Text

American Centrifuge Operating, LLC - License Amendment Request Application and Supporting Documents - Proposed Changes for LA-3605-0002, Environmental Report - Part 1 of 2
	ML20139A098
Person / Time
Site:	07007004
Issue date:	05/06/2020
From:	; American Centrifuge Operating
To:	; Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
	ACO 20-0013 LA-3605-0002
	Download: ML20139A098 (198)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 2 of ACO 20-0013 Proposed Changes for LA-3605-0002, Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Information Contained Within Does Not Contain Export Controlled Information Reviewing Official:

1014 Date:

05/06/2020

I I Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio Re~*isian l6Proposed Change LA-3605-0002 Docket No. 70-7004 May 2020 Information contained within does not contain Export Controlled Information Reviewer:

1014 Date:

05/06/2020

LA-3605-0002 -Blank Page

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT in Piketon, Ohio Docket No. 70-7004 Revision 16Proposed Change LA-3605-0002

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Blank Page

Environmental Report for the American Centrifage Plant Proposed Change 2020 UPDATED LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Revision 0 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by L. Sparks on 07/29/04; Export Controlled Information review completed by R. Coriell on 07/30/04. Revision 1 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by J. Weidner on 05/05/05; Export Controlled Information review completed by R. Coriell on 04/29/05. Revision 2 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by R. Coriell on 06/16/05 and the Export Controlled Information review completed by D. Hupp on 06/16/05. Revision 3 - 10 CFR 1045 review and the Export Controlled Information review completed by D. Hupp on 07/27/05. Revision 4 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by J. Weidner on 08/16/05 and the Export Controlled Information review completed by Len Phillips (DOE) on 08/16/05. Revision 5 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by R. Coriell on 10/20/05 and the Export Controlled Information review completed by D. Hupp on 10/20/05. Revision 6 - 10 CFR 1045 review completed by J. Weidner on 11/28/05; Export Controlled Information review completed by D. Hupp on 11/22/05. Revision 7-10 CFR 1045 review completed by J. Weidner on 02/17/06 and the Export Controlled Information review completed by D. Hupp on 02/17/06. Revision 8-10 CFR l 045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. Coriell on 07 /11/06. Revision 9-10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by G. Peed on 01/11/08. Revision 10- 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by G. Peed on 01/24/08. Revision 11 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by M. Basham on 6/05/08. Revision 12 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. S. Lykowski on 11/24/08. Revision 13 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. S. Lykowski on 01/27/09. Revision 14 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. S. Lykowski on 01/07/10. Revision 15 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. S. Lykowski on 04/22/10. Revision 16 - 10 CFR 1045 and the Export Controlled Information reviews were completed by R. S. Lykowski on 07/23/10. Proposed Change - Classification review completed by Derivative Classifier #4769 on May 06, 2020 and the Controlled Unclassified Information (e.g., ECI) review completed by Reviewer #1014 on May 06, 2020. Page No. Revision Page No. Revision Cover Page Proposed Change 1-15 Proposed Change Inside Cover Page Proposed Change 1-16 Proposed Change ULOEP-1 through Proposed Change 1-17 Proposed Change ULOEP-4 1-18 Proposed Change Proposed Change 1-19 Proposed Change 11 Proposed Change 1-20 Proposed Change 111 Proposed Change 1-21 Proposed Change lV Proposed Change 1-22 Proposed Change V Proposed Change 1-23 Proposed Change Vl Proposed Change 1-24 Proposed Change Vll Proposed Change 1-25 Proposed Change vm Proposed Change 1-26 Proposed Change lX Proposed Change 1-27 Proposed Change X Proposed Change 1-28 Proposed Change Xl Proposed Change 1-29 Proposed Change Xll Proposed Change 1-30 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 1 Proposed Change 2-1 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 2 Proposed Change 2-2 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 3 Proposed Change 2-3 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 4 Proposed Change 2-4 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 5 Proposed Change 2-5 Proposed Change Executive Summary - 6 Proposed Change 2-6 Proposed Change 1-1 Proposed Change 2-7 Proposed Change 1-2 Proposed Change 2-8 Proposed Change 1-3 Proposed Change 2-9 Proposed Change 1-4 Proposed Change 2-10 Proposed Change 1-5 Proposed Change 2-11 Proposed Change 1-6 Proposed Change 2-12 Proposed Change 1-7 Proposed Change 2-13 Proposed Change 1-8 Proposed Change 2-14 Proposed Change 1-9 Proposed Change 2-15 Proposed Change 1-10 Proposed Change 2-16 Proposed Change 1-11 Proposed Change 2-17 Proposed Change 1-12 Proposed Change 2-18 Proposed Change 1-13 Proposed Change 2-19 Proposed Change 1-14 Proposed Change 2-20 Proposed Change ULOEP-1

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant 2-21 2-22 2-23 2-24 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 . 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-37 3-38 3-39 3-40 3-41 3-42 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-46 3-47 3-48 Page No. Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change 3-49 3-50 3-51 3-52 3-53 3-54 3-55 3-56 3-57 3-58 3-59 3-60 3-61 3-62 3-63 3-64 3-65 3-66 3-67 3-68 3-69 3-70 3-71 3-72 3-73 3-74 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 ULOEP-2 Page No. Proposed Change 2020 Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change

Environmental Report/or the American Centrifuge Plant 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-34 4-35 4-36 4-37 4-38 4-39 4-40 4-41 4-42 4-43 4-44 4-45 4-46 4-47 4-48 4-49 4-50 4-51 4-52 4-53 4-54 4-55 4-56 4-57 4-58 4-59 4-60 4-61 Page No.

Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change 4-62 4-63 4-64 4-65 4-66 4-67 4-68 4-69 4-70 4-71 4-72 4-73 4-74 4-75 4-76 4-77 4-78 4-79 4-80 4-81 4-82 4-83 4-84 4-85 4-86 4-87 4-88 4-89 4-90 4-91 4-92 4-93 4-94 4-95 4-96 4-97 4-98 4-99 4-100 4-101 4-102 4-103 4-104 4-105 4-106 4-107 4-108 4-109 4-110 ULOEP-3 Page No. Proposed Change 2020 Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant 4-111 4-112 4-113 4-114 4-115 4-116 4-117 4-118 4-119 4-120 4-121 4-122 4-123 4-124 4-125 4-126 4-127 4-128 4-129 4-130 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 9-1 9-2 Page No. Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 10-1 10-2 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 11-7 11-8 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 D-1 D-2 E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 ULOEP-4 Page No. Proposed Change 2020 Revision Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change Proposed Change

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

....................................................................................................... 1-l 1.0.1 Background........................................................................................... 1-1 1.0.2 American Centrifuge Plant Program Overview.................................... 1-28 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action................................................... 1-~+-0 1.2 Proposed Action........................................................................................... l-1Q2-1.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Required Consulations.1-1 0+1 2.0 ALTERN"ATIVES........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Detailed Desciption of the Alternatives............................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Proposed Action............................................................................... 2 2.1.2.1 Plant Layout...................................................................... 2-4~ 2.1.2.2 Process Description............................................................ 2-27 2.1.2.3 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Program.... 2-119-2.1.2.4 Decontamination and Decommissioning.......................... 2-12.9-2.1.3

Reasonable Alternatives................................................................. 2-1J9 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated........................................................ 2-}16 2.3 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 2-18 2.4 Comparison of the Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Impacts............. 2-212-

3.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................ 3-1 3.1 Land Use.......................................................................................................... 3-l 3.2 Transportation................................................................................................ 3-28 3.2.1 Rail.................................................................................................. 3-28 3.2.2 Water............ :.................................................................................. 3-g_-9 3.2.3 Air................................................................................................... 3-g_-9 3.3 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.1 Site Geology.................................................................................. 3-1 10 3.3.1.1 Bedrock Geology............................................................. 3-~..J+ 3.3.1.2 Unconsolidated Deposits.................................................. 3-IQ+

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.3.2 Soils............................................................................................... 3-ll i 3.3.3 Seismicity...................................................................................... 3-1_14 3.3.3.1 Surface Faulting............................................................... 3-11~ 3.3.3.2 Liquefaction Potential...................................................... 3-11~ 3.4 Water Resources........................................................................................... 3-11% 3.4.1 Groundwater.................................................................................. 3-11% 3.4.2 Surface Water.............................................................................. 3-17~ 3.4.3 Floodplains.................................................................................... 3-2_2i 3.4.4 Wetlands..................................................................................... 3-32~ 3.5 Ecological Resources.............................................................................. :..... 3-32.e 3.5.1 Terrestrial Resources...................................................................... 3-3.J.e 3.5.2 Wildlife.......................................................................................... 3-31+ 3.5.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas.................................................... 3-31+ 3.5.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species..................................... 3-3i & 3.5.5 Background Radiological and Chemical Characteristics................. 3-3.§-9 3.5.5.1 Average Population Dose................................................. 3-3.§-9 3.5.5.2 Site-Specific Background Chemical and Radiological Characteristics................................................................. 3-31-9 3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality................................................ 3-374+ 3.6.1 Meteorology................................................................................. 3-374+ 3.6.2 Climate........................................................................................ 3-41M 3.6.3 Air Quality................................................................................... 3-42~ 3.6.3.1 Non-Radiological Air Quality........................................ 3-42~ 3.6.3:2 Radiological Air Quality................................................ 3-44M 3.7 Noise.......................................................................................................... 3-46~ 3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources.................................................................. 3-49~ 3.8.1 Cultural Resources....................................................................... 3-49~ 3.8.2 Architectural Historic Resources.................................................. 3-50@ ii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources............................................................................. 3-50e4 3.10 Socioeconomic........................................................................................... 3-5461 3.11 Public and Occupational Health.................................................................. 3-g_58.Q 3.12 Waste Management.................................................................................... 3-688J. 3.12.1 Waste Handling Operations.......................................................... 3-g_88J. 4.0 ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACTS.................................................................................. 4-l 4.1 Land Use Impacts........................................................................................... 4-2-l-4.l.l No Action Alternative......................................................................4-2+ 4.1.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.........................4-2+

4. 1.3 Proposed Action................................................................................. 4-2 4.2 Transportation Impacts.................................................................................... 4-2.-+

4.2.1 No Action Alternative....................................................................4-10+ 4.2.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.......................4-l..Q-+ 4.2.3 Proposed Action............................................................................. 4-l..Q& 4.2.3.1 Material Transport........................................................... 4-ll.8 4.2.3.2 Transportation During Operations....................................4-11~ 4.3 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts........................................................4-32_8 4.3. 1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 4-32_8 4.3.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.....................4-40.J.8 4.3.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-40J.9 4.4 Water Resources Impacts.............................................................................. 4-416 4.4.1 No Action Alternative....................................................................4-42.e 4.4.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.......................4-42_6 4.4.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-48W 4.4.3.1 Control of Liquid Effiuents.............................................. 4-51+ 4.4.3.2 Monitoring of Liquid Release Points................................4-5g_8 4.4.3.3 Action Levels.................................................................. 4-51-9 4.5 Ecological Resources Impacts....................................................................... 4-519 4.5.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 4-519 4.5.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.........................4-59 4.5.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-596{} iii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 4.6 Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................... 4-6J..S. 4.6.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 4-6}..S. 4.6.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.......................4-6.J..S. 4.6.2.1 Non-Radiological Air Quality..........................................4-6}..S. 4.6.2.2 Radiological Air Quality.................................................. 4-616 4.6.3 Proposed Action............................................................................. 4-62-'7-4.6.3. l Non-Radiological Air Quality..........................................4-§70 4.6.3.2 Radiological Air Quality..................................................4-716 4.7 Noise Impacts............................................................................................... 4-8}.6 4.7.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 4-8.J.e 4.7.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.......................4-81-'7-4.7.3 Proposed Action............................................................................. 4-811 4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts....................................................... 4-82& I, 4.8.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................... 4-82& 4.8.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.......................4-829 4.8.3 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 4-8§9 4.9 Visual/Scenic Resources Impacts................................................................ 4-879+ 4.9.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................. 4-987+ 4.9.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.....................4-889+ 4.9.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-889+ 4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts................................................................................ 4-~9i 4.10.1 Socioeconomic Impact Methodology.............................................. 4-~9~ 4.10.1.1 No Action Alternative.........................................."............4-9Q4 4.10.1.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative........4-9Q4

4. 10.1. 3 Proposed Action.............................................................. 4-911 4.11 Environmental Justice.............................................................................. 4-1016 4.11.1 No Action Alternative.................................................................. 4-l0J.1 4.11.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative.....................4-1011 4.11.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-l0J.1 4.11.3.1 Procedure and Evaluation Criteria.................................. 4-101-'7-4.11. 3. 2 Results........................................................................... 4-1 01&

4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts................................................... 4-106+-l-4.12.l No Action Alternative................................................................ 4-107+-l-iv

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 4.12.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative................... 4-1 07 ~ 4.12.2.1 Non-Radiological Impacts........................................... 4-107~ 4.12.2.2.Radiological Impacts................................................... 4-1 09 1:3 4.12.3 Proposed Action........................................................................... 4-1 lQ~ 4.12.3.1 Non-Radiological Impacts.............................................4-1 lQ~ 4.12.3.2 Radiological Impacts.....................................................4-l 1.1-1 4.13 Waste Management.................................................................................. 4-lliU 4.13.1 No Action Alternative................................................................ 4-lliU 4.13.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative................... 4-lliU 4.13.3 Proposed Action.:....................................................................... 4-112.~ 4.13.3.1 Refurbishment Phase................................................... 4-112.~ 4.13.3.2 Construction Phase........................................................ 4-12Q~ 4.13.3.3 Assembly Phase............................................................. 4-1216 4.13.3.4 Operations Phase.............................................*............. 4-122_6 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................................ 5-l 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS............ 6-1 7.0 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 7-l 7.1 Qualitative Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................. 7-l 7.1.1 Construct and Operate the American Centrifuge Plant at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant....................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 No Action Alternative........................................................................ 7-2 7.2 Detailed Analysis of Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant versus Piketon, OH...... 7-2 7.2.1 Environmental Safety and Health Factors........................................... 7-2 7.2.2 Cost to Construct and Operate the American Centrifuge Plant............ 7-2 7.2.3 Schedule to Deploy American Centrifuge Plant................................ 7-2_:J. 7.2.4 Community Support and Socioeconomic Factors............................... 7-3 V

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 7.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 7-3 8.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENT AL CONSEQUENCES......................................... 8-1 8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts................................................... 8-1 8.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................. 8-1 8.3 Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts and Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity................................................................................... 8-1 8.3.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................ 8-2 8.3.2 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Siting Alternative........................... 8-2 8.3.3 Proposed Action................................................................................. 8-2 9.0 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................. 9-1 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................. 10-1 11.0 GLOSSARY.............................................................................................................. 11-1 APPENDICES A. Acronyms and Abbreviations; Chemicals and Units of Measure; Conversion Chart; and Metric Prefixes............................................................................................................ A-1 B. Consultation Letters.................................................................................................... B-1 C. Cost Comparison to Construct and Operate the American Centrifuge Plant at the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation in Piketon, Ohio versus Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant............................................................................................................ C-1 D. Figures No Longer Withheld, Information Placed in the Body of The Environmental Report......................................................................................................................... D-1 E. Export Controlled Information.................................................................................... E-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.0.1-1 Location of Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in relation to the geographic region.......................................................................................................... 1-J~ Figure 1.0.1-2 U.S. Department of Energy Reservation in Piketon, Ohio............................ 1-1_+ vi

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 2.1.2.2-1 Simplified Schematic of Centrifuges............................................................ 2-1& Figure 2.1.2.2-2 Example Cascade Schematic...................................................................... 2-~H Figure 2.1.2.2-3 Purge and Evacuation Vacuum System Schematic..................................... 2-2+4 Figure 2.1.2.2-4 Machine Cooling Water............................................................................. 2-lQ~ Figure 2.2-1 American Centrifuge Plant Alternative Locations on the U.S. Department of Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1 2 Figure 3.3.1-1 Figure 3.3.1-2 Figure 3.4.1-1 Figure 3.4.2-1 Figure 3.4.2-2 Figure 3.4.2-3 Figure 3.4.2-4 Figure 3.4.2-5 Energy Reservation.................................................................................. 2-16~ Locations of Lakes, Rivers, and Creeks in the Vicinity of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation.............................................................. 3-2.e UraRium DispositioR Services Site Location.................................................. 3 7 Location of Ancient Newark River............................................................ 3-2-l-e Geologic Cross Section....................................................,......................... 3-lQ-7 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Quadrants........... 3-16~ Ponds and Lagoons on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation......... 3-19~ U.S. Department of Energy Reservation Drainage Map............................. 3-2Qe Contour Map of X-2230M......................................................................... 3-22. Contour Map of X-2230N.......................................................................... 3-2J & Contour Map of X-23015........................................................................... 3-21-9 Figure 3.4.2-6 Contour Map of X-230L.......................................................................... 3-25J-0 Figure 3.4.2-7 Contour Map of X-230J6......................................................................... 3-26M Figure 3.4.2-8 Contour Map of X-23017......................................................................... 3-27~ Figure 3.4.2-9 Contour Map of X-230K.......................................................................... 3-28ll Figure 3.4.3-1 Elevations ofRoadways........................................................................... 3-J0J-4 Figure 3.4.3-2 Topographic Map of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation.............. 3-31S-Figure 3.5.4-1 Suitable Indiana Bat Habitats on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation............................................................................................. 3-364e Figure 3.6.1-1 Wind Roses at 10-Meters......................................................................... 3-384& Figure 3.6.1-2 Wind Roses at 30-Meters......................................................................... 3-3949 Figure 3.6.1-3 Wind Roses at 60-Meters......................................................................... 3-40W Figure 3.7-1 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses... 3-486 Figure 3.9-1 View of the X-7725 Building and X-7727H Facilityi-es [Looking East].... 3-21_64 Figure 3.9-2 View of the X-7725 Building [Looking Southwest]................................. 3-52es-Figure 3.9-3 View of the X-3001 and X-3002 Process Buildings [Looking Northeast]................................................................................ 3-52es-vii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.9-4 View of the X-3346 Building and X-7745S Area for the X-3003 and X-3004 Process Buildings [Looking West]........................................ 3-5366 Figure 3.9-5 View of the X-3346, X-3001, X-3012, and X-3002 Buildings [Looking Northeast]................................................................................................ 3-5366 Figure 3.9-6 Site of X-3346A Feed and Product Shipping and Receiving Building [Looking South]........................................................................ 3-546+ Figure 3.10-1 Special Population Centers within Five Miles of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation.......................................................... 3-59+1-Figure 3.10-2 Census Block Group Map........................................................................ 3-64+8-Figure 3.10-3 Census Tract Map.................................................................................... 3-65+9 Figure 4.1.3-1 Primary/Secondary American Centrifuge Plant Facilities...........................4-~44 Figure 4.1.3-2 X-745G-2, X-745H American Centrifuge Plant Cylinder Storage Yards....4-§~ Figure 4.4.2-1 Figure 4.4.3-1 Figure 4.5.3-1 Figure 6.0-1 Figure 6.0-2 Figure 6.0-3 Table 1.1-1 Table 1.1 2 Table 1.3-1 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Drainage Map.......................................4-4§9 U.S. Department of Energy Reservation Storm Sewer Location...............4-5046 Designated Wetlands on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation........4-614 Soil and Vegetation Sampling Locations...................................................... 6-4 Locations of Routine Surface Water Sampling Points.................................. 6-~9 Stream Sediment Sampling Locations........................................................ 6-§-l-O LIST OF TABLES Electricity Usage Estimates....................................................................... 1-~+o Milestones in the DOE USEC Agreement (June 17, 2002) Related to De*1elopment of the American Centrifuge Plant......................... _.................. 1 11 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant............................................................... 1-12~ Table 2.1.2.1-1 American Centrifuge Plant Cylinder Yards.................................................. 2-~6 Table 2.1.2.1-2 American Centrifuge Plant Facilities to be Constructed............................... 2-~6 Table 2.4-1 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts................................. 2-22.J-Table 3.1-1 Percentage of Different Land Uses in the Region of Influence in 2000......... 3-J.2 Table 3.3.2-1 Soil Sampling Monitoring Results.:........................................................... 3-12 Table 3.3.2-2 Sediment Sampling Monitoring Results..................................................... 3-}J.4 Table 3.4.2-1 Surface Water Sam Jin Monitorin Results............................................... 3-29 Table 3.4.3-1 Comparison of Flood Elevations of the Scioto River Near the DOE Reservation with the Nominal Grade Elevation............................... 3-322J. viii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.5.2 1 Background Air Coneentrations................................................................... 3 40 Table 3.5.2 2 Background Concentrations of Radionuclides and Chemicals in Sediment...3 41 Table 3.5.2 3 Background Soil Concentration for Selected Radioactive Elements............. 3 42 Table 3.5.2 4 Vegetation Monitoring Program Background Levels.................................... 3 42 Table 3.5.2 5 Surface Water Monitoring Background Results........................................... 3 43 Table 3.6.2-1 Precipitation as a Function of Recurrence Interval and Storm Duration for the DOE Reservation.......................................................................... 3-41 ~ Table 3.6.3.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Allowable Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments........................................................ 3-43£- =r-ab-l-e-J.6. 3.1 2 United States Enrichment Corperation Non R11diological ,,\\irborne Emissions..................................................................................... 3 55 Table 3.6.3.2-1 Annual Dose Due to Licensee Airborne Emissions, 2006-2016................ 3-461/4 Table 3.6.3.2 2 Physical Parameters for United States Enrichment Corporation Air Emission Sources.................................................................................. 3 57 Table 3.6.3.2 3 Agricultural Data: Rural Default food Array Values................................... 3 58 Table 3.10-1 Employment by Sector (Percent)............................................................. 3-556& Table 3.10-2 Table 3.10-3 Table 3.10-4 Table 3.10-5 Table 3.10-6 Table 3.10-7 Table 3.10-8 Table 3.11-1 Region of Influence Unemployment Rates (Percent)................................ 3-5569 United States Enrichment Corporation and USECLicensee Workers by County of Residence................................................................................ 3-56-+G

