belower for railcars than for trucks. As aresult, the risks of accidents would beabout the same under either option.

Air Quality and Noise. Under theaction alternatives, the total (modeledplus background value) concentrationsdue to emissions of most criteriapollutants-such as sulfur dioxide,nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide-would be well within applicable airquality standards. For construction, theprimary concern would be particulatematter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations ofPM3 o and PM23 (PM with anaerodynamic diameter of 10 urm or lessand 2.5 tim or less, respectively) at theconstruction site boundaries would beclose to or above the standards becauseof the high background concentrations.On the basis of maximum backgroundvalues from 5 years of monitoring at thenearest monitoring station, exceedanceof the annual PM2 standard would beunavoidable because the backgroundconcentration already exceeds thestandard. Construction activities wouldbe conducted so as to minimize furtherimpacts on ambient air quality.

Water and Soil. During constructionof the conversion facility,concentrations of any potentialcontaminants in soil, surface water, orgroundwater would be kept well withinapplicable standards or guidelines byimplementing storm water management,sediment and erosion controls, and goodconstruction practices. Duringoperations, no impacts would beexpected because no contaminatedliquid effluents are anticipated.

Socioeconomics. Under the actionalternatives, construction and operationof the conversion facility would createmore jobs and personal income in thevicinity of the Portsmouth site thanwould be possible under the no actionalternative. The number of jobs wouldbe approximately 190 direct and 280total during construction, and 160 directand 320 total during operations.* Ecology. For the action alternatives,the total area disturbed duringconversion facility construction wouldbe up to 65 acres (26 ha). Although

vegetation communities In the disturbedarea would be Impacted by a loss ofhabitat, Impacts could be minimized(e.g., by appropriate placement of thefacility within each location), andnegligible long-term Impacts tovegetation and wildlife are expected atall locations. Impacts to wetlands couldbe minimized, depending on whereexactly the facility was placed withineach location and by maintaining abuffer near adjacent wetlands duringconstruction. During construction, treeswith exfoliating bark (such as shagbarkhickory 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 summerwould be saved If possible.

Waste Management. Under the actionalternatives, waste generated duringconstruction and operations would havenegligible impacts on the Portsmouthsite waste management operations, withthe exception of possible impacts fromdisposal of CaF2. If the aqueous HF werenot sold but instead neutralized to CaF2,it is currently unknown whether (1) theCaF2 could be sold, (2) the low uraniumcontent would allow the CaF2 to bedisposed of as nonhazardous solidwaste, or (3) disposal as LLW would berequired. The low level of uraniumcontamination expected (i.e., less than Ippm) suggests that sale or disposal asnonhazardous solid waste would bemost likely. Waste management fordisposal as nonhazardous waste couldbe handled through appropriateplanning and design of the facilities. Ifthe CaF2 had to be disposed of as LLW,it could represent a potentially largeimpact on waste managementoperations.

The U3 0s produced duringconversion would amount to about 5%of Portsmouth's annual projected LLWvolume.

Cylinder Preparation at ETTP. Thecylinders at ETIP will requirepreparation for shipment by either truckor rail. Three cylinder preparationoptions were considered for theshipment of noncompliant cylinders:cylinder overpacks, shipping "as-is"under a U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) exemption, anduse of a cylinder transfer facility (thereare no current plans to build such afacility at ETTP). The operationalimpacts (e.g., storage, handling, andmaintenance of cylinders) from any ofthe options would be small and limitedprimarily to external radiation exposureof involved workers. If a decision wasmade to construct and operate a transferfacility at ETTP in the future, additionalNEPA review would be conducted.

Conversion Product Sale and Use.The conversion of the DUF6 inventoryproduces products having somepotential for reuse. These productsinclude aqueous HF and CaF2, whichare commonly used as commercialmaterials. DOE is currently pursuing theestablishment of authorization limits(allowable concentration limits ofuranium) in these products to be able tofree-release them to commercial users.In addition, there is a small potential forreuse of the depleted uranium oxideproduct.

D&D Activities. D&D impacts wouldbe primarily from external radiation toinvolved workers and would be a smallfraction of allowable doses. Wastesgenerated during D&D operations wouldbe disposed of in an appropriatedisposal facility and would result in lowimpacts in comparison with projectedsite annual generation volumes.

Cumulative Impacts. The FEISanalyses indicated that no significantcumulative impacts at either thePortsmouth or the EMTP site and Itsvicinity would be anticipated due to theincremental impacts of the proposedaction when added to other past,present, and reasonably foreseeablefuture actions.

Option of Expanding ConversionFacility Operations. The throughput ofthe Portsmouth facility could beincreased either by making processefficiency improvements orby addingan additional (fourth) process line. Theaddition of a fourth process line at thePortsmouth facility would require theinstallation of additional plantequipment and would result in anominal 33% increase in throughputcompared with the current base design.This throughput Increase would reducethe time necessary to convert thePortsmouth and ETTP DUF6 inventoriesby about 5 years. The constructionimpacts presented in the FEIS would bethe same if a fourth line was added,because the analyses in the FEIS used afootprint sized to accommodate fourprocess lines. In general, a 33% increasein throughput would not result insignificantly greater environmentalimpacts during operations than withthree parallel lines. Although annualimpacts in certain areas might Increaseup to 33% (proportional to thethroughput increase), the estimatedannual impacts during operationswould remain well within applicableguidelines and regulations, withcollective and cumulative impacts beingquite low.

The conversion facility operationscould be extended to process anyadditional DUF6 for which DOE mightassume responsibility by operating the

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices 44653

facility longer than the currentlyanticipated 18 years. With routinefacility and equipment maintenance andperiodic equipment replacements orupgrades, it Is believed that theconversion facility could be operatedsafely beyond this time period. Ifoperations were extended beyond 18years and if the operationalcharacteristics (e.g., estimated releasesof contaminants to air and water) of thefacility remained unchanged, it isexpected that the annual impacts wouldbe essentially unchanged.