Historic and Projected Population............................................................ 3-57-1+

Region of Influence Housing Characteristics........................................... 3-57-1+ Minority Population (Raw Data).............................................................. 3-6174 Minority Population (Percentages)........................................................... 3-62~ Low-Income Population........................................................................... 3-63-16 Recordable Injury/Illness Rates (Rlls) for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003.... 3-67&+ Table 3.12.1-1 U.S. Department ofEnergy Waste Management Program Treatment, Disposal, and Recycling Accomplishments for 200217............................ 3-7J && Table 3.12. l 2 United States Enrichment Corporation Waste Generation and Shipment Rates Calendar Year 2003.......................................................... 3 89 Table 4.2.3.1-1 Accident and Non-Accident Rates used for this Assessment.................... 4-11-l-9 Table 4.2.3.1-2 Estimated Transportation Requirements for Construction Material............ 4-120 Table 4.2.3.1-3 Estimated Transportation Requirements for Electrical Equipment..............4-1.J.2 Table 4.2.3.1-4 Estimated Transportation Requirements for the American Centrifuge Plant Process Equipment...................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4.2.3.1-5 Estimated Transportation Requirements for Feed and Withdrawal ix

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Pro/X?sed Change 2020 Equipment for the American Centrifuge Plant..............................................4-13 Table 4.2.3.1-6 Estimated Transportation Requirements for the American Centrifuge Plant Centrifuge Components............................................................................... 4-14 Table 4.2.3.1-7 Estimated Transportation Requirements for the Balance Stands for the American Centrifuge Plant......................................................................... 4-H 2-Table 4.2.3.1-8 Summary oflnput Parameters Used to Calculate Non-Cargo Related Transportation Impacts.............................................................................. 4-1§4 Table 4.2.3.1-9 Impacts from Transportation Associated With Construction/Refurbishment at the Piketon Site........................................................................................ 4-16 Table 4.2.3.2-1 Projected Annual Transportation Requirements for Feed Material for the American Centrifuge Plant......................................................................... 4-1 +~ Table 4.2.3.2-2 Projected Annual Transportation Requirements for Enriched Uranium Product from the American Centrifuge Plant........................................................ 4-20+& Table 4.2.3.2-3 Projected Annual Transportation Requirements for Heels Containers from the American Centrifuge Plant................................................................... 4-2_1-9 Table 4.2.3.2-4 Projected Annual Transportation Requirements of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the American Centrifuge Plant................................................4-21+ Table 4.2.3.2-5 Projected Annual Transportation Requirements for Containers of Decontamination and Decommissioning Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the American Centrifuge Plant..........................................................4-2~2-Table 4.2.3.2-6 Content of the Transportation Containers Proposed for Use by the American Centrifuge Plant......................................................................................... 4-2i J. Table 4.2.3.2-7 Direct Radiation Surrounding Shipping Containers....................................4-2§.J. Table 4.2.3.2-8 Routes and Annual Number of Trips for Radioactive Shipments Evaluated for the American Centrifuge Plant................................................................... 4-2§4 Table 4.2.3.2-9 Route Specific Information Used to Model Radiological Impacts for the American Centrifuge Plant..........................................'............................... 4-2~~ Table 4.2.3.2-l0Fractional Occurrence of Accidents by Severity Category and Population Densityi-vefsi-ty-Zone.................................................................................. 4-226 Table 4.2.3.2-11 Package Release Fractions from NUREG-0170.......................................4-302-+ Table 4.2.3.2-12Input Parameters for RADTRAN 5.5.......................................................4-Jj_U Table 4.2.3.2-13 Non-Radiological Fatalities from Truck Transportation of Radioactivelogieal Materials (Annual Shipments)...........................,....................................... 4-320 Table 4.2.3.2-14Rick of Latent Cancer Fatalities from Incident-Free Truck Transportation of Radioactive Materials................................................................................ 4-31--l-Table 4.2.3.2-15 Ri~ek of Latent Cancer Fatalities from Accidents During Truck Transportation of Radioactive \\Va:ste................................................................................... 4 32 Table 4.2.3.2 16Potentia:l Chemical Consequences to the Population from Severe Aeeidenees fovohing Shipment of Depleted UF, Cylinders........................................... 4 3 4 X

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 4.2.3.2 17Projections oPNaste Quantities for Major Waste Types at the 1\\.m.erioaR . CeRtrifuge PlaRt........................................................................................... 4 36 Table 4.2.3.2 18Projected ShiprneRts ofRoutiRe OperatioRal Supplies to the AmerioaR Centrifuge PlaRtMaterials.......................................................................... 4-3~+ Table 4.2.3.2-16 Potential Chemical Consequences to the Population from Severe Accidents Involving Shipment of Depleted UF6 Cylinders........................................... 4-36 Table 4.2.3.2-17 Projections of Waste Quantities for Major Waste Types at the American Centrifuge Plant........................................................................................... 4-38 Table 4.2.3.2-18 Projected Shipments of Routine Operational Supplies to the American. Centrifuge Plant........................................................................................... 4-38 Table 4.2.3.2-19Non-Cargo Impacts.................................................................................... 4-32+ Table 4.3.3-1 Earth Moved for Site Preparation...............................................................4-4i o Table 4.4.2-1 Table 4.4.3-1 Table 4.4.3-2 Table 4.4.3-3 Table 4.4.3-4 Table 4.5.3-1 Table 4.6.3-1 Table 4.6.3-2 Table 4.6.3-3 American Centrifuge Plant Potable and Makeup Water Use on the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Reservation............................................. 4-47 Calculated Peak Discharge and Runoff Rates for American Centrifuge Plant Holding Ponds X-2230M and X-2230N..........................................4-48W American Centrifuge Plant Potable and Makeup Water Use.......................4-512 Anticipated Generators and Aboveground Storage Tanks Associated with the American Centrifuge Plant......................................................................... 4-514 Anticipated Underground Storage Tanks Associated with the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio..............................................4-5~~ Operational and Accident Total Uranium and HF Concentrations at Suitable Indiana Bat Habitats................................................................... 4-62 Total Emissions for Twenty-six Diesel Engines - SSC 2-02-004-01..........4-6§.J. Emissions Estimates for Two Boilers Burning Natural Gas - SSC 1-02-006-02....................................................................................... 4-6§4 Emissions Estimates for Two Boilers Burning Low Sulfur Number 2 Fuel Oil - SSC 1-02-005-01....................................................................................... 4-6§4 Table4.6.3.1-1 Reservation Employment Levels vs. Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Levels............. :....................................................................... 4-69-1+ Table 4.6.3.1-2 American Centrifuge Plant Construction Activity and Total Fuel Use........4-?Qi Table 4.6.3.1-3 American Centrifuge Plant Construction Equipment and Daily Fuel Use...4-71~ Table 4.6.3.1-4 American Centrifuge Plant Construction Fuel Use Assumptions................4-71~ Table 4.6.3.2-1 Projected Emission Rates for the American Centrifuge Plant Curies per Year..................................................................................................... 4-7 28-Table 4.10-1 Estimated Impacts of Constructing the Facility at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.......................................................................................................... 4-92~ xi

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 4.10-2 Annual Economic Impact Based on Employment and Earnings in the Operations Phase....................................................................................... 4-9~+ Table 4.10-3 Estimated Impacts of Constructing the Facility at Preferred Site................4-9Q.9 Table 4.10-4 Annual Economic Impact Based on Employment and Earnings in the Operational Phase at Preferred Site........................................................ 4-97+9-l-- Table 4.10-5 Estimated Impacts of Manufacturing Centrifuges at the Preferred Site...4-99--1-(); Table 4.10-6 Estimated Impacts ofD&D at the Preferred Site......................................4-102_~ Table 4.11-1 Difference Between Census Block Groups (CBG) and Ohio....................4-10l 9 Table 4.11-2 Difference Between CBGs and the Applicable County (either Pike or Scioto).............................................................................. 4-10l 9 Table 4.11-3 Difference in Low-Income Population................................................... 4-106-W Table 4.11-4 Total Minority Population Percentage....................................................4-106-l-O Table 4.12.3.1-1 Typical Material Usage for Manufacturing............................................ 4-1 12(}9 Table 4.12.3.2.1-lAmerican Centrifuge Plant Dose Modeling............................................4-1 11& Table 4.13.3.3-1 Projections of Waste Quantities for Major Waste Types..........................4-13Q4 Table 6.0-1 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Program Sampling Locations, Parameters, and Frequency......................................................... 6-I e xii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Blank Page xiii

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This Environmental Report (ER) is submitted by the Licensee (Centrus Energy Corp. [Centrus], formerly known as United States Enrichment Corporation Inc. [USEC} Inc. (USEC)American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO), the applicant for a license to construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reservation located in Piketon, Ohio (the DOE reservation) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 70, 40 and 30, and other applicable laws and regulations. USEC is the parent company of the United States Enrichment Corporation, which is the current holder of a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Certificate of Compliance issued under 10 CFR Part 76. This ER is organized in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-17 48, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs. Introduction The American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) encompasses the construction, manufacturing, start-up, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a uranium enrichment process using American Centrifuge technology. The license requested is for the construction and operation of an 3.8 million separative work unit (SWU) plant but this ER has also examined the impacts of an annual capacity of 7.6 million SWU (four process buildings and support facilities) to facilitate licensing for future expansion from a 3.8 million SWU licensed plant. Thus, the anticipated environmental impacts described in this ER are conservative with respect to the initial construction activities and plant operations authorized by the license requested by USEC(ACO)the Licensee. The Licensee would seek future license amendments, as needed, to authorize additional construction or operation authority, but expects the environmental impacts of such additional activities to be bounded by the analysis in this ER This advanced second-generation enrichment technology was originally developed by DOE. USEC The Licensee has updated the gas centrifuge technology from that used in the GCEP program, but the American Centrifuge components remain compatible with existing infrastructure and buildings/facilities. It is the Licensee's plan to utilize existing buildings and adjacent areas that were previously designated, designed and improved as part of earlier construction in the 1980s for a DOE centrifuge uranium enrichment plant, located on the DOE reservation, which includes the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) facilities that were built to support the gaseous diffusion process begun in the 1950s. PORTS is operated by USEC's wholly owned subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation, under a Certificate of Compliance issued by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 76. USEC The Licensee is the only non-governmental corporation providing enrichment services to the nuclear industry and the only U.S. producer ofdomestically owned supplier of enriched uranium. Deployment of the ACP is important to advancing the national energy security goals of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. Former Secretary Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary of Energy, has-stated: "As a clean, affordable and reliable energy source, nuclear energy is important to the nation's future energy supply... USEC, and its partners in the nuclear industry, continue to take important steps enhancing national energy security with private sector development of advanced American technology." In creating USEC the Licensee and privatizing the U.S. government's enrichment operations, Congress intended that I

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 USEC the Licensee would, among other things, conduct research and development as required to evaluate alternative technologies for uranium enrichment, and to help maintain a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. Deployment of the ACP is also important for meeting the commercial needs of the corporation to replace higher cost and aging production with new lower cost production.conduct research and development as required,* to evaluate ahernati,.*e technologies for uranium enrichment, and help maintain a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. Deployment of the ACP is also important for meeting the commercial needs of the corporation to replace higher cost and aging production '.-vith new lmver cost production. To support these statutory and commercial objectives, on June 17, 2002, USEC and the U.S. government, represented by the DOE, entered into an agreement (DOE-USEC Agreement), which has, as one of its fundamental objectives, to facilitate the deployment of cost effective centrifuge enrichment technology in the United States. Assuming the successful demonstration of the technology, the DOE-USEC Agreement requires that USEC the Licensee begin operation of a commercial centrifuge enrichment plant with an annual capacity of 1 million SWU in accordance with certain milestones. The DOE-USEC Agreement contemplategs three steps toward the deployment of a commercial centrifuge enrichment plant, as discussed below. The first step, which is already underway, is was to upgrade existing American Centrifuge technology and demonstrate an economically attractive gas centrifuge and enrichment process using American Centrifuge technology*. This is beingwas accomplished through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement bet\\veen USEC the Licensee andwith the University of Tennessee-Battelle through which USEC's the demonstration activities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Lead Cascade activities in Piketon, Ohio are-were supported. DOE regulates centrifuge activities in Oak Ridge. DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment regarding USEC's work in Oak Ridge in October 2002 and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (DOE 2002b ). The Demonstration Project ended and final decommissioning efforts were completed in 2019. The second step in the DOE-USEC Agreement is-was to install and operate a gas centrifuge Lead Cascade inside existing buildings at the DOE reservation based on up to 240 full-scale gas centrifuges and components. NRC has performed an Environmental Assessment (USEC 2004b ), which resulted in a FONSI. In order to operate the American Centrifuge Demonstration Facility (Lead Cascade), a 10 CFR Part 70 license was issued to USEC on February 24, 2004 to possess and use small quantities of enriched uranium up to 250 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). While the purpose of the testing in Oak Ridge i-s--was focused on the centrifuge only, the purpose of the Lead Cascade i-s--was to provide reliability, performance, cost, and other vital data of the enrichment process as a full-scale system. The Lead Cascade will-did not produce enriched uranium for sale to customers. The cascade will-operateg in a recycling "closed loop" mode where the enriched product stream i-s--was recombined with the depleted uranium stream prior to being re-fed in to the cascade. No enriched material *Nill bewas withdrawn, with the exception of laboratory samples that will bewere used to assess the performance of the cascade. The 2

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 information provided during system testing ~ was the principal benefit of the Lead Cascade. The Lead Cascade o erated from 2007 to 2016. Decommissionin efforts of the Lead Cascade were completed in 2018. The ACP is the third step in the plan to deploy the American Centrifuge technology. The ACP encompasses the construction, startup, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a uranium enrichment process to produce, as an initial target, 3.8 million SWU per year, potentially expandable to 7.6 million SWU per year, using American Centrifuge technology. The ACP utilizes existing buildings located on the DOE reservation near Piketon, Ohio, that were built to support the gaseous diffusion process beginning in the 1950s and the gaseous centrifuge process beginning in the 1980s, in addition to several newly constructed buildings and facilities. This license application includes the High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Demonstration Program which is designed to enrich and safely contain and handle UF6 with an operational limit that is less than 20 wt. percent 235U. The final step under the DOE USEC Agreement is to construct and operate a commercial eentrifuge plant using American Centrifuge technology. Proposed Action A license application amendment request to feF--the existing ACP license is being submitted pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, 10 CFR Part 70, and other applicable laws and regulations. The ACP is designed to enrich and safely contain and handle UF6 up to IO-weight (wt.) percent uranium-235 (:35~ ) - USEC The Licensee is submitting this ER to support the NRC's preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the commercial centrifuge plant. Deployment of the ACP supports the national energy security goal of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. It also meets the corporation' s need to replace aging production facilities with more efficient technology. The American Centrifuge Plant encompasses the construction, startup, operation, and maintenance of a uranium enrichment process to produce, as an initial target, 3.8 million SWUs annually using American Centrifuge technology with the option to expand to 7.6 million SWUs. It is the intent of the Licensee to deploy portions of the ACP in a modular fashion to accommodate market demand on a scalable, economical gradation. This modular deployment will encompass utilization of cascades oflow enriched uranium (LEU) production for customer product or feed material into High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) cascades (See Section 1.0.2 for details). The evaluation within this ER encompasses the larger 7.6 million SWUs program, thereby, bounding the impacts of the initial phases of the ACP. The proposed phased deployment of the ACP environmental impacts is bound by the previous EIS and this ER. The ACP uses portions of the DOE reservation and the former DOE Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) along with eight new proposed facilities. The ACP utilizes existing utilities and infrastructure that support the DOE reservation including the utilities and infrastructure that were intended to support GCEP. New proposed facilities may be necessary for feed, withdrawal, sampling, and blending/transfer operations. The Licensee has updated the 3

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 American Centrifuge technology from that used in the GCEP program, but the American Centrifuge components remain compatible with existing infrastructure and facilities. The initial step of the Proposed Action will consist of the HALEU Demonstration Program, which will only reuse existing buildings recently utilized by the Lead Cascade Demonstration project and will not involve any new construction. Accordingly, the Proposed Action that is the subject of this ER is the licensing of the ACP in Piketon, Ohio. In this ER, the Proposed Action is compared to a range of reasonable alternatives. These alternatives include: the No Action Alternative (i.e., not licensing the ACP) and the siting alternative of Paducah, Kentucky. Since the DOE-USEC Agreement requires that the ACP be sited either at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, or the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in Paducah, Kentucky, the only siting alternative considered was PGDP. 4