V. Environmentally PreferredAlternative

VI. Comments on Final EIS

The Final EIS was mailed tostakeholders in early June 2004, and theEPA issued a Notice of Availability inthe Federal Register on June 18, 2004.The entire document was also madeavailable on the World Wide Web. Twocomment letters were received on theDUF6 Conversion Facility Final ElSs.The State of Nevada indicated that ithad no comments on the Final EISs andthat the proposal was not in conflictwith state plans, goals, or objectives.The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated thatthe Portsmouth Final EIS adequatelyaddress Its concerns, and that it concurs

In general, the FEIS shows greater with the Preimpacts for the no action alternative no further cthan for the proposed action of Decisionconstructing and operating theconversion facility mainly because of L Bases for;the relatively higher radiation exposures DOE consof the workers from the cylinder environmenmanagement operations and cylinder the FEIS (inyards and because the cylinders and contained Iiassociated risk would remain if no cost; appliciaction occurred. However, considering requirementthe uncertainties In the impact estimates as includedand the magnitude of the Impacts, the L. 107-206;differences are not considered to be the States olsignificant. The no action alternative Kentucky cchas the potential for groundwater of DUF6 curcontamination with uranium over the Portsmouthlong-term; this adverse impact is not respectivelyanticipated under the proposed action arriving at iIalternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic among the timpacts would be higher for the action the Portsmoalternatives than for the no action facility, DO]alternative. factors, site

*The Impacts associated with affecting coitransportation of materials among sites utilities prcwould be comparable whether the areas, and ptransportation is by truck or rail. or planined

With all alternatives, there is the alternative.potential for some high-consequence decision Ideaccidents to occur. The risks associated programmalwith such accidents can only be with all thecompletely eliminated when the public laws,conversion of the DUFS inventory hasbeen completed. IL Decision

fferred Alternative and hasoncerns.

the Decision

sidered potentialAtal impacts as Identified including the informationi the classified appendix);able regulatoryts; Congressional directionin Pub. L. 105-204 and Pub.agreements among DOE andr Ohio, Tennessee, andoncerning the managementrently stored at theETTP, and Paducah sites,

';and public comments ints decision. In decidinghree alternative locations atuth site for the conversionE considered environmentalpreparation requirementsastruction, availability ofoximity to cylinder storageotential impacts to currentsite operations. DOE hasthat Location A is the bestDOE believes that theintified below best meets itsIc goals and is consistentregulatory requirements and

availability of storage yard space whenthyinder are received.

.All shipments to and from the sites,including the shipment of tF 6 cylinders(DUF6 and non-DTJF) currently storedat ETTP to Portsmouth, will beconducted by either truck or rail, asappropriate. Cylinders will be shippedin a manner that is consistent with DOTregulations for the transportation of UF6cylinders.

* Although efficiency Improvementscan be accomplished, which wouldincrease the conversion facility'sthroughput and decrease the operationalperiod, DOE has decided not to add thefourth processing line to the conversionfacility at this time.

* Current cylinder managementactivities (handling, inspection,monitoring, and maintenance) willcontinue, consistent with the DepletedUranium Hexafluoride ManagementPlan included in the Ohio EPADirector's final findings and orderseffective February 1998 and March2004, which cover actions needed tomeet safety and environmentalrequirements, until conversion could beaccomplished.

. The aqueous HF produced duringconversion will be sold for use, pendingapproval of authorized release limits asappropriate. If necessary, CaF 2 will beproduced and reused, pending approvalof authorized release limits, or disposedof as appropriate.

. The depleted U308 conversionproduct will be reused to the extentpossible or packaged for disposal inemptied cylinders at an appropriatedisposal facility. DOE plans to decidethe specific disposal location(s) for thedepleted U3 08 conversion product afteradditional appropriate NEPA review.Accordingly, DOE will continue toevaluate its disposal options and willconsider any further information orcomments relevant to that decision.DOE will give a minimum 45-day noticebefore making the specific disposaldecision and will provide anysupplemental NEPA analysis for publicreview and comment.

III. MitigationOn the basis of the analyses

conducted for the FEIS, the DOE willadopt all practicable measures, whichare described below, to avoid orminimize adverse environmentalimpacts that may result fromconstructing and operating a conversionfacility at Location A. These measuresare either explicitly part of thealternative or are already performed aspart of routine operations.

* The conversion facility will bedesigned, constructed, and operated In

.Although there are some differencesin impacts among the three alternativelocations for the conversion facility,these differences are small and wellwithin the uncertainties associated withthe methods used to estimate impacts.In general, because of the relativelysmall risks that would result under allalternatives and the absence of any clearbasis for discerning an environmentalpreference, DOE concludes that nosingle alternative analyzed in depth inthe FEIS is clearly environmentallypreferable compared to the otheralternatives.

DOE has decided to implement theactions described In the preferredalternative from the FEIS at Location A.This decision includes the followingactions:

. DOE will construct and operate theconversion facility at Location A withinthe Portsmouth site. Construction willcommence on or before July 31, 2004, asintended by Congress in Pub. L. 107-206.

* DUF6 cylinders currently stored atEITP will be shipped to Portsmouth forconversion; a new cylinder yard will beconstructed, If necessary, based on the

44654 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices

accordance with the comprehensive setof DOE requirements and applicableregulatory requirements that have beenestablished to protect public health andthe environment. These requirementsencompass a wide variety of areas,including radiation protection, facilitydesign criteria, fire protection,emergency preparedness and response,and operational safety requirements.

. Cylinder management activities willbe conducted in accordance withapplicable DOE safety andenvironmental requirements, includingthe Cylinder Management Plan.

. Temporary impacts on air qualityfrom fugitive dust emissions duringreconstruction of cylinder yards orconstruction of any new facility will becontrolled by the best availablepractices, as necessary, to comply withthe established standards for PMeo andPM23-

. During construction, impacts towater quality and soil will beminimized through implementing stormwater management, sediment anderosion controls, and good constructionpractices consistent with the Soil,Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan andConstruction Management Plan.

* If live trees with exfoliating bark areencountered on construction areas, theywill be saved If possible to avoiddestroying potential habitat for theIndiana bat.

Issued In Washington, DC, this 20th day ofJuly, 2004.Paul MS Golan,Principal DeputyAssistant SecretazyforEnvironmental Management.IFR Doc. 04-17048 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]3ILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for Constructionand Operation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at thePaducah, KY, SiteAGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Record of decision.

decontamination and decommissioning(D&D) of the proposed depleteduranium hexafluoride (DUF6)conversion facility at three alternativelocations within the Paducah site,including transportation of depleteduranium conversion products and wastematerials to a disposal facility;transportation and sale of the aqueoushydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as aconversion co-product; andneutralization of aqueous HF to calciumfluoride (CAF2) and its sale or disposalin the event that the aqueous HFproduct is not sold. An option ofshipping the East Tennessee TechnologyPark (ETTP) cylinders to the Paducahsite has also been considered, as has anoption of expanding operations byincreasing efficiency or extending theperiod of operation. A similar EIS wasissued concurrently for constructionand operation of a DUF6 conversionfacility at DOE's Portsmouth, Ohio, site(DOE/EIS-0360).

DOE has decided to construct andoperate the conversion facility in thesouth-central portion of the Paducahsite, the preferred alternative identifiedin the FEIS as Location A.Groundbreaking for construction of thefacility will commence on or before July31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law(Pub. L.) 107-206. The aqueous HFproduced during conversion will besold for use, pending approval ofauthorized release limits, asappropriate.ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record ofDecision (ROD) are available on theDOE National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) Web site at http://svvw.eh.doe.gov/nepa and on theDepleted UF6 Management InformationNetwork Web site at http://sveb.ead.anl.govfuranium. Copies of theFEIS and this ROD may be requested bye-mail at PadDUF6@anl.gov, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530-0944, bytoll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or bycontacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak RidgeOperations Office, U.S. Department ofEnergy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, OakRidge, Tennessee 37831.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation on the conversion facilityconstruction and operation, contactGary Hartman at the address listedabove. For general information on theDOE NEPA process, contact CarolBorgstrom, Director, Office of NEPAPolicy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S.Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600,or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundThe United States has produced DUF6

since the early 1950s as part of theprocess of enriching natural uranium forboth civilian and military applications.Production took place at three gaseousdiffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge,Tennessee, and subsequently atPaducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth,Ohio. The K-25 plant ceasedenrichment operations in 1985, and thePortsmouth plant ceased enrichmentoperations in 2001. The Paducah GDPcontinues to operate.

Approximately 440,000 t (484,000tons) of DUF6 is presently stored atPaducah In about 36,200 cylinders. Themajority of the cylinders weighapproximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and arestored on outside pads. DOE has beenlooking at alternatives for managing thisinventory. Also in storage at Paducahare approximately 1,940 cylinders ofvarious sizes that contain enriched UF6or normal UF6 (collectively called "non-DUF6" cylinders) or are empty. [Thenon-DUF6 cylinders would not beprocessed in the conversion facility.]

As a first step, DOE evaluatedpotential broad management options forits DUF6 inventory in a ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement forAlternative Strategies for the Long-TermManagement and Use of DepletedUranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS)(DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. Inthe PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decidedto promptly convert the DUF6 inventoryto a more stable uranium oxide formand stated that it would use thedepleted uranium oxide as much aspossible and store the remainingdepleted uranium oxide for potentialfuture uses or disposal, as necessary. Inaddition, DOE would convert DUF6 todepleted uranium metal, but only if usesfor metal were available. DOE did notselect specific sites for the conversionfacilities but reserved that decision forsubsequent NEPA review. Today'sRecord of Decision announces theoutcome of that site-specific NEPAreview. DOE is also issuing today aseparate but related ROD announcingthe siting of a DUF6 conversion facilityat Portsmouth, Ohio.

Congress enacted two laws thatdirectly addressed DOE's managementof its DUF6 inventory. The first law,Public Law 105-204, signed by thePresident in July 1998, required theSecretary of Energy to prepare a plan tocommence construction of, no later thanJanuary 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) prepared a Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Construction andOperation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at thePaducah, Kentucky, Site (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0359). The FEIS Notice ofAvailability was published by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)In the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) onJune 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOEconsidered the potential environmentalImpacts from the construction,operation, maintenance, and

44654 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. -143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices

accordance with the comprehensive setof DOE requirements and applicableregulatory requirements that have beenestablished to protect public health andthe environment. These requirementsencompass a wide variety of areas,including radiation protection, facilitydesign criteria, fire protection,emergency preparedness and response,and operational safety requirements.

.Cylinder management activities willbe conducted in accordance withapplicable DOE safety andenvironmental requirements, includingthe Cylinder Management Plan.

. Temporary impacts on air qualityfrom fugitive dust emissions duringreconstruction of cylinder yards orconstruction of any new facility will becontrolled by the best availablepractices, as necessary, to comply withthe established standards for PM1 o andPM2.s.

. During construction, impacts towater quality and soil will beminimized through implementing stormwater management, sediment anderosion controls, and good constructionpractices consistent with the Soil,Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan andConstruction Management Plan.

. If live trees with exfoliating bark areencountered on construction areas, theywill be saved if possible to avoiddestroying potential habitat for theIndiana bat.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day ofJuly, 2004.Paul M. Golan,Principal DeputyAssistant SecretaryforEnvi ronmental fanagement.[FR Doc. 04-17048 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]BILING CODE 6450-1-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for Constructionand Operation of a Depleted UraniumHexatiuoride Conversion Facility at thePaducah, KY, SiteAGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Record of decision.

decontamination and decommissioning(D&D) of the proposed depleteduranium hexaflqoride (DUFs)conversion facility at three alternativelocations within the Paducah site,Including transportation of depleteduranium conversion products and wastematerials to a disposal facility;transportation and sale of the aqueoushydrogen fluoride (HF) produced as aconversion co-product; andneutralization of aqueous HF to calciumfluoride (CAF2) and Its sale or disposalin the event that the aqueous HFproduct is not sold. An option ofshipping the East Tennessee TechnologyPark (ETTP) cylinders to the Paducahsite has also been considered, as has anoption of expanding operations byIncreasing efficiency or extending theperiod of operation. A similar EIS wasissued concurrently for constructionand operation of a DUF6 conversionfacility at DOE's Portsmouth, Ohio, site(DOE/EIS-0360).