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Results of Analyses The results of the analyses in this ER can be summarized as follows. The Proposed Action will satisfy the national energy security goal of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of uranium enrichment as well as corporation's commercial need for a new production facility. There is a clear need for the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative will not meet the national energy goal, will have serious economic impact on the region around the proposed ACP and will not meet the commercial needs of the corporation. Consideration of reasonable alternatives demonstrates that no alternate enrichment technology, and no other site, is obviously superior to an ACP at the Piketon, DOE reservation. USEC The Licensee considered alternate technologies-Atomic Vapor Laser Isotopic Separation (A VLIS) and Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX)-that utilize lasers to enrich uranium. The LicenseeUSEC determined in 1999 that A VLIS was not an economically viable technology, and suspended its development. The LicenseeYSEC ended its funding for research and development of the SILEX laser-based uranium enrichment process in April 2003 with the decision to focus advanced technology resources on the demonstration and deployment of the American Centrifuge uranium enrichment technology. For siting, the DOE-USEC Agreement requires that the ACP be located at either the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, or PGDP. Regardless, no sites other than the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, or PGDP offer the unique combination of existing skilled work force, and existing environmental data, regulatory programs and infrastructure relevant to uranium enrichment. Both the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio and PGDP sites are environmentally suitable. UF6 productio.n will ultimately cease at PGDP if the Proposed Action is approved and becomes operational, resulting in reduced emissions and resource use at PGDP. The ACP can be located in Piketon, Ohio, within existing buildings, newly constructed facilities and adjacent areas that were previously designated, designed and improved as part of earlier construction in the 1980s for a DOE centrifuge uranium enrichment plant (ERDA 1977). PGDP could only accommodate the ACP with the construction of a new, 114,380 square meter (1,231,172 square foot) process building and additional buildings for feed, withdrawal and other support functions, and associated infrastructure. This construction would add cost and increase schedule risk, compared to siting the ACP at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. Accordingly, Piketon, Ohio was chosen as the site for the ACP. Impacts Analyses conducted as part of this ER demonstrate that there are no significant environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. The ACP will be located in newly constructed facilities and within several existing buildings and adjacent areas that were previously designated, designed and improved as part of earlier construction in the 1980s for a DOE centrifuge uranium enrichment plant at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. The uranium enrichment production and operations facilities currently located on the DOE reservation aFWere leased to the United States Enrichment CorporationLicensee by the DOE, and comprised about 223 hectares (ha) (550 acres) within the approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) DOE reservation. Although uranium enrichment operations at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, ceased in May 2001, the area remains industrialized as it ~as been since enrichment operations began in the 1950s. The aseous diffusion lant GDP transitioned to Cold Shutdown status on October 1 2005 and the Decontamination & Decommissioning (D&D) of inactive facilities began. D&D of multiple 5

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 facilities started in 20.10 and at present remains ongoingUranium enrichment equipment and facilities are being maintained in a Cold Standby status. The area is largely devoid of trees, with grass and paved roadways dominating the open space. Site utility usage would increase slightly but would still be *within existing capacities and historic usages. Existing facilities will be refurbished and a few new buildings constructed to accommodate the ACP. There are no wetlands, critical habitat, cultural, historical or visual resources that will be adversely affected by the refurbishment, construction or operation of the ACP at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. Modeling indicates that the maximally exposed individual (MEI) is a hypothetical individual living on the DOE reservation boundary I. I-kilometers (0.68 mile) south-southwest of the ACP. The maximum individual effective dose equivalent (EDE) rate at this location is modeled to be 0.80 millirem (mrem)/year (yr). The maximum individual EDE rate for the on-reservation tenant organizations is 0.40 mrem/yr. The calculated MEI doses are well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) limit of 10 mrem/yr and the NRC Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) limit of 100 mrem/yr. Wastes generated during manufacturing and operation will include classified and unclassified low-level radioactive wastes, non-regulated wastes and wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including low-level mixed wastes. Precautions will be taken in accordance with appli~able laws and best management practices to avoid accidental releases to the environment (i.e., liquid eflluent tanks, holding ponds with oil diversion devices, spill response and equipment, procedures, training, etc.,). There are no environmental justice issues associated with the ACP. Connected to the Proposed Action is the commercial manufacture of centrifuge components. The manufacturing/assembly process will be an ongoing activity through the production of approximately 12,000 completed centrifuges for a 3.8 million SWU plant and 24,000 completed centrifuges and sufficient spares to operate a 7.6 million SWU plant. The production rate capability will be developed to ramp up to approximately 16 completed centrifuges per day. Manufacturing impacts are evaluated in this ER. Refurbishment and construction of the ACP will create approximately 518 construction contractor jobs for the 3.8 million SWU plant and 1,036 construction contractor jobs for the 7.6 million SWU plant. The projected level of employment for the operations phase is projected to be approximately 500 for a 3.8 million SWU plant and 600 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for a 7.6 million SWU plant. Conclusion 6

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 In conclusion, the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action are clearly outweighed by the benefits of supporting the national energy security goal of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium and meeting the corporation's need for a new production facility. The No Action Alternative is denial of a license to construct and operate the ACP at the DOE reservation. The consequence of the No Action Alternative is that the demonstrated need for a domestic advanced technology uranium enrichment facility will not be met. Long-term national energy security goals will be in jeopardy and it will have a significant impact on the reliability of an adequate nuclear fuel supply in the global marketplace and the corporation's need to replace higher cost ageing production will not be met. The No Action Alternative will adversely impact national energy security. The primary benefit of the No Action Alternative is the avoidance of the few insignificant impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The alternative of siting the ACP at PGDP would also meet the need but would result in slightly greater environmental impacts due to the need to construct a larger number of buildings and supporting infrastructure. There would also be cost and schedule impacts associated with constructing the ACP at PGDP. Piketon, Ohio was chosen as the site for the ACP on the basis of USEC' s the Licensee's overall assessment of how to meet the need for such a facility considering environmental and other impacts, and cost and schedule. This ER demonstrates that the preferred alternative is clearly the construction and operation of the ACP at the selected location on the Piketon, Ohio DOE reservation. 7

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION

USEC Inc. (USEC)American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO), the Licensee is the applicant for a license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility. USEC The Licensee is the only private corporation providing enrichment services to the nuclear industry and the only U.S. producer of enriched uraniumdomestic supplier of enriched uranium. The license authorizes USEC the Licensee to possess and use special nuclear, source, and by-product material in the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP). As required by 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, this Environmental Report (ER) is being submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the LicensecUSEC to support licensing of the ACP. The ACP is an important step toward advancing the national energy security goals of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. USEC The Licensee proposes - as the Proposed Action to locate the ACP at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reservation in Piketon, Ohio in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 10 CFR Parts 70, 40, and 30, and other applicable laws and regulations. USEC is the parent company of the United States Enrichment Corporation, which is the current holder of a NRC Certificate of Compliance issued under 10 CFR Part 76. This ER is organized in accordance with the guidance contained in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, dated August 2003. Chapter 1.0 provides an introduction and background on the history of the site, and discusses why USEC the Licensee is requesting, from the NRC, a license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility. Chapter 2.0 discusses the Proposed Action and alternatives including the No Action Alternative and siting alternatives. Chapter 3.0 discusses the existing environmental conditions at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, and Chapter 4.0 discusses how those conditions would be modified, if any, by the ACP. Chapter 5.0 discusses any mitigation measures employed by the ACP. Chapter 6.0 discusses the environmental measurement and monitoring program utilized for the ACP. Chapter 7.0 discusses the Cost Benefit Analysis. Chapter 8.0 provides the summary of any environmental consequences from deployment of the ACP. Chapters 9.0 and 10.0 contain a list of references and preparers, respectively. Chapter 11.0 contains a Glossary of terms used in this ER Appendices contain Acronyms and Abbreviations; Chemicals and Units of Measure; Metric/English Conversion Chart; Metric Prefixes; Consultation Letters; Environmental Impact of Decommissioning; Proprietary Cost Benefit Analysis; and ER Tables and Figures. This ER has bounded the size and schedule of the ACP at an annual 7.6 million SWU (four process buildings and support facilities) to facilitate the license amendment process for future expansion from a 3.8 million SWU licensed plant. 1.0.1 Background The DOE reservation is located at latitude 39°00'30" north and longitude 83°00'00" west measured at the center of the DOE reservation on approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) in Pike County, Ohio, one of the state's lesser populated counties. The DOE reservation is located between Chillicothe and Portsmouth, Ohio, approximately 113 kilometers (km) (70 miles [mi]) south of Columbus, Ohio. 1-1

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The general location is an area of steep to gently rolling hills, with average elevations of 37 meters (m) (120 feet [ft]) above the Scioto River valley. The steep hills characteristically are forested, while the rolling hills provide marginal farmland. With the exception of the Scioto River and its floodplain, the floodplains and valleys are narrow and are occupied by small farms. There are no unrelated industrial, commercial, institutional, or residential structures within the DOE reservation. DOE leases facilities---oo the DOE reservation to the Ohio National Guard. The Ohio National Guard does not store 'Neapons on the DOE reservation. There are no other military installations located near the DOE reservation. Roadways within the fenced limited access or protected area of the DOE reservation consist of several miles of paved surface. Several paved roads branch out from the DOE reservation to the Perimeter Road that surrounds the limited access area. The west access to the DOE reservation extends from U.S. 23 to the Perimeter Road. Shyville Road connects U.S. 32/124 to the north side of the DOE reservation. Other access roads connect to secondary county roads. Access to the DOE reservation is controlled at the *..vest access point. Other access points to the DOE reservation are currently secured. Rail and roadways are available for cylinder movements to the DOE reservation. The rail spur enters the DOE reservation from the north and branches to several areas inside the limited access area. In addition, cylinders are transported around the DOE reservation using a variety of devices, including cylinder carriers, stackers, rail cars, forklifts, trucks, and wagons. Rivers or major streams do not traverse the DOE reservation area. However, Big Beaver Creek and Little Beaver Creek cross the northern edge of the DOE reservation. Runoff water flows from the area through three streams: Little Beaver Creek, Big Run Creek, and a drainage ditch to the Scioto River. The DOE reservation consists of approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) with approximately a 526 ha (1,300 acres) central area surrounded by the Perimeter Road. The DOE reservation land outside the Perimeter Road is used for a variety of purposes, including a water treatment plant; lagoons for the process wastewater treatment plant; sanitary and inert landfills; and open and forested buffer areas. Most of the improvements are located within the fenced core area. The core area is largely devoid of trees, with grass and paved roadways dominating the open space. The ACP is situated on approximately 81 ha (200 acres) of the southwest quadrant of the Controlled Access Area. The gaseous diffusion plaHt (GDP) occupies appro:i<:imately 223 ha (550 acres) of the remaining Controlled Access Area. The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) has beenbegan Hroperation sitleein the mid-1950s as an active uranium enrichment facility supplying enriched uranium for government and commercial use. The process buildings were constructed from 1952 to 1954 as gaseous diffusion facilities for the isotopic enrichment of uranium and arewere designed to operate at a capacity of 8.6 million separative work units (SWU~). The GDP 1-2

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 ttroe-ess-btttldings contatn--ai}~t~,OOG--sqwre---m-etersfmit-f&;3/4l-0;-000-*grnss-sEt-WFe-feet ffti#c In the late 1970s, the DOE reservation was the site selected by the DOE for a new enrichment facility using gas centrifuge technology. Construction of the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) began in 1979, but was halted _in 1985 because the projected demand for enriched uranium decreased. Figure 1.0.1-1 shows the regional area surrounding the DOE reservation. Figure 1.0.1-2 shows the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. 1-3

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant ____ Ross County ~k;~niy __ _ I " 'P..ortsmouth G~s~u~ Diffusion.... __ _ Plant 10 MILES 10 ICI.OtJSEAS Source: DOE 2001b. Proposed Change 2020 N I I I Minford, Jackson COUn1y 1 SclotoCounN. ____, _______ _ I Greater Portsmouth _____________ ""'""'II Regional Airport Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Piketon, Ohio /

0 Figure 1.0.1-1 Location of Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in relation to the geographic region 1-4

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020

(

11 0 z I I r ~ \\ - r I r -.J I I rl I I !1'11*1 11 I, ~ - I Figure 1.0.1-2 U.S. Department of Energy Reservation in Piketon, Ohio 1-5 I z i

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant r*_J r-- I I I 11 Ii II Proposed Change 2020 z ~ J i i !i!li I~ 1;!1 i In 1991, DOE suspended production of highly enriched uranium (HEU) at PORTS. The plant continued to produce low enriched uranium (LEU) fo_r use by commercial nuclear power plants until May 2001. The GDP transitioned to Cold Shutdown status on October 1, 2005 and the Decontamination & Decommissioning (D&D) of inactive facilities began. In August of 2010 the DOE awarded the contract for complete D&D of the GDP (excluding facilities supporting other reservation entities, including the Lead Cascade and ACP). D&D of multiple facilities started in 2010 and at present remains ongoing (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the United States Enrichment Corporation, a newly created government corporation, assumed full responsibility for uranium enrichment operations at PORTS on July 1, 1993. DOE retains certain responsibilities for decontamination and decommissioning, waste management, depleted uranium hexafluoride 1-6

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 cylinders, and environmental remediation. The NRC granted the United States Enrichment Corporation a Certificate of Compliance for operation of the GDP pursuant to 10 CFR Part 76 on November 26, 1996 and the GDP was officially transferred to NRC oversight on March 3, 1997. USEC subsequently became a publicly held private corporation on July 28, 1998. The DOE leases ortions of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) through the GCEP Lease Agreement. Pursuant to an amendment to the lease agreement, Centrus subleased space for the Lead Cascade and American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) from USEC. Centrus, with approval from DOE, assigned the sublease for the ACP to American Centrifuge Operating LLC (ACO).+he DOE leases the uranium enrichment production and operations facilities to the United States Enrichment Corporation.,_ In addition to the GDP buildings, extensive support facilities are required to maintain the diffusion process. The support facilities include administration buildings, a steam plant, electrical switchyards, cooling towers, cleaning and decontamination facilities, water and wastewater treatment plants, fire and security headquarters, maintenance shops, warehouses, and laboratory facilities. In May 2001, the United States Enrichment Corporation ceased uranium enrichment operations at POR+8 and consolidated enrichment operations at its Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP). +he United States Enrichment Corporation continued to operate its transfer and shipping activities at the POR+S DOE reservation until July 2002 in support of its enrichment business. At the request of DOE, the cascade was placed in cold standby, a condition under which the plant could be returned to a portion of its previous production in approximately 18 24 months if DOE determines that additional domestic enrichment capacity is necessary. GDP-enrivh-rnent--eperati-oos---ar-e--now in cold standby status, which involves maintaining those portions of the gaseous diffusion plant needed for 3 million 8WU per year production capacity in a non operational condition. In addition, necessary surveillance and maintenance activities must be condueted to retain the ability to resume operations after a set of restart activities are conducted (USEC 2004b). +he GDP currently operates in accordance with an NRC Certificate of Compliance issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 76 requirements. +hese operation~ include maintaining the GDP in cold standby status---u-nder a contract with DOE, performing uranium deposit removal activities in the cascade facilities, and removing technetium 99 (99'.Ic) from potentially contaminated uranium feed in accordance with the June 17, 2002, agreement between USEC and DOE. On January 27, 2004, the NRC published an Environmental Assessment in the Federal Register (69 Federal Register 3956) for the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility. +he Environmental Assessment resulted in a Fi-ndiflg of No Significant-Impact (FONSI) (USEC 2004c, USEC 2004b)..On February 24, 2004, a license was issued to USEC to possess and use special nuclear, souroe, and by product material in the Lead Cascade-Demonstration Facility in Piketon, Ohio. +he Lead Cascade-Demonstration Facility is a test and demonstration facility designed to provide information on American Centrifuge-technology that *will factor into the operation of the ACP. Operation of the Lead Cascade-Demonstration Facility is scheduled to begin in 2005. 1.0.2 American Centrifuge Plant Program Overview

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Following the suspension of development of the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotopic Separation (A VLIS) enrichment technology in June 1999, USEC began an evaluation of centrifuge and other technologies to replace its gaseous diffusion technology. Gaseous diffusion technology requires large amounts of power. These power requirements significantly affect the cost of production of enriched uranium. Since the use of foreign centrifuge technology and other third generation technologies including the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX), a laser-based technology under development in Australia, have the potential to lower the cost of production, these alternative enrichment technologies were also investigated. As part of the evaluation, USEC, in partnership with University of Tennessee-Battelle, the operator of DOE' s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, undertook to refine gas centrifuge technology under a DOE approved Cooperative Research and Develop Agreement (CRADA). USEC began design of an improved centrifuge by taking advantage of commercial advances in materials of construction and manufacturing methods. The improved centrifuge technology is intended to achieve performance levels approximately equivalent to those demonstrated in DOE's earlier testing programs, but at a substantially reduced cost. On June 17, 2002, USEC_and the U.S. Government, represented by the DOE, entered into an agreement, which has as one of its fundamental objectives to facilitate the deployment of new, cost effective centrifuge enrichment technology in the U.S. (DOE-USEC Agreement). Assuming successful demonstration of the technology, the DOE-USEC Agreement requires that USEC begin operation of a commercial enrichment plant with annual capacity of 1 million SWU in accordance with certain milestones. The DOE-USEC Agreement contemplates three steps towards the development of a Commercial Centrifuge Plant, as discussed below. The environmental impacts of the first step, research and development of the centrifuge components (Demonstration Project) in Oak Ridge, were examined in a* DOE Environmental Assessment (DOE 2002b) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on October 18, 2002. The environmental impacts of the second step, deployment and system testing through a Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility, were covered in a NRC Environmental Assessment (USEC 2004b) and a FONSI was issued on February 24, 2004. The environmental impacts of an independent third step, a Commercial Centrifuge Plant, are the subject of this ER The buildings/facilities and grounds used for this project have been studied and characterized extensively by both the DOE and the Licensee. Demonstration Proiect The Demonstration Project will-demonstrateg centrifuge performance in Oak Ridge, Tennessee under DOE regulatory oversight. The standard measure of enrichment in the uranium enrichment industry is the SWU. The Demonstration Project will-demonstrateg that the centrifuge machine design is capable of economically producing 300+ SWU per year. The Demonstration Project will-verifyied the integrated centrifuge design while maintaining 300+ SWU per year performance, provideg a solid basis for the centrifuge cost estimate, and obtained initial reliability data. The demonstration centrifuges were operated* and SWU performance was optimized in highly instrumented test stands in DOE's East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) in Oak Ridge, 1-8

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Tennessee. Additional centrifuges were operated in other test stands to evaluate the initial reliability of an integrated centrifuge design. The Demonstration Project ended and final decommissioning efforts were completed in 2019. American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility For the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility, the NRC previously issued a 10 CFR Part 70 license to possess and use special nuclear material. The Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility consisted of up to 240 operating centrifuges at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. The Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility is-was a real time demonstration of the basic building block for a gas centrifuge enrichment process in a multiple stage configuration and will-provide.d data that is vital to provide reliability, performance, and cost information. All or part of the centrifuges for the Lead Cascade were manufactured and balanced in Oak Ridge, Tennessee or at the Piketon DOE reservation. Centrifuge components manufactured off the DOE reservation will be shipped to the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility for assembly, installation, checkout, and start up. Locating the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility at the DOE reservation requiresg the refurbishment of existing equipment and buildings of the former GCEP. The refurbishment is scheduled to be complete in-time to begin testing in 2005. Operation of the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility will demonstrate the reliability of the centrifuge~ machines; assist in the design and optimization of the cascade and balance of the plant; and also vlill provide information important to determining the cost, and design of the Commercial Centrifuge Plant. +he Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility *Nill operate on recycle with no withdrawal of enriched product, except for laboratory samples.

The Lead Cascade operated from 2007 to 2016 and associated releases to air and water, exposure to personnel, and personnel injuries/illnesses were monitored to enable assessment of environmental impacts. Based on this monitoring, it was concluded that o eration of the Lead Cascade did not result in an unantici ated releases discharges, or exposures to the environment the public, or employees (DP-2605-0001}.