DOE has decided to construct andoperate the conversion facility in thesouth-central portion of the Paducahsite, the preferred alternative identifiedin the FEIS as Location A.Groundbreaking for construction of thefacility will commence on or before July31, 2004, as anticipated by Public Law(Pub.L.) 107-206. The aqueous HFproduced during conversion will besold for use, pending approval ofauthorized release limits, asappropriate.ADDRESSES: The FEIS and this Record ofDecision (ROD) are available on theDOE National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) Web site at http://wwv.eh.doe.gov/nepa and on theDepleted UF6 Management InformationNetwork Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium. Copies of theFE:IS and this ROD may be requested bye-mail at Pad...DUF6@anl.gav, by toll-free telephone at 1-866-530--0944, bytoll-free fax at 1-866-530-0943, or bycontacting Gary S. Hartman, Oak RidgeOperations Office, U.S. Department ofEnergy, SE-30-1, P.O. Box 2001, OakRidge, Tennessee 37831.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation on the conversion facilityconstruction and operation, contactGary Hartman at the address listedabove. For general information on theDOE NEPA process, contact CarolBorgstrom, Director, Office of NEPAPolicy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S.Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-4600,or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundThe United States has produced DUF6

since the early 1950s as part of theprocess of enriching natural uranium forboth civilian and military applications.Production took place at three gaseousdiffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge,Tennessee, and subsequently atPaducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth,Ohio. The K-25 plant ceasedenrichment operations in 1985, and thePortsmouth plant ceased enrichmentoperations in 2001. The Paducah GDPcontinues to operate.

Approximately 440,000 t (484,000tons) of DUF6 is presently stored atPaducah in about 36,200 cylinders. Themajority of the cylinders weighapproximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and arestored on outside pads. DOE has beenlooking at alternatives for managing thisinventory. Also in storage at Paducahare approximately 1,940 cylinders ofvarious sizes that contain enriched UF6or normal UF6 (collectively called "non-DUF6" cylinders) or are empty. [Thenon-DUF6 cylinders would not beprocessed in the conversion facility.]

As a first step, DOE evaluatedpotential broad management options forits DUF6 inventory in a ProgranunaticEnvironmental Impact Statement forAlternative Strategies for the Long-TermManagement and Use of DepletedUranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS)(DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. Inthe PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decidedto promptly convert the DUF6 inventoryto a more stable uranium oxide formand stated that it would use thedepleted uranium oxide as much aspossible and store the remainingdepleted uranium oxide for potentialfuture uses or disposal, as necessary. Inaddition, DOE would convert DUF6 todepleted uranium metal, but only if usesfor metal were available. DOE did notselect specific sites for the conversionfacilities but reserved that decision forsubsequent NEPA review. Today'sRecord of Decision announces theoutcome of that site-specific NEPAreview. DOE is also Issuing today aseparate but related ROD announcingthe siting of a DUF6 conversion facilityat Portsmouth, Ohio.

Congress enacted two laws thatdirectly addressed DOE's managementof its DUF6 inventory. The first law,Public Law 105-204, signed by thePresident in July 1998, required theSecretary of Energy to prepare a plan tocommence construction of, no later thanJanuary 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) prepared a Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Construction andOperation of a Depleted UraniumHexafluoride Conversion Facility at thePaducah, Kentucky, Site (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0359). The FEIS Notice ofAvailability was published by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) onJune 18, 2004. In the FEIS, DOEconsidered the potential environmentalImpacts from the construction,operation, maintenance, and

LES Exhibit 75

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices 44655

Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth,Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF6,consistent with NEPA. The second law,Public Law 107-206, signed by thePresident on August 2, 2002, requiredthat no later than 30 days afterenactment, DOE must award a contractfor the scope of work described in itsRequest for Proposals (RFP) issued InOctober 2000 for the design,construction, and operation of a DUF6conversion facility at each of theDepartment's Paducah, Kentucky, andPortsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusionsites. It also stipulated that the contractrequire groundbreaking for constructionto occur no later than July 31, 2004, atboth sites.

In response to these laws, DOE issuedthe Final Plan for the Conversion ofDepleted Uranium Hexafluoride asRequired by Public Law 105-204 in July1999. and awarded a contract toUranium Disposition Services (UDS) forconstruction and operation of twoconversion facilities on August 29,2002, consistent with NEPA.

On September 18,2001, DOEpublished a Notice of Intent (NOI) in theFederal Register (66 FR 48123)announcing its Intention lo prepare anEIS for the proposed action to construct,operate, maintain, -and decontaminateand decommission two DUF6conversion facilities: One at Portsmouthand one at Paducah. Following theenactment ofPublic Law 107-206, DOEreevaluated the appropriate scope of itssite-specific NEPA review and decidedto prepare two separate EISs, one for theplant proposed for the Paducah site anda second for the Portsmouth site. Thischange In approach was announced Inthe Federal Register on April 28, 2003(68 FR 22368).

The two draft conversion facility EISswere mailed to stakeholders In lateNovember 2003, and a Notice ofAvailability was published by the EPAin the Federal Register on November 28,2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on thedraft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended onFebruary 2, 2004. DOE considered thesecomments and prepared two FEISs. TheNotice of Availability for the two FEISswas published by the EPA in theFederal Register (69 FR 34161) on June18,2004.II. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE needs to convert its inventory ofDUF6 to more stable chemical form(s)for use or disposal. This need followsdirectly from (1) the decision presentedin the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS,namely, to begin conversion of the DUF6inventory as soon as possible, and (2)Public Law 107-206, which directs DOE

to award a contract for construction andoperation of conversion facilities at boththe Paducah site and the Portsmouthsite.

HI. AlternativesNo Action Alternative. Under the no

action alternative, conversion would notoccur. Current cylinder managementactivities (handling, inspection,monitoring, and maintenance) wouldcontinue; thus the status quo would bemaintained at Paducah indefinitely.