Decommissioning efforts of the Lead Cascade were completed in 2018. American Centrifuge Plant +he centrifuge plant design is highly modular, with the basic building block of enrichment capacity being a cascade of centrifuges. Information and work performed during the DemonstratioA aAd Lead Cascade Projects *.viii be used to develop the ffoal detailed desigA of the A.GP. AdditioAal information on SWU performaAce, reliability, and ecoAomics *Nill be available from the Lead Cascade operatioA aAd will be used to demoAstrate the economics of the ACP aAd to enable USEC and iAvestors to make a final decision to commit funds for the constructioA of the ACP. GiveA the significant time required for liceAsiAg, USEC coAsiders that it is beneficial to request aA NRC license for the ACP in order to meet it's schedule objectives. The ACP was the third step in the plan to deploy the American Centrifuge technology. The ACP encompasses the construction, startup, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a uranium enrichment process to produce, as an initial target, 3.8 million SWU per year, potentially expandable to 7.6 million SWU per year, using American Centrifuge technology. The ACP utilizes existing 1-9

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 buildings located on the DOE reservation near Piketon, Ohio, that were built to support the gaseous diffusion process beginning in the 1950s and the gaseous centrifuge process beginning in the 1980s, in addition to several newly constructed buildings and facilities. American Centrifuge technology is modular, with the basic building block of enrichment capacity being a cascade of centrifuges. Information gained and work performed during the Demonstration Project and Lead Cascade included vital information on performance, reliability, and economics that will be used in the final construction of the ACP. A license application for the ACP was prepared pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, 10 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Parts 70, 40, 30, and other applicable laws and regulations. The ACP LEU cascade is designed to enrich and safely contain and handle uranium hexafluoride (UF§) up to 10 weight (wt.) percent 235U. The ACP uses portions of the DOE reservation and the former DOE GCEP along with eight new proposed facilities. The ACP utilizes existing utilities and infrastructure that support the DOE reservation including the utilities and infrastructure that were intended to support GCEP. New proposed facilities may be necessary for feed, withdrawal, sampling, and blending/transfer operations. The Licensee has updated the American Centrifuge technology from that used in the GCEP program, but the American Centrifuge components remain compatible with existing infrastructure and facilities. On October 31, 2019, ACO signed a three-year contract with the DOE to deploy a cascade of centrifuges to demonstrate production of high-assay, low-enriched uranium O:IALEU) fuel with existing United States origin enrichment technology and provide DOE with HALEU for near term use in its research and development for the advancement of civilian nuclear energy and national security, as well as other programmatic missions. HALEU is a component for advanced nuclear reactor fuel that is not commercially available today and may be required for a number of advanced reactor designs currently under development in both the commercial and government sectors. The program has been under way since the Licensee and DOE signed a preliminary letter agreement on May 31, 2019, which allowed work to begin while the full contract was being finalized. The Licensee' s long-term goal is to resume commercial enrichment production consistent with market demand. It is the intent of the Licensee to deploy portions of the ACP in a modular fashion to accommodate market demand on a scalable, economical gradation. This modular deployment will encompass utilization of cascades of LEU production for customer product or feed material into High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) cascades. The HALEU cascades will be deployed as part of the DOE's HALEU Demonstration Program which has two primary objectives:

1) Deploy a 16-centrifuge AC-IO0M HALEU cascade in the Piketon facility to produce 19. 75 percent wt. 235U enriched product.

2) Demonstration of the capability to produce HALEU.

Results from the operation of the HALEU demonstration program will be used in preparation of the design for the full-scale ACP facility. The HALEU Demonstration will be designed to enrich 1-10

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 and safely contain and handle uranium hexafluoride (UF6) up to but less than 20 weight (wt.) percent 235U. During the process of remediation, construction, infrastructure modification, manufacturing, and test operations for the scope of this ER, the design for these elements are reviewed for compliance with regulatory standards for releases, emissions, and wastes generated and for minimization of the quantity and toxicity of the materials used and wastes generated. 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the electricity for the United States. Construction and operation of a gas centrifuge plant utilizing the US-origin advanced technology is key to supporting DOE' s national energy security goals by providing a reliable and secure domestic source of enriched uranium. The primary purpose of this action is to allow the Licensee to construct and operate a plant to enrich uranium up to 10 weight (wt.) percent with an initial capacity of approximately 3.8 million SWU expandable to 7.6 million SWU, at the Licensee's option, using advanced U.S. centrifuge technology at the DOE reservation located in Piketon, Ohio. The gas centrifuge is an enrichment process that increases the concentration of uranium ~ f235Uj, the isotope desired for production of nuclear energy. The gas centrifuge process has three inherent characteristics that make it particularly attractive: (1) it is a proven technology; (2) it has low operating cost; and (3) it is amenable to modular architecture. The low energy requirements of gas centrifuge technology, approximately 5 percent of that required by a comparably-sized Gaseous Diffusion Plant, provide for considerably lower operating costs ( electricity usage comparison shown in Table 1.1-1 ). The modularity of gas centrifuge technology allows for a flexible deployment of enrichment capacity, enabling responsiveness to market demand. Table 1.1-1 Electricity Usage Estimates Paducah Usage American Centrifuge Resource Plant Usage 4.6MSWU 7.6MSWU Electricity (megawatt hr) 11,000,000 650,000 (CY 2005 estimate) The ACP is a crucial step toward advancing the national energy security goal of maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. The plant uses American Centrifuge enrichment technology that supports the national energy security goals. Congress privatized the U.S. Government's uranium enrichment operations creating USEC to, among other things, conduct research and development as required to evaluate alternative technologies for uranium enrichment, and to help maintain a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. It is also important for meeting the commercial needs of the corporation to replace higher cost and aging production with new lower cost production. 1-11

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 To support these statutory and commercial objectives, on June 17, 2002, USEC and the U.S. Government, represented by the DOE, entered into the DOE-USEC Agreement. Assuming successful demonstration of the technology, the DOE-USEC Agreement requires that USEC begin operations of an enrichment facility at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, or PGDP using advanced technology with annual capacity of 1 million SWU (expandable to 3.8 million SWU) in accordance with certain milestones (see Table 1.1 2). The milestone schedule containsed target dates for various steps including milestones associated with testing, NRC licensing, financing, and construction. The milestones required, among other things, that a centrifuge facility (1) begin commercial operations in Piketon, Ohio, no later than January 2009 and achieve an annual capacity of 1 million SWU by March 2010 or (2) begin commercial operations in Paducah, Kentucky, no later than January 2010 and achieve an annual capacity of 1 million SWU by March 2011. Due to a variety of factors, construction of the facility has not started to date, and the estimated construction and operation dates are unknown. It is expected that construction of the facility will take approximately two years. However, it sh*ould be noted, that construction of the HALEU portion of the ACP is scheduled to begin in 2020. Table 1.1 2 Milestones in the DOE USEC Agreement (June 17, 2002) Related ta Development ef the Ameriean Centrifuge Plant !)ate Milestene MaFeh 2Q~ Submit bieense,~"pplieatien te NRG feF GemmeFeial GentFifuge Plant May 2QQ~ NRG deek:ets GemmeFeial GentFifuge Plant applieatien OeteeeF 2QQ6 Satisfaeter=y rnliaeility and perreFmanee data eetained frem Lead Gaseade -r-- ........ -* >J JaR1:taf}' 2QQ7 Finaneing eemmitment see1:tFed feF a l millien 8-VPJ GentFifuge Plant fone 2QQ7 Begin GemmeFeial GentFifuge PlaHt eenstruetien/FefuFeishment Jan1:taf}* 2QQ9 BegiH GemmeFeial GentFifuge PlaHt epeFatiens MaFeh 2Q-l-O GeHtfifuge PlaHt annual eapaeity at l millien SWY peF yeaF Gentfifuge Plant (if expanded at the Lieensee' s eptien) prnj eeted te have SeptemeeF 2Ql l n~ --~,n l ~n--~:,. n* 'l Q m'.1 1" -- Q \\l TI T --- --r .. y

~

~ V The American Centrifuge will play a major role in supporting our nation's energy security and national security interests while providing a reliable, competitive fuel source for nuclear power plants around the world. Former Secretary Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary ofEnergy, has stated: "As a clean, affordable and reliable energy source, nuclear energy is important to the nation' s future energy supply... USEC, and its partners in the nuclear industry, continue to take important steps enhancing national energy security with private sector development of advanced American technology." In addition to advancing national energy security goals, the ACP supports USEG's the Licensee's corporate goal of remaining a competitive and reliable domestic provider of enriched uranium to the nuclear industry. USEC's subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation, wrrently previously produce.ds about 5 million SWU per year using gaseous diffusion technology at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), and. The PGDP is ever SQ 1-12

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 years old and the power costs to produce SWU awere significant. Electricity at the Paducah plant representeds about 60 percent of production cost. Global LEU suppliers compete primarily in terms of

pnce, and secondarily on reliability of supply and customer service.

In addition, as Executive Agent for the U.S. Goyernment, the United States Enrichment Corporation agreed to purchase, if made available by the Russian Executive Agent, 5.5 million SWU per year of LEU that is derived from d<YNn blending of HEU from Russian warheads (Megatons to Megawatts Program). The agreement under which the United States Enrichment Corporation supplies LEU from this source expires in 2013. Nearly every commercial nuclear power reactor in the United States has been refueled at some point in the past decade *.vith low enriched uranium from this program. About one in ten homes and businesses in the United States are powered with fuel from the Megatons to Megawatts program. Oliver Kingsley, President and Chief Executive Officer of Exelon Corporation, one of USEC's customers, has stated: "We are please*d to partner with USEC as our primary supplier of low enriched uranium through 2010. Through our long term purchase contract, Exelon Generation will play an important role in the demonstration and deployment of the l\\merican CeRtrifuge enrichment technology". 1ft 2003 USEC supplied eRrichment for approximately 56 percent of the North American market and 30 percent of the vtorld market. Going forward, USEC is focused on continuing-te--serve-our utility customers through additional loRg term contracts well into the period wheR the ACP would be operatiRg. USEC The Licensee is committed to being competitive on price, delivering superior customer service, meeting national energy security goals and fulfilling its commitments in the DOE-USEC Agreement. Hence, lJ.SE.t.-the Licensee needs to deploy a domestic competitive fuel source for nuclear power plants utilizing advanced centrifuge technology tmvards the end of this decade. 1.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to refurbish, construct and operate a plant to enrich uranium up to 10 wt. percent 235U with an initial capacity of approximately 3.8 million SWU expandable to 7.6 million SWU using advanced American Centrifuge technology at the DOE reservation located in Piketon, Ohio. Existing facilities and land formerly used for GCEP will be leased from the DOE and utilized for the ACP (Figure's 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2). The Proposed Action includes refurbishment of existing facilities, construction, start-up and operation of up to four process buildings with full-scale gas centrifuges and components. USEC The Licensee is seeking a license for the construction and operation of a plant to enrich uranium up to 10 wt. percent with a capacity of approximately 3.8 million SWU. The ACP may be expanded as market conditions require. The ACP will operates up to four process buildings with approximately 24,000 centrifuges in cascade configurations at an annual capacity of approximately 7.6 million SWU. Enrichment operations will begin as cascades are installed, tested, and filled with process gas. Additional centrifuges may be available for other uses (e.g., spares). The plant may enrich uranium up to 10 wt. percent 235U. The enriched product stream from each cascade is combined with the enriched product streams of other cascades producing the 1-13

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 same assay. The combined stream is routed to the withdrawal facilities where the product is sublimed into a cold trap. Similarly, the depleted (tails) stream from each cascade is combined with the tails streams from other cascades and is also sublimed in the tails withdrawal area. Samples of uranium are periodically taken for laboratory analysis to assess the performance of the cascades. Operations that are performed to support the primary process includes: equipment and machinery repair; modification; manufacturing of specialized equipment (including the centrifuges themselves); and assembly and test of centrifuges. These activities may be conducted with equipment contaminated with uranium bearing material. The uranium bearing material could be UF6, uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), uranyl fluoride (UO2F2), or an intermediate oxy-fluoride. Other ACP support functions include: meteorological tower, 345 kilovolts (kV) electrical utilities, communications, sewage treatment, water treatment, laboratory services, security, fire department, health physics, industrial hygiene, industrial safety, environmental compliance, and waste management. At the end of the useful life of the ACP, the plant will be decommissioned consistent with the decommissioning plan contained in Chapter 10.0 of the License Application and Decommissioning Funding Plan for the American Centrifuge Plant. Impacts of decommissioning are analyzed in this ER 1.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Required Consultations The ACP must comply with the applicable regulations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 10 CFR Part 40; and 10 CFR Part 70 to hold a license to possess and use source and SNM. In addition, the ACP must comply with pertinent NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 related to radiation dose limits to individual workers and members of the public. USEC The Licensee is submitting an Environmental Report to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. As described in previous sections, the ACP will require PTis from the State of Ohio to install all new air emission sources followed by a modification to the existing Title V air permit for the operation of those sources. The ACP will also be subject to the Radionuclide NESHAP. administered by the EPA Region V. An additional PTI from the State of Ohio will be needed if the ACP installs any new wastewater lines. A modification to the existing NPDES permit will be needed to allow construction and operation of the ACP by the Licensee. These are the only Federal, State and local permits or other authorizations that the Licensee expects will be necessary for the ACP. Table 9.2 9 gives a full listing of the Federal, State and local permits and other authorizations and consultations that potentially could be required and the current status of each. The ACP permit and reporting requirements will be incorporated and administered in the United States Enrichment CorporationLicensee's permits and reporting requirements until a Licensee compliance organization is established. The Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility, X-1-14

Environmental Report for the American Centrijitge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3001 purge vacuum and evacuation vacuum system, is currently incorporated in the United States en-Fi-ehment CorporatienLicensee' s Title Vair permit (P-+l--nNumber POl 1512706 07470). Informal consultations have been made with the responsible agencies in compliance with the following: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A), Section 106 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)/Farmland Conservation Impact Rating Consultation letters and responses are included in Appendix B of this ER. Table 1.3-1 identifies the Federal, State and local permits and other authorizations and consultations that potentially could be required and the current status of each. 1-15

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 License, Permit, or Other Consent Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant f Air Quality Protection Title V Operating Permit: Required for sources that are not exempt and are major sources, affected sources subject to the Acid Rain Program, sources subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Ohio Permit to Install (PTI): Required for (1) any source to which one or more of the following Clean Air Act programs would apply: prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment area, NSPS, and/or NESHAPs; and (2) any source to which one or more of the following state air quality programs would apply; Gasoline Dispensing Facility Permit, Direct Final Permit, and/or Small Maximum Uncontrolled Emissions Unit Registration. Responsible Authority Apncy Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) OEPA Clean Air Act, Title V, Sections 501-507 (U.S. Code, Title 42, Sections 7661-766 lf [ 42 USC 7661-766lf]); Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-77-02 Clean Air Act, Title I, Sections 160-169 (42 USC 7470-7479); OAC 3745 02 1-16 Relevance and Status "\\.,~~, - United States Enrichment Centrus Energv CorporationAmerican Centrifuge Operating, LLC (the Licensee) is the holder of a final Title V Operating Permit (Facility ID 0666000000) with.an issue date of July ;.+27, 2017GJ and effective expiration date of August 211+, 20032217. The plant is subject to Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H (40_ - CFR Part 61, Subpart H), "National Emissions Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides which is included in the terms and conditions of the Title V Operating Permit. USEC The Licensee has determined that the PSD, nonattainment area, and NSPS programs do not apply to the ACP. However, air emission sources requiring an Ohio PTI would apply to the ACP and USEC the Licensee will submit a timely PTI application to the OEP A.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status A enc Air Quality Protection (Cont.) Ohio Permit to Operate: Required for (1) OEPA any source to which one or more of the following Clean Air Act programs would apply; PSD, nonattainment area, NSPS, NESHAPs; and (2) any source to which one or more of the following state air quality programs would apply: State Permit to Operate and/or registration of operating unit with potential air emissions of an amount and type' considered minimal; this permit is not required, however, for any facility that must obtain a Title V Operating Permit. Risk Management Plan (RMP): Required EPA; OEP A for any stationary source that has regulated substance (e.g., chlorine, hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid) in any process (including storage) in a quantity that is over the threshold level. Clean Air Act, Title I, Sections 160-169 (42 USC 7470-7479); OAC 3745 02 Clean Air Act, Title 1, Section 112(r) (7) (42 USC 7412); 40 CFR Part 68; OAC 3745-104 1-17 United States Enrichment CorporationThe Licensee is the holder of a final Title V Operating Permit (Facility ID 0666000000) with an issue date of July ~ 27, 2000-17 and effective date. of August U ll, 20~

17. Sources requiring a PTI will be incorporated in the Title V Operating Permit.

USEC The Licensee has determined that no regulated substances would be stored at the ACP in quantities that exceed the threshold levels. Accordingly, an RMP will not be required.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Air Quality Pr(Jtection (Cont.) Clean Air Act Conformity Determination: Required for each criteria pollutant (i.e., sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead) where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a federal action would equal or exceed threshold rates. Water Resources Protection National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Construction Site Storm Water: Required before making point source discharges into waters of the state of storm water from a construction project that disturbs more than 5 acres (2 ha) of land. Agency OEPA OEPA Clean Air Act, Title 1, Section 176 (c) (42 USEC 7506); 40 CFR 93; OAC 3745-102; Clean Water Act(CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 122; OAC-3745-33-02, 3745-38-02, and 37#.-38-06 1-18 Pike County, Ohio has been designated as "Cannot be Classified or Better Than Standard" for criteria pollutants. Because the county is in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants and contains no maintenance areas, no Clean Air Act conformity determination is required for any criteria pollutant that would be emitted as a result of the Proposed Action. Existing air quality on the site is in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants. USEC The Licensee has determined that construction of the ACP and new cylinder storage yards would require an NPDES Permit for the construction site storm water discharges. United States Enrichment CorporationCentrus Energy Corp. The Licensee is the holder of NPDES Permit number OIS00023~ ED. If requested, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) will be submitted to the OEP A at the appropriate time. Storm water will discharge through existing outfalls covered by a NPDES Permit.

Environmental Report f or the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Water Resources Protection (Cont.) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Industrial Facility Storm Water: Required before making point source discharges into waters of the state of storm water from an industrial site. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Process Water Discharge: Required before making point source discharges into waters of the state of industrial process wastewater. Ohio Surface Water PTI: Required before constructing sewers or pump stations. Ohio Surf ace Water PTI: Required before constructing any wastewater treatment or collection system or disposal facility. Agency OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA CWA(33 USC 1251 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 122; OAC-3745-33-02, 3745-38-02, and 3745-38-06 CWA(33 USC 1251 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 122; OAC-3745-33-02, 3745-38-02, and 3745-38-06 OAC-3745-31-02 OAC-3745-31-02 1-19 USEC The Licensee has determined that storm water would be discharged from the ACP site during operations. Storm water will discharge through existing outfalls covered by a NPDES Permit. The ACP will process industrial wastewater through an existing NPDES permitted facility and through existing outfalls covered by the NPDES Permit. If required, before construction of sewer lines and pump stations at the ACP a PTI to modify the existing NPDES permit would be submitted to the OEP A at the appropriate time. If required, a PTI to modify the existing NPDES permit would be submitted to the OEPA at the appropriate time.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent CW A Section 404 (Dredge and Fill) Permit: Required to place dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including areas designated as wetlands, unless such placement is exempt or authorized by a nationwide permit or a regional permit; a notice must be filed if a nationwide or regional permit applies. Responsible Authority Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) CWA(33 USC 1251 et seq.); 33 CFR Parts 323 and 330 Ohio General Permit for Filling OEPA Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Sections 6111.021-6111.029 Category 1 and Category 2 Isolated Wetlands: Required where the proposed project involves the filling or discharge of dredged material into Category 1 and Category 2 isolated wetlands, causing impacts that total 0.5 acre (0.20 ha) or less. 1-20 Relevance and Status USEC The Licensee believes that construction of the ACP would not result in dredging or placement of fill material into wetlands within the jurisdiction of the USACE. If construction activities are subject to the CWA Section 404 Permit program, they may be covered under a USA CE Nationwide CW A Section 404 Permit (i.e., No. 14 [Linear Transportation Projects], 18 [Minor Discharges], or 19 [Minor Dredging]). If necessary, the Licensee will consult with the USACE concerning the project

and, if appropriate, submit either a pre-construction notification about activities covered by a nationwide permit or an application for an individual Section 404 Permit.