Action Alternatives. The proposedaction evaluated in the FEIS is toconstruct and operate a conversionfacility at the Paducah site forconversion of the Paducah DUF6Inventory Into depleted uranium oxide(primarily triuranium octaoxide [U3081l)and other conversion products. TheFEIS review Is based on the conceptualconversion facility design proposed bythe selected contractor, UDS. The UDSdry conversion process Is a continuousprocess in which DUF6 is vaporized andconverted to a mixture of uraniumoxides (primarily U30s) by reaction withsteam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bedconversion unit. The hydrogen isgenerated from anhydrous ammonia(NH3). The depleted UsO8 powder iscollected and packaged for dispositionin bulk bags (large-capacity, strong,flexible bags) or the emptied cylindersto the extent practicable. Equipmentwould also be installed to collect theaqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF atconcentrations suitable for commercialresale. A backup HF acid neutralizationsystem would convert up to 100% of theHF acid to CaF2 for sale or disposal inthe future, if necessary. The conversionproducts would be transported to adisposal facility or to users by truck orrail. The conversion facility will bedesigned with four parallel processinglines to convert 18,000 t (20,000 tons) ofDUF 6 per year, requiring 25 years toconvert the Paducah inventory.

Three alternative locations within thesite were evaluated, Locations A(preferred), B, and C. In addition, anoption of transporting the ETTPcylinders to Paducah rather than toPortsmouth was considered, as was anoption of expanding conversion facilityoperations.

Alternative Location A (PreferredAlternative). Location A is the preferredlocation for the conversion facility. It Islocated south of the administrationbuilding and its parking lot,Immediately west of and next to theprimary location of the DOE cylinderyards and east of the main plant accessroad. This location is an L-shaped tractconsisting mostly of grassy field.

However, the southeastern section is awooded area. A drainage ditch crossesthe northern part of the site, giving thecylinder yard storm water access toKentucky Pollution DischargeElimination System (KPDES) Outfall017. This location is about 35 acres (14ha) in size and was identified in the RFPfor conversion services as the site forwhich bidders were to design theirproposed facilities.

Alternative Location B. Location B isdirectly south of the Paducahmaintenance building and west of themain plant access road. The northernpart of this location is mowed grass andhas a slightly rolling topography. Thesouthern part has a dense covering oftrees and brush, and some high-voltagepower lines cross it, limiting its use.This location has an area of about 59acres (23 ha).. Alternative Location C. Location C is

east of the Paducah pump house andcooling towers. It has an area of about53 acres (21 ha). Dykes Road runsthrough the center of this location fromnorth to south. Use of the eastern halfof this location could be somewhatlimited because several high-voltagepower lines run through this area.

Under the action alternatives, DOEevaluated the impacts from packaging,handling, and transporting depleteduranium oxide conversion product(primarily U30g) from the conversionfacility to a low-level waste (LLW)disposal facility that would be (1)selected in a manner consistent withDOE policies and orders and (2)authorized to receive the conversionproducts by DOE (in conformance withDOE orders), or licensed by the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)(in conformance with NRC regulations),or an NRC Agreement State agency (inconformance with state laws andregulations determined to be equivalentto NRC regulations). Assessment of theImpacts and risks from on-site handlingand disposal at an LLW disposal facilityhas been deferred to the disposal site'ssite-specific NEPA or licensingdocuments. While the FEIS presents theimpacts from transporting the DUF6conversion products to both theEnvirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and theNevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans todecide the specific disposal location(s)for the depleted U308 conversionproduct after additional NEPA review,as necessary. Accordingly, DOE willcontinue to evaluate its disposal optionsand will consider any furtherinformation or comments relevant tothat decision. DOE will give a minimum45-day notice before making its specificdisposal decision and will provide any

44656 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices

additional NEPA analysis for publicreview and comment.

The following alternatives wereconsidered but not analyzed in detail inthe FEIS: Use of Commercial ConversionCapacity, Sites Other Than Paducah,Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives,Transportation Modes Other ThanTruck and Rail, and One ConversionPlant Alternative.IV. Summary of Environmental Impacts

The FEIS evaluated potential impactsfrom the range of alternatives describedabove. The impact areas includedhuman health and safety, air quality,noise, water and soil, socioeconomics,ecological resources, wastemanagement, resource requirements,land use, cultural resources,environmental justice, and cumulativeimpacts. In general, the Impacts are lowfor both the no action and the proposedaction alternatives. Among the threealternative locations considered at thePaducah site for the conversion facility,there are no major differences inimpacts that would make' one locationclearly environmentally preferable. Thediscussion below summarizes theresults of the FEIS impact analyses,highlighting the differences among thealternatives.

Human Health and Safety-NormalOperations and Transportation..Underall alternatives, it is estimated thatpotential exposures of workers and'members of the general public toradiation and chemicals would be wellwithin applicable public healthstandards and regulations. UDS wouldconfirm, prior to conversion or at theInitiation of the conversion operations,that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)releases to the workplace from the paintcoating of some cylinders manufactured

,prior to 1978 Wv'ould be withinapplicable Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) limits..Transportation by rail would tend tocause fewer impacts than by truckprimarily because of ekhaust emissionsfrom the trucks and the higher numberof shipments for trucks than for rail. Theoption of converting the aqueous HF toCaF2 and transporting the CaF 2 to adisposal facility would result Inincreased shipments. The impactsassociated with transportation ofuranium oxide product to a disposalfacility in the western United States bytruck would be about the same if bulkbags are used or two filled cylinders areloaded onto a truck. If only one cylinderis loaded onto a truck, the impactswould be higher because of theincreased number of shipments.

Human Health and Safety-Accidents. DOE has extensiveexperience In safely storing, handling,and transporting cylinders containingUF6 (depfeted, normal, or enriched). Inaddition, the chemicals used orgenerated at the conversion facility arecommonly used for industrialapplications in the United States, andthere are well-established accidentprevention and mitigative measures fortheir storage and transportation.