The LicenseeUSEC believes that construction of the ACP would not result in dredging or placement of fill material into wetlands within the jurisdiction of the OEPA isolated wetlands program. However, if necessary, submit to the OEP A a Pre-Activity Notice of activities covered under the General Permit for Filling Isolated Wetlands.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Ohio Individual Isolated Wetland Permit: Required where the proposed project involves the filling or discharge of dredged material into Category 1 and Category 2 isolated wetlands, causing impacts that total greater than 0.5 acre (0.20 ha) for Category 1 isolated wetlands and/or greater than 0.5 acre (0.20 ha) but not exceeding 3 acres (1.21 ha) for Category 2 isolated wetlands. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan: Required for any facility that could discharge oil in harmful quantities into navigable waters or onto adjoining shorelines. CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Required to be submitted to the agency responsible for issuing any federal license or permit to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of a state. Responsible Authority. Agency OEPA EPA OEPA ORC Sections 6111.021-6111.029 CWA(33 USC 1251 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 112 CW A, Section 401 (33 USC 1341); ORC Chapters 119 and 6111; OAC Chapters 3745-1, 3745-32, and 3745-47 1-21 Relevance and Status The LicenseeUSEC believes that construction of the ACP would not result in dredging or placement of fill material into wetlands within the jurisdiction of the OEPA isolated wetlands program. Accordingly, the Licensee will consult, if necessary, with the OEP A concerning the project and, if appropriate, submit to the OEPA an application for an Individual Isolated Wetland Permit. SPCC plan ESH-343-09-018 has been developed and approved for the American Centrifuge PlantA SPCC plan would be required. USEC

.viii revise the existing SPCC plan to include ACP operations at the appropriate time (POEF EV/ 17 current version).~

The LicenseeUSEC believes that it would not be required to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification for construction or operation of the ACP or new cylinder storage yards. If USEC the Licensee determines that a federal license or permit is required (e.g., a CWA Section 404 Permit), a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be requested from the OEP A at the appropriate time.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Water Resources Protection (Cont.) Public Water System: A completed application for an initial public water system license is required prior to the operation of the public water system. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Installation Permit: Required before beginning installation of a UST system (i.e., a tank and/or piping of which 10 percent or more of the volume is underground and that contains petroleum products or substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA], except those hazardous substances that are also defined as hazardous waste by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRARCRA). Agency OEPA Ohio Department of Commerce, Ohio Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations (BUSTR) New UST System Registration: Required EPA; Ohio within 30 days of bringing a new UST BUSTR system into service. OAC-3745-84-01 (B )(b) OAC 1301:7-9-06(0) RCRA, as

amended, Subtitle I (42 USC 6991a-699li); 40 CFR280.22; OAC 1301 :7-9-04 1-22 The Licensee will procure services from a qualified vendor.

+we One_UST system is currently in operationare installed at the ACP. Registration number: 6600 5107-ROOO 10 Tank Number: T00007 T00016 If new UST systems would be installed at the ACP the Registration would be filed at the appropriate time:-

Environmental Report for the Ame!'ican Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Water Resources Protection (Cont.) Above Ground Storage Tank (AST): A PTI required to install, remove, repair or alter any stationary tank for the storage of flammable or combustible liquids. Agency Ohio Department of Commerce, State Fire Marshal Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Submit Determination Results: Required OEPA when a person who generates waste in the State of Ohio or a person who generates waste outside the state that is managed inside the state determines that the waste he/she generates is hazardous waste. Registration and Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number: Required before a person who generates over 220 lb (100 kg) per calendar month of hazardous waste ships the hazardous waste off-reservation. EPA;OEPA OAC 1301:7-7-28(A)(3) 40 CFR 112.8 AST fuel storage tanks will be required for the ACP. Permits to install will be filed at the appropriate time. OAC 3745 Upon characterization of newly generated waste 11 streams from the ACP, notification would be made to the OEP A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (42 USC 6901 et seq.), Subtitle C; OAC 3745 12 1-23 United States EnrichmentCentrus Energy Corporation, American Centrifuge Operating, LLC Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number OHD987054 723.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (Cont.) Construction and Demolition Debris OEPA or Pike Facility License: Required before County Board of establishing, modifying, operating, or Health maintaining a facility to dispose of debris from the alteration, construction, destruction, or repair of a man-made physical structure; however, the debris to be disposed of must not qualify as solid or hazardous waste; also, no license is required if debris from site clearing is used as fill material on the same site. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Generator Ohio Department Report: Required within 60 days of of Health commencing the generation of low-level waste in Ohio. OAC 3745 01 OAC 3701:1-54-02 1-24 Construction debris would not be disposed of on site at the ACP. Therefore, no Construction and Demolition Debris Facility License would be required. The Licensee will file a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Generator Report with the Ohio Department of Health at the appropriate time. ODH ID Number 52-2109255.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Waste Management and Pollution Prei,ention (Cont) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: EPA; OEP A Required if hazardous waste will undergo nonexempt treatment by the generator, be stored on site for longer than 90 days by the generator of 2,205 lb (1,000 kg) or more of hazardous waste per month, be stored on site for longer than 180 days by the generator of between 220 and 2,205 lb (100 and 1,000 kg) of hazardous waste per month, disposed of on site, or be received from off-reservation for treatment or disposal. Low-Level Mixed Waste (LLMW): OEPA LLMW is a waste that contains both low-level radioactive waste and RCRA hazardous waste. Industrial Solid Waste Landfill Permit to OEPA Install: Required before constructing or expanding a solid waste landfill facility in Ohio. RCRA, as amended (42 USC 6901 et seq.), Subtitle C; OAC 3745-50-40 OAC 3745-266; 40 CFR Part 266 SubpartN OAC 3745 06 1-25 Hazardous waste would not be disposed of on site at the ACP. Also, the Licensee does not plan to store any hazardous wastes that are generated on site for mere-greater than 90 days. However, should waste require storage on site for greater than 90 days for characterization, profiling, or scheduling for treatment or disposal a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit would be required and submitted at the appropriate time. The Licensee will manage LLMW in compliance with 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart N and Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-266. Industrial solid waste would not be disposed of on site at the ACP. Therefore, no Industrial Solid Waste Landfill Permit to Install would be required.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Emergency Planning and Response List of Material Safety Data Sheets: Submission of a list of material Safety Data Sheets is required for hazardous chemicals (as defined in 29 CFR Part 1910) that are stored on site in excess of their threshold quantities. Annual Hazardous Chemical Inventory Report: Submission of the report is required when hazardous chemicals have been stored at a facility during the preceding year in amounts that exceed threshold quantities. Agency Local Emergency Planning Commission (LEPC); Ohio State Emergency

Response

Commission (SERC) LEPC; Ohio SERC; local fire department Emergency* Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), Section 311 (42 USC 11021); 40 CFR 370.20; OAC 3750 15

EPCRA, Section 312 (42 USC 11022); 40 CFR370.25; OAC 3750 01 1-26 The Licensee will prepare and submit a List of Material Safety Data Sheets at the appropriate time.

United States Enrichment CorporationThe Licensee will prepare and submit an Annual Hazardous Chemical Inventory Report each year. United States EnrichmentCentrus Energy Corporation Facility ID Number 45661NTDST3930U

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Emergency Planning and Response (Cont) Notification of On-Site Storage of an Ohio SERC Extremely Hazardous Substance: Submission of the notification is required within 60 days after on-site storage begins of an extremely hazardous substance in a quantity greater than the threshold planning quantity. Annual Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) EP A:OEPA Report: Required for facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees and are assigned certain Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.

EPCRA, Section 304 (42 USC 11004); 40 CFR 355.30; OAC 3750 05

EPCRA, Section 313 (42 USC 11023); 40 CFR Part 3 72; OAC 3745-100-07 1-27 United States Enrichment CorporationThe Licensee will prepare and submit the Notification of On-Site Storage of an Extremely Hazardous Substance at the appropriate time, if such substances are determined to be stored in a quantity greater than the threshold planning quantity at the ACP.

Facility ID Number 45661NTDST3930U United States Enrichment CorporationThe Licensee will prepare and submit a TRI Report to the EPA each year as appropriate. Facility ID Number 45661NTDST3930U.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Emergency Planning and Response (Cont.) Transportation of Radioactive Wastes U.S. Department and Conversion Products Certificate of of Transportation Registration: Required to authorize the (DOT) registrant to transport hazardous material or cause a hazardous material to be transported or shipped. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 and other acts (49 USC 1501 et seq.); 49 CFR 107.608(b) 1-28 United States Enrichment Centrus Enerev Corporation American Centrifuge Operating, LLC. Certificate of Registration Number 071618550082AB052803005022LN.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Emergency Planning and Response (Cont.) Transportation of Radioactive Wastes and DOT Conversion Products Packaging, Labeling, and Routing Requirements for Radioactive Materials: Required for packages containing radioactive materials that will be shipped by truck or rail. Agency HMTA(49 USC 1501 et seq.); Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.); 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 174, 177, and 397 1-29 When shipments of radioactive materials are made, the Licensee will comply with DOT packaging, labeling, and routing requirements.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Other Land Resources Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA): Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is protected by the Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 which seeks"... to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses... " Biotic Resources Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture Threatened and Endangered Species U.S. fish and Consultation: Required between the Wildlife_ Service; responsible federal agencies and affected Ohio Department states to ensure that the project is not likely of Natural to (1) jeopardize the continued existence of Resources any species listed at the federal or state level as endangered or threatened or (2) result in destruction of critical habitat of such species. Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 Public Law 97-98; 7 USC 420l[b]; 7 CFRPart 7, paragraph 658 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.); ORC 1531.25-26 and 1531.99 1-30 Consultation letters are included in Appendix B of this ER Consultation letters are included in Appendix B of this ER

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Cultural Resources Archaeological and Historical Resources Ohio State Consultation: Required before a federal Historic agency approves a project in an area where Preservation archaeological or historic resources might Officer (SHPO) be located. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.); Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469-469c-2); Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431 et seq.); Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 USC 470aa-mm) 1-31 USEC The Licensee has consulted with the Ohio SHPO regarding previous archeological and architectural surveys at the DOE reservation. Consultation letters are included in Appendix B.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Other (cont) Environmental Report (ER): Required by NRC 10 CFR Part 51, this ER is being submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support licensing of the ACP. Agency Depleted UF6 Management Measures: OEPA Establishes requirements for management, inspection,

testing, and maintenance associated with the ACP Depleted UF6 storage yards and cylinders owned by USEC the Licensee at the DOE reservation as stipulated in the ACP License Application.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.); 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 10 CFR Part 1021; 10 CFRPart 51 P.L. 91-190 OAC 3745-266; 40 CFR Part 266 SubpartN 1-32 This ER was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1968, as amended (P.L.91-190). The Licensee will manage the ACP Depleted UF6 tails cylinders in accordance with 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart N and Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-266 while in storage.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 1.3-1 Potentially Applicable Consents for the Construction and Operation of the American Centrifuge Plant License, Permit, or Other Consent Responsible Authority Relevance and Status Agency Other (Cont) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC): OSHA The SIC system serves as the structure for collection, aggregation, presentation, and analysis of the U.S. economy. An industry consists of a group of establishments primarily engaged in producing or handling the same product or group of products or in rendering the same services. SIC system 1-33 SIC 2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere ClassifiedNorth American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code #236210 for Nonresidential Building Construction. NA.JCS Code # 325188 for Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing.

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Blank Page 1-34

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 2.0 ALTERNATIVES This section describes the alternatives discussed in detail in this ER, as well as those alternatives that were not considered to be reasonable and which were therefore, eliminated from further study. This section also includes a discussion of cumulative effects, as well as a table (Table 2.4-1) comparing potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action, the PGDP Siting Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. 2.1 Detailed Description of the Alternatives 2.1.1 No Action Alternative This alternative involves not deploying the ACP and continuing to operate the PGDP. This alternative does not meet the need underlined in the Congressional mandate to privatize USEC and provide the nation with an assured source of domestic uranium enrichment capability or the business need for lower cost production and to replace the ageing former GDP. The No Action Alternative is also not consistent with the DOE-USEC Agreement. The DOE-USEC Agreement requires USEC the Licensee to deploy an advanced technology enrichment facility. The No Action Alternative *.vould result in the continued uranium enrichment at the PGDP. A gaseous diffusion process is used at PGDP to enrich uranium. In the gaseous diffusion enrichment plant, the solid -l:JF.e---frem the conversion process is heated in its container until it becomes a liquid. The cylinder becomes pressurized as the UFe-vapor fills the cylinder Yoid space above the liquid. The UFe gas is fed into the plant's pipelines where it is pumped through special filters called barriers or porous membranes without interacting with one another. The holes are so small that the UFe molecules diffuse through the holes. The isotope enrichment occurs because the lighter UFe gas molecules (with the uranium 234 ['U] and 'U atoms) tend to diffuse faster through the holes than the heavier UFe gas molecules containing uranium 238 (~U): It takes many hundreds of barriers-, one after the other, before the UFe gas is enriched with enough 'U to be used in light water reactors. At the end of the process, the enriched UFe-gas stream is withdrawn from the pipelines and condensed back into a liquid and drained into cylinders. The depleted UFe gas stream is also withdravm and condensed into a liquid and drained into separate cylinders. Both liquid forms ofUFe (depleted and enriched) are then allO'tved to cool and solidify in the cylinder. A plant utilizing the gaseous diffusion process requires significantly more electricity than a corresponding centrifuge plant. Two coal fired electrical plants routed through four switchyards provide the electrical supply necessary to operate the gaseous diffusion process at PGDP. If the No Action Alternative is pursued, then USEC must continue to rely upon the eKisting gaseous diffusion process with no possibility of a more efficient uranium enrichment process for many years-:- A plant utilizing the gaseous diffusion process requires large scale use of Freon, electricit)', and non contact cooling water, which results in leakage to the environment. The ACP does not require this large scale use of electricity and Freon, and requires much less use of cooling water. 2-1

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Other activities on the DOE Reservation will continue, such as the recently constructed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion Facility on the reservation adjacent to the ACP, activities related to the D&D of the PG9-P former PORTS GDP, and environmental restoration activities in a number oflocations on the reservation. YF-b production will continue at PGDP under the No Action AJternati'f,e, resulting in continued emissions and resource use at PGDP. 2.1.2 Proposed Action As discussed in section 1.2 above, the Proposed Action is to refurbish, construct and operate the ACP at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. The purpose of the ACP is to meet the DOE-USEC Agreement requirements for USEC the Licensee to deploy an advanced technology enrichment plant and meet the need for lower cost production and for replacement of the agi-Rg former GDP. YF-b production *.viii ultimately eease at PGDP after the ACP becomes operational, resulting in reduced emissions and resource use (i.e., water1 electrieity and Freon). Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) of th~ GDP facilities will continueeurrently leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation *will begin once the GDP ceases operation (DOE 2004b ). Corporate Identity USEC is a global energy company and a leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. USEC, including its wholly owned subsidiaries, was organized under Delaware-I-aw in connection with the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation. USEC is the only private corporation providing enrichment services to the nuclear industry and the only U.S. producer of enriched uranium. In 2003 USEC, through its subsidiary, supplied enrichment for approximately 56 percent of the North American market and apprmdmately 30 percent of the world market. USEC' s The Licensee's principal office is located at 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. USEC is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker sym_bol USU. Private and institutional investors own the outstanding shares of the LicenseeUSBG. The principal officers of the LicenseeUSEC are citizens of the United States.The NRt has issued Certificates of Compliance to the United States Enrichment Corporation, a wholly 01tVfl:ed subsidiary of USEC, to operate the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants (Docket Numbers 70 7001 and 70 7002, respectively). Consistent with-the requirements in 10 CFR 76.22 and in connection with-the issuance of these Certificates, the NRC has determined that USEC is neither owned, controlled, nor dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign govemment.USEC's subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation, is also the eKclusi't'e agent for a United States Government

agreement program to convert highly enriched uranium taken from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into LEU fuel for peaceful use in nuclear power plants. USEC's perfonnance in this activity demonstrates its commitment to this important nonproliferation and national security initiative.

Proposed Site Location The DOE reservation is located at latitude 39°00'30" north and longitude 83°00'00" west 2-2

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 measured at the center of the DOE reservation on approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) in Pike County, Ohio, one of the state's lesser populated counties. The DOE reservation is located between Chillicothe and Portsmouth, Ohio, approximately 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio. Figure 1. 0.1-1 shows the regional area surrounding the DOE reservation. The DOE reservation consists of approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) with approximately a 526 ha (1,300 acre) central area surrounded by the Perimeter Road. The DOE reservation land outside the Perimeter Road is used for a variety of purposes, including a water treatment plant; lagoons for the process wastewater treatment plant; sanitary and inert landfills; and open and forested buff er areas. Most of the improvements are located within the fenced core area. The core area is largely devoid of trees, with grass and paved roadways dominating the open space. The ACP would beis situated on approximately 81 ha (200 acres) of the southwest quadrant of the Controlled Access Area. In June 2004, DOE issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio site that described the preferred alternative for managing depleted UF6 (DOE 2004). DOE issued a Record of Decision on July 20, 2004 (DOE 2004c). In addition, in 2008, DOE has proposed to constructed e:Rd operate a conversion facility at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, which is currently operated by Mid-America Conversion Services, LLC. The facility would convert~ DOE's inventory of depleted UF6 now located atfrom the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, and at the ETTP in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to a more stable chemical form acceptable for transportation, beneficial use/reuse, and/or disposal. A related objective is to provide cylinder surveillance and maintenance of the DOE inventory of depleted UF6, low-enrichment UF6, natural assay UF6, and empty and heel cylinders in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. The proposed location of the conversion facility is depicted in Figure 3.1-2. The time period considered is a ooestrnetioR period of two years, an operational period of 18 years, with a 3-year period for D&D of the facility. Curreflt plans call for eo0struetion to begin in the summer of 2004. This assessment is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, Uranium Disposition Services, LLC (UDS) (DOE 2004). HALEU Demonstration Program The initial stage of Uranium Enrichment activities will consist of deploying a 16-centrifuge AC-IO0M HALEU cascade to produce 19.75 weight (wt.) percent 235U enriched product as a demonstration ro* ect with enrichment not to exceed 20 wt. ercent 235U. On October 31, 2019, the Licensee signed a three-year contract with the DOE to operate this project. The program has been under way since the Licensee and DOE signed a preliminary letter agreement on May 31, 2019 which allowed work to be *n while the full contract was bein finalized. The HALEU demonstration ro ram will be similar to but at a much smaller scale than the full project discussed below. Components for the HALEU centrifuges will be manufactured 2-3

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 at the Licensee's facilities located in both Piketon. Ohio and Oak Ridge. Tennessee. The project will utilize the four existing facilities recently used in the Lead Cascade Project, and no facilities will be constructed. The X-3001 Process Building will be used to house the centrifuges and support systems necessary to perform the actual enrichment process. as well as UF6 cylinder receipt and storage. The X-7725 Recycle/ Assembly Building will be used for an area where centrifuges can be manufactured. assembled. tested. and maintained. In the HALEU Demonstration. the X-7725 building will only be used for temporary storage, heat shield manufacturing shortly before centrifuge assembly, and for interior transport to and from the X-7726 facility. The casings are prepared in the X-7726 facility before being assembled. Some assembly activities may be performed in the X-3001 building including any further preparations of the centrifuges. Areas of the X-7725 building are also designed for shipping, receiving, and storage of materials. The X-7726 Centrifuge Training and Test Facility contains areas where material and components are received: components or subassemblies are inspected and tested: components are manufactured: the components are assembled as centrifuges: casing and component preparation: and the final assembly is evacuated and leak checked. The X-7727H Interplant Transfer Corridor will be used for transport of centrifuges and other materials between the X-7725 building to the process building(s) or back as necessary and movement of feed cylinders. It will also serve as a shipping and receiving area for equipment and components during construction and operation activities. The X-3012 Process Support Building will be used to house the operational area, maintenance area (For HALEU, this is only non-uranium bearing maintenance), and the transfer aisleway that services the X-3002 Process Building. Design of the full-scale uranium enrichment facilities will be performed after the results of the three-year HALEU demonstration program have been received. Full Scale Uranium Enrichment Activities Under the Proposed Action, refurbishment, construction and operations activities will occur within newly constructed and existing facilities with a production capacity of approximately 3.8 million SWU. This environmental report also examines the impacts of construction of two new process buildings and support facilities that would increase the plant production capacity to approximately 7.6 million SWU annually. Construction of a manufacturing area, process support building, a new withdrawal building, the expansion of the existing feed building and a number of cylinder storage pads are also planned as part of the Proposed Action. Connected manufacturing/assembly operations may consist of the manufacturing of centrifuge components, assembly and testing of sub-assemblies and assemblies. The option for this manufacturing/assembly process will be an ongoing activity through the production of approximately 12,000 completed centrifuges and sufficient spares to operate a 3.8 million SWU plant and approximately 24,000 centrifuges for the 7.6 million SWU plant. The production rate capability will be developed to ramp up to approximately 16 completed centrifuges per day. Centrifuge manufacturing could take place on site or at a commercial manufacturing plant located off the DOE reservation. The impacts of manufacturing on the DOE reservation are considered as part of the Proposed Action. The impacts of manufacturing at a commercial 2-4

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 manufacturing plant off of the DOE reservation would be similar. Centrifuge manufacturing and assembly operations could be conducted in the X-7725 building or other comparable site building. The manufacturing/assembly operations consist of the manufacturing of centrifuge components, assembly, and testing of sub-assemblies and assemblies. The manufacturing/assembly process will be an ongoing activity through the production of approximately 24,000 completed centrifuges and sufficient spares to operate a 7.6 million SWU per year plant. Each of the manufacturing/assembly areas has multiple workstations and equipment sets to allow for the production of up to 16 centrifuges per day. Manufacturing of a centrifuge includes a filament winding process. This process requires a combination of resins, curing agents or hardeners and filaments. Some completely assembled centrifuges ar-e-will be tested in the gas test stands using UF6 to verify the proper operation of the centrifuge. This gas test is-will be performed in the X-7725 building prior to movement to the process building for installation. This area includes a separate room used for the handling of the small quantities of UF6 for the gas test operation. The Proposed Action includes the following seven distinct activities. These identifiable activities will take place at the Piketon DOE reservation. The second and third items below were also analyzed and presented in another,\\'slionel E11vironmentel Policy Act (NEPA) document, DOE/EA-1451, Environmental Assessment for the Leasing of Facilities and Equipment to USEC Inc. (DOE 2002b ). The ER was limited in scope and did not assess the manufacturing and transportation of up to 24,000 centrifuges. Chapter 4. 0 of this ER will address the potential impacts associated with these activities:

Refurbishment and construction of the facilities at Piketon
Manufacture of the gas centrifuges
Transportation of gas centrifuges and centrifuge components to Piketon
Installation and startup of the ACP
Operation of the ACP Repair and maintenance of the ACP
Decontamination and decommissioning 2.1.2.1 Plant Layout The ACP is comprised of various buildings and areas that house systems and equipment necessary to support the uranium enrichment process. A diagram of the plant layout is presented in Figure 4.1.3-1. The buildings directly involved in the enrichment process are the X-3001, X-3002, X-3003, and X-3004 Process Buildings; X-2232C Interconnecting Process Piping; X-3012 and X-3034 Process Support Buildings; X-3344 Customer Services Building; X-3346 Feed and Withdrawal Building; X-3346A Feed and Product Shipping and Receiving Building, and X-3366 Product and Tails Withdrawal Building. Other buildings and areas that provide direct support functions to the enrichment process are the X-7725 Recycle/Assembly Building; X-7725A Waste 2-5

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Accountability Facility; X-7725C Chemical Storage Building; X-7726 Centrifuge Training and Test Facility; X-7727H Interplant Transfer Corridor; X-745G-2 Cylinder Storage Yard; X-745H Cylinder Storage Yard; and X-7746S, X-7746W Cylinder Storage Yards (Table 2.1.2.1-1), and the GDP X-6619 Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). Table 2.1.2.1-2 lists facilities to be constructed. These buildings/facilities and areas are where licensed material and hazardous material can be found and are considered to be the primary facilities in their functional support of the uranium enrichment process. Descriptions of the primary facilities used to support a 3.8 million SWU facility and their functions are provided in Section 1.1 of the license application and in Section 2.2 of the Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) Summary for the American Centrifuge Plant. Table 2.1.2.1-1 American Centrifuge Plant Cylinder Yards American Centrifuge Plant Cylinder Yards Number Cylinder Yard Designation Size X-745H Cylinder Storage Yard 1,060,000 ft2 X-745G-2 ( existing) Cylinder Storage Yard 135,000 ft2 X-7766S Cylinder Storage Yard 14,000 ff X-7746S Cylinder Storage Yard 47,000 ft2 X-7746W Cylinder Storage Yard 132,000 ft2 Total 1,388,000 ft2 Table 2.1.2.1-2 American Centrifuge Plant Facilities to be Constructed Number Desiination Size (approximate) X-3003 1 Process Building 304,000 ft2 X-30041 Process Building 304,000 ft2 X-2232C1 Interconnecting Process Piping 3,000 L ft for X-3003, X-3004, and X-3366 X-30341 Process Support Building 48,000 ft2 X-3344 Customer Services Building 42,500 ft2 X-3346A Feed and Product Shipping and 22,800 ft2 Receiving Building X-33661 Product and Tails Withdrawal 42,300 ft2 Building X-7725C Chemical Storage Building 15,000 ft2 X-7727H1 Interplant Transfer Corridor extension 26,000 ft2 X-745H Cylinder Storage Yard 1,060,000 ft2 X-7766S 1 Cylinder Storage Yard 14,000 ft2 X-7746S Cylinder Storage Yard 47,000 ft2 X-7746W Cylinder Storage Yard 132,000 ft2 Total New Facility Construction 2,060,600 ft2 2-6

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 1 Facilities required for 7.6 million SWU capacity plant In addition to the primary facilities, there are a number of secondary buildings and areas that provide indirect support to the enrichment process. The support buildings include various electrical utilities, communications, hot water production, compressed air, and others. Some specific buildings are the X-7721 Maintenance, Stores and Training Building; X-6000 Cooling Tower Pump House, Air Plant, and Air Plant Support Systems; and X-6002 Boiler System. Descriptions of the buildings and their functions are provided in Chapter 1 of the License Application for the American Centrifuge Plant. The primary facilities are located in the southwest quadrant region of the DOE reservation and are adjacent to each other, with the exception of the X-745G-2 and X-745H. Stockton Street and Tailor Street bound the primary facilities on the north, on the east by Grebe Avenue, on the west by Perimeter Road and on the south by Lewis Street as depicted in Figure 4.1.3-1. The X-745G-2 and X-745H are located in the northeast part of the DOE reservation bounded on the south by the Perimeter Road as depicted in Figure 4.1.3-2. Various activities potentially need to be performed prior to turning o:ver the ~isting facilities from DOE to USEC the Licensee to begin ACP upgrade acti*t<ities. These acti11ities, under DOE o¥ersight, include preliminary facility repairs and modifications; relocation of DOE operations; cleanout and disposal of material from the X 3001 and X 3002 Process Buildings (e.g., old centrifuges/equipment/parts, classified material, records, miscellaneous equipment); relocation of the X 6002 Heat Plw from the northeast corner of the X 3002 to an area adjacent to X 6002A; disposition of h02ardous waste stored in certain areas of the X 7725 buildiag; and subsequent modification: of the DOE ResONr-ce C01'1sen'lli0n mid Recmiery Act (RCRi\\.) Part B permit (DOE 2001b). 2.1.2.2 Process Description The centrifuge consists of a large rotating cylinder and piping for the feeding of the UF6 gas and the withdrawal of depleted and enriched Uf 6 gas streams. The rotating cylinder, called a rotor, is contained within another cylinder, called a casing that maintains the rotating cylinder in a vacuum and provides physical containment of components in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure of the gas centrifuge ( see Figure 2.1.2.2-1 ). Other major components of a gas centrifuge include upper and lower suspension systems and a motor and control system. Cascade separating elements are connected in series, called stages, to achieve the desired assay of 235U enrichment. Many separating elements are also connected in parallel in the centrifuge process to achieve the desired mass flows forming a cascade. Figure 2.1.2.2-2 schematically presents a cascade and multiple stage configurations and the flow arrangement between stages. Through this configuration, feed enters the cascade at the middle of the configuration with the product streams being enriched in 235U to the top and the tails streams being depleted of 235U to the bottom. The high peripheral velocity of a gas centrifuge required the rotor to operate in a high vacuum to minimize friction. Each centrifuge casing is therefore fitted with a diffusion pump to produce the required vacuum between the rotor and the casing. For the HALEU Demonstration Program, a molecular pump will be used in place of a diffusion pump. A purge vacuum (PV) 2-7

Environmental Report for the American Centrifage Plant Proposed Change 2020 system maintains a suitably low pressure for efficient operation of the diffusion pumps. The output of the diffusion pumps discharges to the PV system. Any UF6 and light gases that may escape from the rotor and any light gases entering the vacuum system due to in-leakage are removed. The main sources of gases to be removed are air in-leakage; hydrogen fluoride (HF) that originates from the cascade feed and from the reaction ofUF6 and moisture from air in-leakage; UF6 leakage into the centrifuge-casing vacuum; and residual inert gas. The evacuation vacuum (EV) pump system, which interfaces with the PV system at the diffusion pump and at the chemical traps, shares with the PV system the chemical traps, the exhaust gas analyzer, and the building vent piping to the outside environment. A manual interlock prevents the centrifuge from being valved into the EV and PV systems simultaneously. The purpose of the EV system is to reduce the casing pressure of newly installed or replacement centrifuges from atmospheric pressure to a sufficiently low value that ensures the centrifuge casing can be connected to the PV system without upsetting PV system operation. The EV system also evacuates the service module process headers. Additionally, for HALEU, there is also a bank of Sodium Fluoride (NaF) traps to facilitate a removal of UF6 inventory from centrifuges should it be necessary. The discharge of the NaF traps is subsequently routed to PV/EV systems The PV and EV systems are monitored to ensure proper operation of chemical traps to minimize potential releases of radionuclides. The EV system has the capability to bypass the chemical traps during initial start up and to pump do*Nn service modules, piping, and new centrifuges prior to gas introduction (see Figure 2.1.2.2 3). The machine cooling water (MCW) system services the EV and PV pumps by providing cooling water. This system contains circulating water pumps, filter, heat exchanger, an expansion tank, and a piping tie-in to the chemical feed, deionizer, and sanitary water systems (see Figure 2.1.2.2-4). Water treatment chemicals are used to maintain cooling water chemistry. An alarm system is used to monitor water levels and makeup. 2-8

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 DEPLETED UF6 OUTPUT LINE UFs EEO LINE rF L ENRICHED UF, F

a,.

OUTPUT LINE ~ VACU UM SYSTEM UPPER SUS PENSION TO D IFFUSION PUMP ASSEMBLY LJ n n LJ ENRI CHED UF6 SCOOP 1~ -E---- ROTOR ...-:_'---- CASING U F6 FEED - -H-11-----;-~ d ~ ~ ------1+-++- COLUMN LOWER SUSPENSION L=== =~,~~~~-drtt-DEPLETED AND DRIVE - -

a11i-+-+

I r---f1 h--i I I UF5 SCOOP ASS EMBLY "----7 ~ ~ r-- CP-006-RO I I Figure 2.1.2.2-1 Simplified Schematic of Centrifuges Note: For HALEU Demonstration, a molecular pump will be used in place of a diffusion pump. 2-9

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Feed Flow rate= F Assay= 0. 711 % 235U CP-007-R0 e 1 ge 2 Product Flow rate= P Assay= 1 % to 10% 235U e 3 Enricher e 4 5 Stage 6 (Feed Stage) age 7 ge 8 Stripper e 9 ________ _ L...----~- Tails Flow rate= T Assay= 0.2% to 0.45% 235U Figure 2.1.2.2-2 Example Cascade Schematic 2-10

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant VACUUM PUMP CENTRIFUGE CP-01.3-R0 EVACUATION r-:~-i VACUUM PUMPS MANUAL INTERLOCK PURGE L......:3~ VACUUM PUMPS BYPASS (/) a.. <( a::: 1- _J <( (.) ~ w I (.) Proposed Change 2020 VENT TO ATMOSPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW MONITOR Figure 2.1.2.2-3 Purge and Evacuation Vacuum System Schematic 2-11

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 13 bl) .ti

s: i "'

j = r:i. u e e

=E iJ &:

r:i. j f! e! -~ ~

=E li:

(Z) :s: S::>i\\\\.1 CP-014-RO Figure 2.1.2.2-4 Machine Cooling Water Note: For the HALEU Demonstration Program" a molecular pump will be used in place of a diffusion pump. 2-12

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The centrifuges and PV/EV vacuum pumps are cooled by a closed-loop MCW system to minimize the amount of water potentially contaminated by uranium. There is no routine blowdown from the MCW system. Waste heat from the MCW system is discharged via heat exchangers to the Tower Water Cooling (TWC) system, which is cooled by a single cooling tower. Waste heat from the cold trap refrigeration systems in the X-3346 building is also discharged to the TWC system. Currently, the TWC discharges its blowdown to the GDP Recirculating Cooling Water (RCW) system under a service agreement, which in tum discharges its blowdown directly to the Scioto River via an underground pipeline (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Outfall 004). The RCW system does not provide any treatment of the TWC blowdown; it simply provides a convenient pathway to a suitable permitted discharge point. At some point in the future, the TWC blowdown will likely be modified to bypass the RCW system and discharge directly to the RCW discharge pipeline. There should be no licensed material in the TWC blowdown. In the interim, the GDP RCW system has ample capacity to accept the TWC effluent without either physical modification or adjustment to its discharge limits. Discharges from the RCW System are monitored by an automated sampler, which collects a weekly composite sample of the liquid effluent for radiological analysis as well as sample(s) for NPDES-mandated analyses. This data is available to the ACP as assurance that no unanticipated discharge of licensed material has occurred. Quantities of hazardous materials are currently stored in the ACP facilities. These materials include acetone, solvents, and oils that are used for manufacturing, assembly and maintenance activities. These materials are reported annually to the Federal and State Environmental Protection Agencies as required by the Super.fund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA). 2.1.2.3 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Program Based on historic experience and operating plans, the radionuclides anticipated being present in gaseous effluents are 234U, 235U, and 238U. The intention is to not introduce feedstock contaminated with significant concentrations of other nuclides into the process. Feed material that meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification for recycled feed may be used in the ACP, which may contain radionuclides such as uranium-236 (236U) and 99Tc._(EQ!: HALEU Demonstration, the feed will be LEU that meets the requirements of ASTM Standard C996 "Standard S ecification for Uranium Hexafluoride Enriched to Less Than 5 ercent 235U or ASTM standard C787, "Standard Specification for Uranium Hexafluoride for Enrichment.") Due to historic contamination of the nuclear feed cycle and of the site, however, 99Tc may eventually appear in some gaseous effluents. The radionuclides anticipated to be present in liquid effluents are 234U, 235U, 238U, and 99Tc, due to historic contamination of the site. Consequently, effluents will be analyzed for these four nuclides routinely. Table 6.0-1 lists the Environmental Monitoring Program sampling locations and frequency (Figures 6.0-1 through 6.0-3). 2-13

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 2-14

Environmental Report/or the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality Control (QC) for environmental samples and data management are addressed to assure sample and analytical integrity. Sampling QC includes use of field blanks, duplicate samples, and chain-of custody protocols. The Analytical Laboratory performs analyses according to regulator's methods (i.e., EPA or National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety [NIOSH]) and in other cases use other approved methods (i.e., ASTM). Such standard methods are supplemented with standard operating procedures and operator aids which provide guidance for activities such as routine and special internal QC (i.e., field blanks; duplicate samples; chain of custody practices [from point of sampling through disposal]; lab matrix spikes; matrix spike duplicates; replicate samples; check samples; and blind and double blind QC samples; external control programs; calibrating/verification of equipment; traceability standards; maintenance of instruments; record keeping; proper labeling; etc.). (For HALEU, analytical services will be procured from qualified vendor and will meet equivalent standards) The Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Program is discussed in Chapter 9.0 of the License Application for the American Centrifuge Plant. 2.1.2.4 Decontamination and Decommissioning At the end of useful plant life, the ACP will be decommissioned such that the facilities will be returned to the DOE in accordance with the requirements of the Lease Agreement with DOE and applicable NRC license termination requirements. The environmental analysis is based on a 7.6 million SWU plant bounding the impacts of a 3.8 million SWU plant. A detailed Decommissioning Plan (DP) for the ACP will be submitted by the Licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 70.38(g) and prior to the time of license termination. Prior to decommissioning, an assessment of the radiological status of the ACP will be made. Enrichment equipment will be removed, leaving only the building shells of leased facilities and the plant infrastructure, including equipment that existed at the time oflease with the DOE (e.g., rigid mast crane, utilities, etc.). For newly constructed facilities, the cost estimate prepared and presented in the Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) includes funds to completely decontaminate and decommission the facilities. Remaining facilities will be decontaminated where needed to the NRC Free Release Criteria. Classified material, components, and documents will be destroyed or disposed of in accordance with the Security Program for the American Centrifuge Plant. Requirements for nuclear material control and accountability will be maintained during decommissioning in a manner similar to the programs in force during ACP operation. Depleted UF6 material (tails), if not sold or disposed of prior to decommissioning, will be sold, or converted to a stable, non-volatile uranium compound and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. Radioactive wastes will be disposed of at licensed low-level waste disposal sites. Hazardous wastes will be treated or disposed of in permitted hazardous waste facilities. Following decommissioning activities, the facilities will be de-leased and returned to the DOE in accordance with the requirements of the Lease Agreement. For the HALEU Demonstration a special arran ement exists er Section 10.1 of the License A lication: At the conclusion of the HALEU 2-15