Under all alternatives, it is possiblethat accidents could release radiation orchemicals to the environment.potentially affecting both the workersand members of the general public. It isalso possible that, similar to otherindustrial facilities, workers could beinjured or killed as a result of on-the-jobaccidents unrelated to radiation orchemical exposure. Similarly, duringtransportation of materials, both crewmembers and members of the publicmay be injured or killed as a result oftraffic accidents.

Three kinds of accidents have thelargest possible consequences: (1) Thoseinvolving the DUF6 cyinders duringstorage and handling under allalternatives, (2) those involvingchemicals used or generated by theconversion process at the conversionsite (in particular NH, and aqueous HF)under the action alternatives, and (3)those occurring during transportation ofchemicals and cylinders under the 'action alternatives. The severity of theconsequences from such accidentswould depend on weather conditions atthe time of the accident, and, in the caseof the transportation accidents, thelocation of the accident, and could besignificant. However, those accidentswould have a low estimated probabilityof occurring, making the risk low. (Riskis determined by multiplying theconsequences by the probability ofoccurrence).

In comparing truck versus railtransportation, even though theconsequences of rail accidents aregenerally higher (because of the largercargo load per railcar than per truck),the accident probabilities tend to belower for railcars than for trucks. Asaresult, the risks of accidents would beabout the same under either option.

Under the no action alternative, therisks associated with cylinder storageand handling would continue to exist aslong as the cylinders are there.However, under the action alternatives,the risks associated with both thecylinder accidents and the chemicalaccidents would decline over time anddisappear at the completion of the'project.

Air Quality and Noise. Under theaction alternatives, the total (modeledplus background value) concentrationsdue to emissions of most criteriapollutants-such as sulfur dioxide,nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide-would be well within applicable airquality standards. For construction, theprimary concern would be particulatematter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations ofPMto and PM2.s (PM with anaerodynamic diameter of 10 un or lessand 2.5 pim or less, respectively) at theconstruction site boundaries would beclose to or above the standards becauseof the high background concentrations.Accordingly, construction activitieswould be conducted so as to milnimizefurther impacts on ambient air quality.

Water and Soil. During constructionof the conversion facility,concentrations of any potentialcontaminants in soil, surface water, orgroundwater would be kept well withinapplicable standards or guidelines by.implementing storm water management,sediment and erosion controls, and goodconstruction practices. Duringoperations, no impacts would beexpected because no contaminatedliquid effluents are anticipated.

Socioeconomics. Under the actionalternatives, construction and operationof the conversion facility would createmore jobs and personal income in the.vicinity of the Paducah site than wouldbe possible under the no actionalternative. The number of jobs wouldbe approximately 190 direct and 290tota during construction, and 160 directand .330 total during operations.

Ecology. For the action alternatives,the total area disturbed duringconversion facility construction wouldbe up to 45 acres (18 ha). Althoughvegetation communities in the disturbedarea would be impacted by a loss ofhabitat, impacts could be minimized(e.g., by appropriate placement of thefacility within each location), andnegligible long-term impacts tovegetation and wildlife are expected atall locations. Impacts to wetlands couldbe minimized, depending on whereexactly the facility was placed withineach location and by maintaining abuffer near adjacent wetlands duringconstruction. Construction of theconversion facility in the easternportion of Location C could impactpotential habitat for cream wild indigo(state-listed as a species of specialconcern) and compass plant (state-listedas threatened). For construction at allthree locations, potential impacts toforested areas could be avoided iftemporary construction areas wereplaced in previously disturbed

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143 /Tuesday, July 27, 2004 /Notices 44657

locations. During construction, treeswith exfoliating bark (such as shagbarkhickory 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 summerwould be saved if possible.

Waste Management. Under the actionalternatives, waste generated duringconstruction and operations would havenegligible impacts on the Paducah sitewaste management operations, with theexception of possible impacts fromdisposal of CaF2. If the aqueous HF werenot sold but instead neutralized to CaF2 ,it Is currently unknown whether (1) theCaF2 could be sold, (2) the low uraniumcontent would allow the CaF2 to bedisposed of as nonhazardous solidwaste, or (3) disposal as LLW would berequired. The low level of uraniumcontamination expected (i.e., less than Ippm) suggests that sale or disposal asnonhazardous solid waste would bemost likely. Waste management fordisposal as nonhazardous waste couldbe handled through appropriateplanning and design of the facilities. Ifthe CaF2 had to be disposed of as LLW,It could represent a potentially largeimpact on waste managementoperations.

The U 3 0s produced duringconversion would amount to about 80%of Paducah's annual projected LLWvolume.. Option of Shipping E7TP Cylinders to

Paducah. The cylinders at ETTP wouldrequire preparation for shipment byeither truck or rail. Three cylinderpreparation options were considered forthe shipment of noncompliantcylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping"as-is" under a U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) exemption, anduse of a cylinder transfer facility (thereare no current plans to build such afacility at ETTP). The operationalimpacts (e.g., storage, handling, andmaintenance of cylinders) from any ofthe options would be small and limitedprimarily to external radiation exposureof involved workers. The annualimpacts from conversion operations atPaducah would remain the same,however the conversion period wouldbe approximately 3 years longer. If adecision was made to construct andoperate a transfer facility at EITP in thefuture, additional NEPA review wouldbe conducted.

Conversion Product Sale and Use.The conversion of the DUF6 inventoryproduces products having somepotential for reuse. These productsinclude aqueous HF and CaF2 , whichare commonly used as commercialmaterials. DOE is currently pursuing theestablishment of authorization limits

(allowable'concentration limits ofuranium) in these products to be able tofree-release them to commercial users.In addition, there is a small potential forreuse of the depleted uranium oxideproduct.

D&D Activities. D&D impacts wouldbe primarily from external radiation toinvolved workers and would be a smallfraction of allowable doses. Wastesgenerated during D&D operations wouldbe disposed of in an appropriatedisposal facility and would result in lowimpacts in comparison with projectedsite annual generation volumes.

Cumulative Impacts. The FEISanalyses indicated that no significantcumulative Impacts at the Paducah siteand its vicinity would be anticipateddue to the incremental Impacts of theproposed action when added to otherpast, present, and reasonablyforeseeable future actions.