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Demonstration Program, the facilities will be either returned to the Department in accordance with the requirements of the GCEP Lease Agreement or the Licensee will amend the ACP Materials License to allow phased implementation of expanded centrifuge enrichment cascades as described in Section 1.1. 8 of the license application. At that time, a revised decommissioning funding plan. including an updated decommissioning cost estimate would be provided to the NRC for prior review and approval. 2.1.3 Reasonable Alternatives A reasonable alternative to the Proposed Action was to construct and operate the ACP at thePGDP. This alternative was eliminated after an analysis of factors that included the following: Environmental, safety, and health factors Cost to construct and operate the ACP Schedule to deploy the ACP Community support and socioeconomic factors Factors that will lower the costs of USEC's the Licensee's current operations. In particular, the LicenseeUSEC considered a range of financial, qualitative, regulatory and environmental factors. Based upon that analysis, USEC the Licensee concluded that siting the ACP at Portsmouth rather than Paducah, resulted in superior financial conditions, significant qualitative advantages, and slightly better regulatory and environmental conditions. The LicenseeUSEC considered environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and ability to construct and operate in accordance with applicable NRC and other legal and regulatory requirements. The LicenseeUSEG concluded that while both sites are suitable on the basis of environmental, socioeconomic and regulatory factors, selection of PGDP would result in somewhat greater environmental impacts, due primarily to the need for construction of all new buildings, and the attendant excavation and land disturbance. In addition, seismic factors at PGDP would increase the cost of construction and could make the engineering and NRC licensing effort more complex. The financial analysis considered construction and capital costs, startup and operating costs and scheduling consideration. The results of that analysis demonstrated that the Portsmouth siting alternative produced a significant cost advantage over siting at PGDP. 2-16

Environmental Report/or the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The qualitative analysis considered the advantages and disadvantages of both sites with respect to, among other things, ability to achieve cost and schedule targets, ability to achieve incentives legislation, local, state and federal relations and community acceptance. Based upon this analysis, the LicenseeUSEC concluded that the Portsmouth siting alternative offered the advantage of being able to utilize existing facilities, provided a schedule advantage that would benefit USEC's the Licensee's market position, and provided lower uncertainties associated with seismic considerations, which would reduce, among other things, engineering effort. Based on the above analysis, USEC the Licensee concluded that siting at Portsmouth was the preferred alternative. In addition, it should be noted that in connection with the previously-planned A VLIS facility, the LicenseeUSEC conducted a site selection screening process which, although not completed, also had identified PORTS as one of a number of acceptable sites for that facility. Furthermore, it should also be noted that most recently the site selection process for Louisiana Energy Services' proposed National Enrichment Facility included PORTS as one of six sites that passed their screening process and was considered in detail in choosing their preferred site. (NEF 2004) Design Alternatives During the detailed design and engineering process of construction, infrastructure modification, manufacturing, and test operations for the facilities within the scope of this ER, the design for these elements are reviewed for compliance with regulatory standards, and for opportunities to minimize the quantity and reduce the toxicity of any releases, emissions, effluents or wastes generated from the construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning of the facilities and for minimization of the quantity and toxicity of the materials used and wastes generated. An example of this design and engineering review process to reduce environmental impacts of the ACP is the refrigeration and cooling requirements for the X-3344 Customer Services Building and the X-3346 Feed and Withdrawal Building. The proposed primary refrigeration system for the facilities is FC-84, a perfluorocarbon brine heat transfer system, which replaces the R-11, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), used in the original GCEP design. The proposed heat transfer brine product for the primary refrigeration system under consideration is hydrogen free and chemically stable over the required operating range, has a low vapor pressure, low toxicity, is commercially available, and has zero ozone depletion potential. 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Alternatives to the Proposed Action that were considered and eliminated include the following: Construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant at alternative locations at the U.S. Department of Energy reservation in Piketon, Ohio 2-17

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Construct and operate a non-centrifuge alternate enrichment technology plant Construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant at a non-Gaseous Diffusion Plant location Replace high cost Separative Work Unit production with equivalent Separative Work Units from down-blended Highly Enriched Uranium from nuclear warheads A discussion of the reasons the above alternatives were eliminated is provided below: Construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant at alternative locations at the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation in Piketon, Ohio The DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio was evaluated to identify alternative locations for the ACP. The three alternative locations identified at the DOE reservation, denoted Locations A, B, and C, are shown in Figure 2.2-1. Location A is the preferred location for the ACP and 1s discussed m detail as the Proposed Action. 2-18

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant I I I I ~ I I -+* I J L,. I I. ' I L---1/ r--r;:;. " ---'--~t"-' i -". ,-:-1:::~-:::'.I I . r 1 Proposed Change 2020 \\ ' ' I ' ' L __ -~-~ ~~-=5:7 I I -- -""=! Figure 2.2-1 American Centrifuge Plant Alternative Locations on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 2-19

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Location B is located in the southeast portion of the site and has an area of about 81 ha (200 acres). This location consists of a level to very gently rolling grass field to a rolling forested hill. The level area was graded during the construction of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in the 1950s and has been maintained as grass fields. Location C is located in the northeast portion of the site and has an area of about 81 ha (200 acres). This location consists of a level to very gently rolling grass field to a rolling forested hill. The level area was graded during the operation of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and has been maintained as grass fields. Alternatives B and C were not selected as the preferred alternative primarily due to the lack of existing buildings, extensive site preparation, access to utility service, and new construction required to house the ACP process. Neither location had an environmental advantage over location A or afforded the advantages offered by location A, the site of the former GCEP buildings. Construct and operate a non-centrifuge alternate enrichment technology plant Non-centrifuge alternate enrichment technologies have been and continue to be evaluatedwere previously evaluated by USECthe Licensee and USEC eliminated the alternatives to the centrifuge. For example, as a private corporation, USEC continued development work on the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotopic Separation (A VLIS} enrichment process that utilizes lasers to enrich uranium. In 1999, the LieenseeUSEC evaluations concluded that the return on investment was not sufficient to outweigh the risks and ongoing capital expenditures necessary to continue work on A VLIS. In 1999, USEC suspended development of A VLIS. The LieenseeUSEC continued to evaluate the use of lasers to enrich uranium by supporting the development of the SILEX enrichment process. SILEX offered a number of important advantages over the A VLIS process. However, in 2003, USEC announced that it was ending its funding for research and development of the SILEX laser-based uranium enrichment process because it was unlikely that the SILEX technology could be utilized to meet the LicenseeUSEC's need. Specifically, SILEX is still in an early stage of development, and could not be deployed within the time frames required by the DOE-USEC Agreement. With the termination of the LieenseeUSEC's support, the rights to develop the SILEX technology for uranium enrichment have reverted back to Silex Systems Limited. Construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant at a non-Gaseous Diffusion Plant location This alternative involves constructing and operating the ACP at a "green field" or a disturbed site other than one of the GDPs in Piketon, Ohio or Paducah, Kentucky. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative because it is inconsistent with the DOE-USEC Agreement and because the GDP sites provide schedule, regulatory, and cost advantages over other sites. The DOE-USEC Agreement stipulates that the LieenseeUSEC deploy-the ACP be deployed at either the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio or the PGDP. Also, no other sites offered the unique combination of (1) readily accessible environmental data; (2) past history and experience in uranium enrichment; and (3) the availability of skilled labor with uranium enrichment industry expenence. Without readily accessible environmental data (as in a green field situation) there 2-20

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 would be a delay in assembling and evaluating environmental factors. Without available skilled labor with uranium enrichment experience, the LicenseeUSEC would have to either provide training or relocate trained personnel at added expense. The environmental impact of this alternative would be either to disturb a "green field" site or to possibly introduce emission and eflluents associated with uranium enrichment to an existing industrial site. In addition, it should be noted that in connection with the previously-planned A VLIS facility, the LicenseeUSEC conducted a site selection screening process which, although not completed, identified PORTS as one of a number of acceptable sites for that facility. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site selection process for Louisiana Energy Services' proposed National Enrichment Facility included PORTS as one of six sites that passed the screening process and was considered in detail in choosing the preferred site (NEF 2004). Replace high cost Separative Work Unit production with equivalent Separative Work Units from down-blended Highly Enriched Uranium from nuclear warheads This alternative involves not constructing a domestic uranium enrichment plant to replace the SWU production of PGDP. Instead, equivalent SWU would be obtained from down blending HEU from either U.S. or Russian nuclear warheads. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative because it does not meet the commitments in the DOE-USEC Agreement, which requires that an ACP be constructed and operated. This alternative was also eliminated since it would be contrary to Congressional intent and common defense and security and does not meet the need as discussed in Section 1. 1 above. As disct:1ssed previot:1sly in Section 1.1 of this ER, USEC the Licensee is the facecutiYe A.gent for a U.S. Government agreement that purchases LEU that is deriYed from dmvn blending of HEU from Russian warheads. In February 1993, the U.S. Gov:ernment agreed to purchase from Russia 500 metric ton (MT) of HEU ~traeted from disma.n:tled Russian nuclear weapons 0*1er a 20 year period, whieh ~pires 2013. It is uneertain whether this agreement will be ~tended beyond 2013. Ct:1rrently, the equiYalent S'.VU from down blended HEU complements domestic 8WU production at PGDP. \\J/hile the U.8. Government, on the one hand, may *.vish to eKtend this arrangement to cofltiooe the reduetion of the number of nuelear weapons in the world, it is doubtful that the U. 8. GoYernment would ~end thjs agreement to repleee rather than eomplement domestie 8'.VU production. The Ene,-gy Po!:iey Act of 1992, which created the United States Enrichment Corporation, eharaeterizes uranium enrichment as a "strategically important domestic industry" of "vital national interest," "essential to the national seeurity and energy security of the U.S.," a.n:d necessary "to a,1oid dependence on imports." The environmental impacts of this alternative would be those associated with down-blending operations and would be minimal to U.S. residents for those operations that take place overseas. Further, this alternative also fails to meet the commercial needs of the corporation. the LicenseeUSEC is committed to being competitive on price and delivering superior customer service. Hence, because of the age of PGDP, the cost of power, a.n:d the eurrently scheduled expiration of the HEU agreement; USEC needs to deploy a lower cost and domestic advanced technology towards the end of this decade. None of the alternatives considered but eliminated would be obviously superior to siting the ACP at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio. 2-21

Environmental Report for the American Centrifage Plant Proposed Change 2020 2.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts are those effects that result from the incremental impacts of an action considered additively with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts are considered regardless of the agency or person undertaking the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7, CEQ 1997) and can result from the combined or synergistic effects of individually minor actions over a period of time. This section describes actions that are considered pertinent to the analysis of cumulative impacts for the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is typically included as a baseline against which cumulative effects are evaluated. The cumulative impacts presented in this ER are based on the potential effects of the ACP when added to impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. On-going operations currently at the Piketon DOE reservation include the DOE Decontamination and Decommission (D&D) operations by FLUOR BWXT United States Enriehment Corporation's Cold Standby, Deposit Removal, and removal of teehnetium from potentially eontaminated feed projects; and the DOE's waste management and environmental restoration activities. These activities are independent of the ACP and are expected to decrease in scope over time. The ACP is consistent with existing land use at the Piketon DOE reservation. Construction and refurbishment activities will be conducted in areas known to be devoid of cultural and historical resources. New buildings for the ACP will be consistent with the character of the adjoining buildings. Architectural features will follow established guidelines consistent with the existing building color schemes, styling, and construction within the property' s setting that contribute to its historic significance. Cumulative resource consumption would include DUF6 operations, GDP D&D operations, ACP and DOE environmental restoration activitiesUDS, United States Enriehment Corporation, ACP and DOE. Consumption of power and water and use of sewage treatment facilities would be less than capacity. Cumulative land use in the regions surrounding the GDPs would not change substantially from existing land uses and would remain largely rural. Potential cumulative effects from management of hazardous materials would be minimal. U:OSDUF6 Operations, the LicenseeUnited States Enriehment Corporation, ACP and DOE environmental restoration activities follow the samesimilar regulatory requirements, perform required inspections, and manage hazardous materials in a manner that is protective of the environment. Wastes would continue to be generated by DUF6 operations, GDP D&D operations, ACP and DOE environmental restoration activities.UDS, the LicenseeUnited States Enriehment Corporation, ACP and DOE. USEC The Licensee would manage its wastes with the intent to store on-site only as a last resort. Any future LL W waste that will be generated by the ACP will be placed in an existing facility or a new facility that will be permitted according to NRC and EPA regulations.DOE is decreasing its permitted waste storage management areas in order to provide inereased space available for USE.Cs advaeeed technology eeatrifl:tge program. United States 2-22

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Enriehment Corporation would eontinue to utilize DOE storage faeilities for hazardous and mixed wastes that it must keep on site for more than 90 days but would eontinue to store its LLVl independent of DOE, and ship as much of its 'Naste as possible off site for reeycle, treatmeRt, and disposal. Cumulative effects to air resources would be minimal and would include continuing emissions from DUF6 operations, GDP D&D operations, ACP and DOE environmental restoration activities.UDS, the LicenseeUnited States Eerichment Corporation, l\\CP and DOE activities at the Piketon DOE reservation and PGDP, as well as from surrounding industries. Ambient air quality in the regions surrounding both plants, which has historically been good, is expected to remain good because no large population increases, or industrial growth or changes would occur in the reg10n. The potential Committed Effective Dose Equivalent to the maximally exposed off-site individual from all DUF6 operations, GDP D&D operations, ACP and DOE environmental restoration activities UDS, the LiceeseeUnited States ERrichment Corporation, ACP and DOE releases would be approximately 0.6 mrem/yr. Radionuclides and chemical contaminants have been found in sediments and surface waters in the areas around the GDPs. However, none have been found in significant concentrations.:. There will be no introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. Under the Proposed Action, existing and new facilities used for uranium enrichment would be used for the commercial centrifuge uranium enrichment project. Noise levels would be consistent with previous uranium enrichment activities. Ground disturbance and exterior renovation would be temporary. Refurbishment of existing facilities and construction of new uranium enrichment process buildings would be consistent with existing site architectural features. Neither these changes nor the new construction would significantly alter the existing visual characteristics of the site or environs. No disproportionately high minority or low-income populations were identified that would require further analysis of environmental justice concerns. Accordingly, USEC the Licensee has concluded that no disproportionately high minority or low-income populations. An activity that will increase over time at the DOE reservation is the construction and operation of~ the UDS conversion facility that will-convert~ tails (deleted uranium hexafluoride, DUF6) into a more stable oxide form for off the DOE reservation disposal (DOE 2004, DOE 2004c). The UDS time period considered in DOE's EIS iwas a construction period of approximately two years, an operational period of 18 years, and a 3-year period for the D&D of the conversion facility. CurreRt plaes call for coestructioe to begie ie the summer of 2004This facility was constructed in 2008 and is currently in operation. The UDS coestruction sehedule does not overlap the ACP constructioe sehedule. Impacts of construction and operations of the -l:IDS--DUF6 facility would be small, as would be the cumulative impacts from UDS, Ueited States Enriehment Corporation, ACP and DOE operations (DOE 2004, DOE 2004c). 2-23

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The cumulative radiological exposure from all pathways on the DOE reservation to the off the DOE reservation population would be well below the maximum NRC dose limit of 100 mrem/yr committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) and below the 40 CFR Part 190 limit of 25 mrem for whole body or organ, 75 mrem/yr for thyroid, as well as the 40 CFR 61 Subpart H limit of 10 mrem/yr CEDE. The total number of shipments of DUF6, non-DUF6, triuranium octaoxide (lhO&), and crushed heel cylinders, form OOS-DUF6 operations is estimated to be 12,300 truck shipments and 6,800 rail shipments over the 18 year operating life of the facility. Radiological impacts resulting from transportation of all materials under both modes would be small, as would be the cumulative impacts (DOE 2004, DOE 2004c). No cumulative noise impacts are expected for the alternatives considered. Noise energy dissipates within a short distance from the source. No significant cumulative impacts on ecology for the alternatives considered are anticipated. No tree removal that could provide habitat for the Indiana bat is anticipated for the Proposed Action~ this federally endangered species is not known to utilize this area, Figure 3.5.4-1. No significant impacts are expected due to the Proposed Action, or from the cumulative impacts from 00-Sthe DUF6 facility. the LicenseeUA:ited States Bfirichment Corporation, ACP, and DOE operations. Section 3113(a) of the USEC Privatization Act [42 USC 2297h-ll(a)] requires DOE to accept low-level waste (LLW), including depleted uranium that has been determined to be LLW, for disposal upon the request and reimbursement of costs by a NRC uranium facility licensee. DOE has stated in its EIS that depleted uranium transferred under this provision of law in the future, would most likely be in the form ofDUF6, thus adding to the inventory of material needing conversion at a DUF6 conversion facility. DOE in its EIS stated that, "...it is reasonable to assume that the conversion facilities could be operated longer than specified in the current plans in order to convert this material" (DOE 2004). DOE has initiated accelerated cleanup of the GCEP facilities at Portsmouth for use by USEC in the de¥elopment of an advanced uranil.H'H enrichment process. On December 4, 2002, USEC announced that it would construct its demonstration ceHtrifuge uranium enrichment test facility at the Portsmouth site. This announcement followed a June 17, 2002, agreement betvt1een DOE and USEC in whioh USEC will deploy an ad>1anced centrifuge uranium enrichment pl(}A:t by 2010 2011. PORTS was selected in December 2002 as the location for the Lead Cascade Demonstration Facility and it v,as announced in January 2004 that PORTS will be the location for full deployment of the American Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant (DOE 2004a). D&D of the PORTS GDP will be a very large project (potentially the largest cleanup in Ohio) that will require a significant funding commitment from DOE (estimated at $1-2 billion) and create thousands of jobs over several years. Those facilities not intended for reindustrialization, reuse, continued operation, remediation, or long-term stewardship will be demolished. In August of 2010 the DOE awarded the contract for complete D&D of the former Portsmouth GDP (excluding facilities supporting other reservation entities, including the Lead Cascade and ACP). D&D of multiple facilities started in 2010 and at present remains ongoing 2-24

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288).It is anticipated that the majority of GDP facilities,.,,m undergo D&D, and that the waste generated would be disposed of in a potential on site waste disposal facilit)* (DOE 2004a). DOE obtained approval from the OEPA in June 2015 to construct an Onsite Solid Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF) in the northeast portion of the DOE reservation. The record of decision for site-wide waste disposition was concurred with by Ohio EPA in June 2015. Approval of Phase I and Phase II of the remedial design/remedial action work plan for the OSWDF was obtained in September and October 2015, respectively, which allowed initial site construction activities such as tree clearing, fencing, utility installation, and installation of erosion and sediment controls, retention ponds for surface water runoff, and installation of office trailers. These activities began after approval of the work plan and are continuing (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288).DOE is evaluating the costs, benefits, and concerns regarding construction ofa potential on site waste disposal facility at PORTS. \\llaste generated during plant D&D activities as *.veil as waste resulting from deferred environmental remediation activities could be placed in such a facility. D&D and deferred remediation activities at PORTS are expected to generate approximately 3 million yd:l of vt1aste. l\\.pproval of a disposal facility at PORTS would require in depth discussions with both local and state stakeholders and regulatory agencies. The facility

.vould be approved, constructed, operated, and closed in accordance with regulatory requirements (DOE 2004a).