Option of Expanding ConversionFacility Operations. The throughput ofthe Paducah facility could be Increasedby making process efficiencyimprovements. Such an increase wouldnot be expected to significantly changethe overall environmental impacts whencompared with those of the currentplant design.

The conversion facility operationscould be extended to process anyadditional DtF 6 for which DOE mightassume responsibility by operating thefacility longer than the currentlyanticipated 25 years. With routinefacility and equipment maintenance andperiodic equipment replacements orupgrades, it Is believed that theconversion facility could be operatedsafely beyond this time period. Ifoperations were extended beyond 25years and if the operationalcharacteristics (e.g., estimated releasesof contaminants to air and water) of thefacility remained unchanged, it isexpected that the annual impacts wouldbe essentially unchanged.V. Environmentally PreferredAlternative

In general, the FEIS shows greaterimpacts for the no action alternativethan for the proposed action ofconstructing and operating theconversion facility mainly because ofthe relatively higher radiation exposuresof the workers from the cylindermanagement operations and cylinderyards and because the cylinders andassociated risk would remain if noaction occurred. However, consideringthe uncertainties in the impact estimatesand the magnitude of the impacts, thedifferences are not considered to besignificant. The no action alternativehas the potential for groundwater

contamination with uranium over thelong-term; this adverse Impact is notanticipated under the proposed actionalternatives. Beneficial socioeconomicimpacts would be higher for the actionalternatives than for the no actionalternative.

The impacts associated withtransportation of materials among siteswould be comparable whether thetransportation Is by truck or rail.

With all alternatives, there is thepotential for some high-consequenceaccidents to occur. The risks associatedwith such accidents can only becompletely eliminated when theconversion of the DUF6 Inventory hasbeen completed.

Although there are some differencesin impacts among the three alternativelocations for the conversion facility,these differences are small and wellwithin the uncertainties associated withthe methods used to estimate impacts.In general, because of the relativelysmall risks that would result under allalternatives and the absence of any clearbasis for discerning an environmentalpreference, DOE concludes that nosingle alternative analyzed in depth inthe FEIS is clearly environmentallypreferable compared to the otheralternatives.

VI. Comments on Final EISThe Final EIS was mailed to

stakeholders In early June 2004, and theEPA issued a Notice of Availability inthe Federal Register on June 18, 2004.The entire document was also madeavailable on the World Wide Web. Twocomment letters were received on theDUF6 Conversion Facility Final ElSs.The State of Nevada indicated that ithad no comments on the Final ElSs andthat the proposal was not in conflictwith state plans, goals, or objectives.The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated thatthe Portsmouth Final EIS adequatelyaddress its concerns, and that it concurswith the Preferred Alternative and hasno further concerns.

DecisionI.- Bases for the Decision

DOE considered potentialenvironmental impacts as identified inthe FEIS (including the informationcontained in the classified appendix);cost; applicable regulatoryrequirements; Congressional directionas included in Public Law 105-204 and107-206; agreements among DOE andthe States of Ohio, Tennessee, andKentucky concerning the managementof DUF6 currently stored at thePortsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites,

l

44658 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 143ITuesday, July 27, 2004/Notices

respectively; and public comments inarriving at its decision. In decidingamong the three alternative locations atthe Paducah site for the conversionfacility, DOE considered environmentalfactors, site preparation requirementsaffecting construction, availability ofutilities, proximity to cylinder storageareas, and potential impacts to currentor planned site operations. DOE hasdetermined that Location A is the bestalternative. DOE believes that thedecision identified below best meets Itsprogrammatic goals and Is consistentwith all the regulatory requirements andpublic laws.

II. DecisionDOE has decided to implement the

actions described in the preferredalternative from the FEIS at Location A.This decision includes the followingactions:

* DOE will construct and operate theconversion facility at Location A withinthe Paducah site. Construction willcommence on or before July 31, 2004, asintended by Congress in Public Law107-206.

* All shipments to and from theconversion site, including any potentialshipments of non-DUF6 cylinderscurrently stored at ETTP to Paducah,will be conducted by either truck or rail,as appropriate. Cylinders will beshipped in a manner that is consistentwith DOT regulations for thetransportation of UF6 cylinders.

. Cuent cylinder managementactivities (handling, inspection,monitoring, and maintenance) willcontinue, consistent with the CylinderProject Management Plan for DepletedUranium Hexafluoride, effectiveOctober 2003, which cover actionsneeded to meet safety andenvironmental requirements, untilconversion could be accomplished.

. The aqueous HF produced duringconversion will be sold for use, pendingapproval of authorized release limits asappropriate. If necessary, CaF 2 will beproduced and reused, pending approvalof authorized release limits, or disposedof as a propriate.

e depleted U30s conversionproduct will be reused to the extentpossible or packaged for disposal Inemptied cylinders at an appropriatedisposal facility. DOE plans to decidethe specific disposal location(s) for thedepleted U3 08 conversion product afteradditional appropriate NEPA review.Accordingly, DOE will continue toevaluate its disposal options and willconsider any further Information orcomments relevant to that decision.DOE will give a minimum 45-day noticebefore making the specific disposal

decision and will provide anysupplemental NEPA analysis for publicreview and comment.

Im. Mitigation

On the basis of the analysesconducted for the FEIS, the DOE willadopt all practicable measures, whichare described below, to avoid orminimize adverse environmentalimpacts that may result fromconstructing and operating a conversionfacility at Location A. These measuresare either explicitly part of thealternative or are already performed aspart of routine operations.

. The conversion facility will bedesigned, constructed, and operated inaccordance with the comprehensive setof DOE requirements and applicableregulatory requirements that have beenestablished to protect public health andthe environment. These requirementsencompass a wide variety of areas,including radiation protection, facilitydesign criteria, fire protection,emergency preparedness and response,and operational safety requirements.

. Temporary impacts on air qualityfrom fugitive dust emissions duringreconstruction of cylinder yards orconstruction of any new facility will becontrolled by the best availablepractices, as necessary, to comply withthe established standards for PMio andPM2. .

. During construction, impacts towater quality and soil will beminimized through implementing stormwater management, sediment anderosion controls, and good constructionpractices consistent with the Soil,Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan andConstruction Management Plan.

. If live trees with exfoliating bark areencountered on construction areas, theywill be saved if possible to avoiddestroying potential habitat for theIndiana bat.

Issued in Washington, DC this 20th day ofJuly 2004.Paul hi. Golan,Principal DeputyAssistant SecretazyforEnvironmental Management.[FR Doc. 04-17050 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]1ILUNG CODE 6450-01-U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission[Docket No. CP04-368-00]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Noticeof Request for Authorization

July 2,2004.Take notice that on June 25, 2004, El

Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso),P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,Colorado 80904, filed in Docket No.CP04-368-000, a request pursuant tosection 157.216(b) and 157.208(b) of theCommission's Regulations (18 CFR157.214) to abandon, by removal, its 7.1mile 103/4 inch diameter Nevada LoopLine (Line No. 2112), and replace twosegments of its 16 inch diameter NevadaLoop Line (Line No. 2121), totaling 17.2miles, located in Mohave County,Arizona, all as more fully set forth in theapplication on file with the Commissionand open for public review.

Any questions regarding thisapplication should be directed to RobertT. Tomlinson, Director, RegulatoryAffairs, El Paso Natural Gas Company,P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,Colorado, 80944, at (719) 520-3788.

This filing Is available for review atthe Commission or may be viewed onthe Commission's Web site at http.//wtww.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary" link.Enter the docket number excluding thelast three digits in the docket numberfield to access the document. Forassistance, please contact FERC OnlineSupport atFERCOnlineSupport~ferc.gov or calltoll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY,contact (202) 502-8659. Protests,comments and interventions may befiled electronically via the Internet inlieu of paper; see, 18 CFR385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Instructionson the Commission's Web site under the"e-Filing" link. The Commissionstrongly encourages interveners to fileelectronically.

Any person or the Commission's staffmay, within 45 days after issuance ofthe instant notice by the Commission,file pursuant to Rule 214 of theCommission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR385.214) a motion to intervene or noticeof intervention and pursuant to section157.205 of the Regulations under theNatural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) aprotest to the request. If no protest isfiled within the time allowed therefore,the proposed activity shall be deemed tobe authorized effective the day after thetime allowed for filing a protest. If aprotest is filed and not withdrawnwithin 30 days after the time allowedfor filing a protest, the instant request

I.

k

Defluorination of depleted UF6* The W defluorination facility

September 27th, 2004

LES Exhibit 76

Specifications of output products.pY

Q A

."'S

~ ~ ~ - * . -

~..

8

Ms. Lynne D. Garner April 1, 1999Regulatory Affairs CoordinatorStanrnt CMIvP.O. Box 1366365 Metal Drive, Hwy. 80Barnwell, SC 29812

Dear Ms.; Garner:

This is in response to your letters dated September 23, 1998, October 27.. 1998 andsubsequent submittal which addressed additional information rcgarding your request todispose of calcium fluoride (CaF2) process waste with uranium concentration of s 30pCi/gm as non-regu1ated waste at a solid waste landfill. The Department hascompleted the review'of your request and it is understood that the CaF2 Inventorycurrently in the facility has been sampled and appropriately classified. Likewise, asper your letter dated October'27, 1998, it is understond that the solid waste landfillfacility is cognizant or the characteristlcs or the waste.

ApproVal is provided to dispose of the CaF2 mnterials which meet the acceptancecriteria of s 30 pCi/gm as non-Tegulited waste at a solid waste landrill. Concurrcnccis provided to the Starmet Procedure WM-001., Rev. 1, 'Calcium F1luoridc WasteInventory Control and Sampling Protocol" dated February 4, 1999. Bc advised thatsampling of the materials to meet disposal criteria must strictly udhere to and be inaccordance with the manner outlined In the procedure. It is expected that In the eventthat the sample does not meet the specified acceptance criteria, the resamplingprotocol established in the procedure must be complied with.

Our offlce recommdends that records of sampling and results of analysis be maintainedin accordance with the requirements of the regulations and be malde available duringthe routine facility inspection.

If you have any questions concerning these nantters, please contact our office.

Very truly yours,

Virgil R. Autry, DirectorDivision of Radioactive Waste ManagementBureau of Land and Waste Management

CAP2 .CMIIJS

LES ExhilAit 77

ROMOTE [RO 'EC ROSIER500 Bull Stzet'olumbla, SC29201-1108

June 17, 1999:

Ms. Lynne D. GarnerRcgulatoryAffairs'CoordinntorStarme, CM .*

P.O. Box 13 66Barnwell, South Carolina 29812

Denr Ms. Garner:

This letter is in refcrence to the waste material thlt Starmet CMI has considered for lisposal atthe Waste Control Specialists (WCS) Facility in Txm. We understand that in your discussionswith the Texas Natural Resource Conservaton Commission (INRCC), the waste is acceptablefor disposal at the WSC Facility. The Department oxempts the Starmet generated calciumfluoride, surface contaminated metal and other iranlum containing waste from the requirementsof disposal at the licenscd disposal facility under the following conditions.

1. The maximum concentation of umnium in the waste shall not cxcecd 0.05% by wcightor250 pCI/gm. Waste containing other licensed madionuclides is not acceptablc fordisposal at WCS.

2. Written approval must be obtained from the TNRCC that the waste is acceptable fordisposal at WCS. A copy of the approval must be forwarded to the Department.

* 3.. The waste must meet thc WCS acepance criteria.

4. Starmet shaIl report the volumc and activity of wastc disposed of at WCS in the monihlyinventory report.

5. The waste must be disposed of at the WCS Texas Facility unless otherwise approved bythe Department.

LES Exhibit 78

SOUT H CAR r) T. TWAn 2 FAV nS T:sAT IrTU ^wnM rmrTnVkAl^,I ,AT 'TV

a .,I.

If you have questions concerning this approval, please do not hesitate to contact our office At(803) 896.4240.

Very truly yours,

Division fRadio Wast ManagenmentBureau of Land and W e Management

STARllMJP/aw

cc: Alice Rogers, TNRCC