In addition to uranium enrichment at the PG9-P DOE reservation, DOE will-have both a uranium conversion mission and an environmental cleanup mission. The uranium conversion involves the construction and operation of a facility that will convert DUF6 to less reactive oxides~ which was constructed in 2008-1-+. The contract to construct the facility was awarded to UD8. Construction began in July 2004. Currently it is expected that the con*1ersion facility construction will take approximately two years and will operate for approximately 25 years and a three year period for the D&D of the facility (DOE 2004b). YF-i. production will ultimately cease at PGDP after the Proposed,i\\ction becomes operational, resulting in reduced emissions and resource use (i.e., water, electricity and Freon). D&D of those facilities currently leased to United States Enrichment Corporation *.vill begin once the GDP ceases operation (DOE 2004b). The total cumulative impacts and effects of the Proposed Action are expected to be insignificant when compared to the federal, state, and local regulatory limits and the positive cumulative effects of job opportunities and revenues generated by the Proposed Action. 2.4 Comparison of the Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Impacts A comparison of the predicted environmental impacts of the ACP, the No Action Alternative and the PGDP siting alternative for each of the environmental areas of interest, is provided in Table 2.4-1. 2-25

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 2.4-1 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts Environmental Area Proposed Action PGDP Siting Alternative No Action Alternative Assessed Land Use No significant impact; No significant impact; new No impact refurbishment and new building building construction will be construction will be consistent with consistent with historical uranium historical uranium enrichment enrichment operations; a operations significant amount of land will be utilized reducing future use options to industrial/commercial Transportation No significant impact No significant impact No impact Geology, Soils, and No significant impact; low No Significant impact; low No impact Seismicity probability of minor seismic event; probability of major seismic temporary soil profile distwbance event; temporary soil profile during construction activities. distwbance during construction activities Water Resources No significant impact; precautions No significant impact; No impact taken to avoid accidental discharges precautions would be taken to avoid accidental dischalges Ecological Resources No significant impact; No significant impact; No impact refurbishment and construction of construction of new facilities new facilities would not impact would not impact natural habitat natural habitat for any rare, for any rare, threatened, or threatened, or endangered species or endangered species or designated designated wetlands wetlands Air Quality Non-Radiological No significant impact; slight No significant impact; slight No impact increase in HF concentrations increase in HF concentrations (1.96 x 10-3 µg/m3); slight increase (2.27 x 10-3 µg/m3); slight in emissions from standby electrical increase in emissions from generators standby electrical generators Radiological No significant impact; slight No significant impact; slight No impact increase in dose to the Maximum increase in dose to the MEI (0.9 Exposed Individual (MEI) mrem/yr) (0.55 mrem/yr) Noise No significant impact; no increase No significant impact; no No impact in noise level outside facilities increase in noise level outside facilities 2-26

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 2.4-1 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts (Continued) Environmental Area Aueued Historic and Cultural Resources Visual/Scenic Resources Socioeconomic Environmental Justice Public and Occupational Health Waste Management Proposed Action No significant impact; new facilities, with like architectural characteristics, would be constructed in previously distutbed area No significant impact; new facilities would be constructed architecturally consistent with existing strategic structures PGDP Siting Alternative No significant impact; new facilities, with like architectural characteristics, would be constructed in previously distmbed area No significant impact; new facilities would be constructed architecturally consistent with existing strategic structures No significant impact; no impact to No significant impact; no impact housing nor increase in population; to housing nor increase in slight increase in tax revelllle population; slight increase in tax No impact No significant impact; slight increase in HF emissions (l.2xl0-4 µg/m3); slight increase in dose to the MEI (0.023 mrem/yr); no significant increase in recordable injury/illness rates No significant impact; slight increase in waste generation revelllle No impact No significant impact; slight increase in HF emissions (3. lxI0-5 µg/m3); slight increase in dose to the MEI (0.0066 mrem/yr) ); no significant increase in recordable i.Itjury/illness rates No significant impact; slight increase in waste generation 2-27 No Action Alternative No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Blank Page 2-24

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020

3.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the various resources present on and around the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, as a baseline for the incremental impacts of the Proposed Action and analyzed alternatives. It also provides a general description of the physical, biological, aesthetic, and cultural features of the site and adjacent areas. This chapter summarizes information gathered from site surveys, literature, and other publicly available sources for each resource area pertinent to the proposed project. The scope of the discussion varies by resource to ensure that relevant issues are included. Descriptions of the existing environment provide a basis for understanding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on the environment. 3.1 Land Use This section discusses the existing land use and visual resources of the proposed project at and around the DOE reservation. The DOE reservation is located at latitude 39°00'30" north and longitude 83°00'00" west measured at the center of the DOE reservation on approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) in Pike County, Ohio, one of the state's lesser populated counties. The DOE reservation is located between Chillicothe and Portsmouth, Ohio, approximately 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio. Figure 1.0.1-1 shows the regional area surrounding the DOE reservation. The general location is an area of steep to gently rolling hills, with average elevations of 37 m (120 ft) above the Scioto River valley. The steep hills characteristically are forested, while the rolling hills provide marginal farmland. With the exception of the Scioto River and its floodplain, the floodplains and valleys are narrow and are occupied by small farms. There are no unrelated industrial, commercial, institutional, or residential structures within the DOE reservation. DOE leases facilities on site to the Ohio National Guard. The Ohio NatioAal Guard does not store v,,eapoAs on site. There are no other military installations located near the DOE rese1vation. Roadways within the fenced limited access or protected area of the DOE reservation consist of several miles of paved surface. Several paved roads branch out from the DOE reservation to the Perimeter Road that surrounds the limited access area. The west access to the DOE reservation extends from U.S. 23 to the Perimeter Road. Shyville Road connects U.S. 32/124 to the north side of the DOE reservation. Other access roads connect to secondary county roads. Access to the DOE reservation is controlled at the west access point. Other access poiAts to the DOE reservation are secured. Rail and roadways are available for cylinder movements to the DOE reservation. The rail spur enters the DOE reservation from the north and branches to several areas inside the limited access area. In addition, cylinders are transported around the DOE reservation using a variety of devices, including cylinder carriers, stackers, rail cars, forklifts, trucks, and wagons. Rivers or major streams do not traverse the DOE reservation area. However, Big Beaver 3-1

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Creek and Little Beaver Creek cross the northern edge of the DOE reservation. Runoff water flows from the area through three streams: Little Beaver Creek, Big Run Creek, and a drainage ditch to the Scioto River (Figure 3.1-1 ). 3-2

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 ~ N I I., r I ..__J I I J,r--__,,.. ~ to, TLE & I I ~'11,c~-----r--... ( CREEK ,.J I I / SUN FIS}{ C REEi( DOE .() 0 I 0 P-038-RO RESERVATION u;; BOUNDARY LINE GERMANY UN UTHWEST) C, ~\\)

,,...J--........

C-,t Figure 3.1-1 Locations of Lakes, Rivers, and Creeks in the Vicinity of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 3-3

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The DOE reservation consists of approximately 1,497 ha (3,700 acres) with approximately a 526 ha (1300 acre) central area surrounded by the Perimeter Road. The DOE reservation land outside the Perimeter Road is used for a variety of purposes, including a water treatment plant; lagoons for the process wastewater treatment plant; sanitary and inert landfills; and open and forested buffer areas (Figure 1.0.1-2). Most of the improvements are located within the fenced core area. The core area is largely devoid of trees, with grass and paved roadways dominating the open space. The ACP is situated on approximately 81 ha (200 acres) of the southwest quadrant of the Controlled Access Area. The GDP occupies apprrncimately 223 ha (550 acres) of the remaining Controlled Access Are&:- Usage of Lake White State Park (Figure 3.1-1), located approximately 9.7 km (6 mi) north of the DOE reservation, is occasionally heavy and concentrated on the 37 ha (92 acres) of land closest to the lake. Most of the land surrounding the lake is privately owned. The 136 ha (337-acre) Lake White offers recreations (i.e., boating, fishing, water skiing, and swimming). There are 10 non-electric campsites for primitive overnight camping (ODNR 2004). Land within five miles of the DOE reservation is used primarily for farms, forests, and urban or suburban residences (see Table 3.1-1). About 10,291 ha (25,430 acres) of farmland, including cropland, wooded lot, and pasture, lie within five miles of the DOE reservation. The cropland is located mostly on or adjacent to the Scioto River flood plain and is farmed extensively, particularly with grain crops. The hillsides and terraces are used for cattle pasture. Both beef and dairy cattle are raised in the area. Other farm animals such as horses, pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens are raised to a lesser extent. Commercial woodlands (excluding sapling-seedling stands) are predominantly saw-timber stands. Pole-timber stands are of lesser proportion. Lands within or adjacent to the Scioto River floodplain are farmed intensively, particularly with grain crops such as corn and wheat. Other products such as potatoes, cabbage, and fruits are also cultivated in the area. Table 3.1-1 Percentage of Different Land Uses in the Region of Influence in 20000020 Total Develol!ed, Develo)!ed, Pasture County Hectares Lower Higher Wooded and Other" (Acres) Intensitv Intensitv Farmland Jackson 109,126 6.02% 0.67% 64.73% 22.87% 5.72% (269.656) Pike 114,917 4.79% 1.01% 64.15% 24.47% 5.57% (283.967) Ross 179,348 5.45% 1.00% 46.95% 43.56% 1.49% (443.179) Scioto 159,755 5.88% 1.20% 70.10% 18.68% 4.14% <394.764) 3-4

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant County Total HeetaFes (AeFes} Jackson lQ9,l26 (2e9,a~e) Pi-Ire 114,91+ (283,96+) Ress 1+9,348 (443,119) Seteto 1~9,+~§ (394,164) a Other: Water/barren/scrub. Source: 0D0D, 20020. UFban 2% 3/4 3/4

2%

Proposed Change 2020 Agfieulttwe Wooded Other' ~ 60% e1/4 ~ W3/4t e1/4 48!1/4 4-Wo e1/4 2-1-3/4 n% SJ1/4 Approximately 9,874 ha (24,400 acres) of forest lie within 8 km (5 mi) of the reservation. This includes some commercial woodlands and a very small portion of Brush Creek State Forest (USEC 02). Three major forest types represent the vegetation of Pike County, all of them second growth: mixed mesophytic (upland mixed hardwoods), mixed oak (oak-hickory), and bottomland hardwoods. The upland hardwood areas include green ash, northern red oak, tulip poplar, red maple, and several additional species. The oak-hickory areas include white oak, northern red oak, post oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, and various other associated species. The bottomland hardwoods include sycamore, sugar maple, flowering dogwood, and American beech as well as less important species. Several areas that once were cleared have been allowed to lie fallow and are now in various stages of succession. Several small plantations of pines are located on the DOE reservation, and several small wetland areas have developed around holding ponds and in ditch lines. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is protected by the FPPA of 1981 which seeks "... to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses... " (7 USC 420l[b]). According to the Soil Survey of Pike County, Ohio, (USDA 1990) 22 soil types occur within the DOE reservation property boundary with the predominant soil type being Omulga Silt Loam. These soils are well drained and have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown friable silt loam. The underlying soils are approximately 54 in. thick and are distinguished by their yellowish-brown, mottled, and friable characteristics. Most of the area within the active portion of the site is classified as Urban land-Omulga complex with a 0- to 6-percent slope that consists of Urban land soils and a deep, nearly level to gently sloping, and moderately well-drained Omulga soil in preglacial valleys. The Urban land is covered by roads, parking lots, buildings, and railroads and is so obscure or altered that soil identification is not feasible (USEC 2004b ). 3-5

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 USEC The Licensee consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in preparation of the Lead Cascade ER (USEC 2004b) and this ER. The Pike County Soil Conservation Service determined that, according to the Soil Survey for Pike County, Ohio, soils within and adjacent to the confines of the DOE reservation are of marginal significance and not prime farmland (i.e., of low fertility as defined by the Soil Survey for Pike County, Ohio). A copy of the letter is provided in Appendix B of this ER. Approximately 190 facilities are looated within the DOE reservation as well as the utility structures on the site. Ia general, the X 100 through X 700 series of buildings are direetly related to the GDP. Most of the buildings in this series are located within the 223 ha (5 50 eere) fenoed area. The X 200 and X 300 series are the production buildings and related infrastructure facilities. Most of the buildings and infrastructure included ie the X 1000 through X 7000 series of buildings are looated within the 81 ha (200 aore) GCEP eKpansioe area. The facilities coetaining the administrati¥e activities iaclude the faoilities numbered in the X 100 series for the GDP and X 1000 series for the more receet construction. The facilities house such activities as administrative offices, engieeering; cafeteria, medical services, security, and fire statioe. The GDP transitioned to Cold Shutdown status on October 1, 2005. TheD&D of the GDP process buildings and associated facilities is proceeding in accordance with the April 13, 2010 Director's Final Findings and Orders for Removal Action and Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and Remedial Design and Remedial Action (which includes the July 16, 2012 Modification thereto) (DFF&O). The DFF&O is a legal agreement between OEPA and DOE that governs the process for D&D of the buildings/structures that are no longer in use on the DOE reservation. The United States Enrichment Corporation maintains the GDP in cold standby. Cold standby invol¥ed placing those portions of the GDP needed for 3 million S'>IU per year production capacity in a non operational condition and performing surveillance and maintenance actir.,rities necessary to retain the ability to resume operations after a set of restart actit.1ities are conducted. Feed and withdrawal systems are also in standby. A cadre of cascade operators, utilities operators, and maintenance staff are retained and form the basis for future restart, operations, and maintenance. The power load to support Cold Sta.adby is about 15 M\\V. The current total DOE reservation load is 25 to 35 MW depending on the summer-winter variation. The total DOE reservation capacity is approximately 2-;000100 MW with full redundancy for the ACP and GDP. In June 2004, DOE issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio site that described the preferred alternative for managing depleted UF6 (DOE 2004). DOE issued a Record of Decision on July 20, 2004 (DOE 2004c). DOE has proposed to construct aed operate a cmwersion facility at the DOE resef\\'ation in Piketon, Ohio. The facility 1Nould con11ert DOE's inventory of depleted UF& now located at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio, and the ETTP in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to a more stable chemical form acceptable for transportation, beneficial use/reuse, and/or disposal. A related objective is to pror.,ride cylinder surveillance and maintenance of the DOE in*;entory of depleted UF-,, low enriohment UF,, natural assay UFe, and empty and heel cylinders in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. 3-6

~----------- Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The proposed site, in general, is bounded on the *.vest side by C Road; on the north and east side by a truck access road; and on the east and south side by a dirt construction road. Excluded from this area are builcliags X 616, X 106B, aad X 106C (see Figure 3.1 2). The time period eoasidered is a eonstruotioa period of 2 years, an operatioRal period of 18 years, and a 3 year period for D&D of the facility. The eoa*lersion facility started coRstruction in July of 2004 aoo vlill be complete in about two years. This assessmeRt is based OH the coaeeptual eoR¥ersion facility design proposed by the selected coatractor, UD8, LLC (DOE 2004). Construction of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility was completed in 2008, and it has been in operation since 20 I 0, managed by Mid-America Conversion Services, LLC (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). The facility was designed and constructed to convert DOE's inventozy of DUF6 produced by the former Portsmouth GDP to a more stable uranium oxide form for reuse, storage, and/or transportation and disposition. The process also produces hydrogen fluoride (HF) as a conversion co-product. Excess HF is neutralized to calcium fluoride (CaF2). The DUF6 area consists of cylinder storage yards, a process building, support buildings, a warehouse and an administration building (DUF6-X-G-DSA-00). There are no land areas devoted to major uses according to U.S. Geological Survey land use categories affected by the Proposed Action. There are no special land-use classifications affected by the Proposed Action. The DOE reservation is consistent with a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) visual rating of Class IV, which allows major modifications of the existing character oflandscapes. There are no mineral resources, unusual animals, facilities, agricultural practices; game harvests or food processing operations or commercial fishing affected by the Proposed Action. 3-7

w I 00 It 0

soo 1000 SCALE INFOIIIIAlllN COHTAIIEO Wl1HII EXPORT DOES NOT CONTAIN

-*--~ NOIIWAlllN l-1-B-1, R1 1:500 F"EET \\\\ J7 URANIUM DISP SITION SERVICES FOOT p INT LJ EXISTING ACP FACILITIES NEW ACP FACILITIES M UDS AREA 25.4 ACRES

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.2 Transportation The DOE reservation is served by two of southern Ohio's major highway systems: U.S. Route 23 and Ohio State Route (SR) 32/124. Access is by the Main Access Road, a four-lane interchange with U.S. Route 23. This access route accommodates the plant traffic flow. The DOE reservation is 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the intersection of the U.S. Route 23 and Ohio SR 32/124 interchange. Both routes are four lanes with U.S. Route 23 traversing north-south and Ohio SR 32 traversing east-west. Approximately 113 km (70 mi) north of the plant, U.S. Route 23 intersects 1-270, 1-70, and 1-71. Trucks also may access 1-64 approximately 32.2 km (20 mi) southeast of Portsmouth. SR 32/124/50 runs 298 km (185 mi) east-west from Cincinnati and through Piketon to Parkersburg, West Virginia. To the west, SR 32 provides access to Cincinnati's three interstate highways, 1-71, 1-74, and 1-75. To the east, SR 32/50 is linked with 1-77. As noted in 2019, the average daily traffic for U.S. Route 23 at the location immediately north of the DOE reservation (#466) was 15,425 and the average daily traffic for Ohio State Routes 32/124 at the location west of Route 23 {#1266) was 15,007 (ODOT, 2020)U.S. Route 23 has an average daily traffic volume of 13,990 vehicles. Ohio SR 32/124 has ari average daily *1olume of 7,420 vehicles (traffic in both directions is included in these values). U.S. Route 23 is at 60§. percent of design capacity with Ohio SR 32/124 at ~40 percent of design capacity. The Ohio Department of Trarisportation (ODOT) supplied this data from a 1999 traffic study. Load limits on these routes are controlled by the Ohio Revised Code at 38,556 kilograms (kgs) (85,000 pounds [lb~]) gross vehicle weight. Special overload permitting is available (DOE 2001b). The DOE reservation road system is in generally good condition due to road repaving projects. Except during shift changes, traffic levels on the site access roads and Perimeter Road are low. Peak traffic flows occur at shift changes and the principal traffic areas during peak morning/afternoon traffic are at locations where parking lot access roads meet the Perimeter Road. The DOE reservation has 112 parking lots varying in capacity from approximately W-2,600 to 800 vehicles56,000 square feet. Total parking capacity is fer-approximately 4,400 vehicles234,000 square feet. A security fence maintains controlled access to the DOE reservation. There is no land use restricting transportation corridors described within this ER. 3.2.1 Rail The site has rail access, and several track configurations are possible within the site. The Norfolk Southern rail line is connected to the CSX Transportation Inc. line via a rail spur entering the northern portion of the site. The on-site system is currently used infrequently. The GCEP area is also connected to the existing rail configuration. Track in the vicinity of Piketon, Ohio, allows a maximum speed of 96.6 kilometers per hour (km/h) (60 miles per hour [mph]). The CSX Transportation Inc. line also provides access to other rail carriers. 3-9

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.2.2 Water The site can be served by barge transportation via the Ohio River at the ports of Wheelersburg, Portsmouth, and New Boston. The Portsmouth barge terminal bulk materials handling facility is available for bulk materials and heavy unit loads. Heavy unit loading is by mobile crane or barge-mounted crane at an open air terminal. The Ohio River provides barge access to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River or the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Travel time to New Orleans is 14 to 16 days; to St. Louis, 7 to 9 days; and to Pittsburgh, 3 to 4 days. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains the Ohio River at a minimum channel width of 243.8 m (800 ft) and a depth of2.74 m (9 ft). 3.2.3 Air The Pike County Airport is located approximately 11 miles north-northeast of the DOE reservation. No commercial flights or cargo shipping occurs there. The 4.900-ft runway supports single and twin-engine planes and small jets. The Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport. located approximately 15 miles southeast of the DOE reservation, provides only light plane service {Class 1 airport). The Chillicothe-Ross County Airport is located approximately 35 miles north-northeast of the DOE reservation. The nearest commercial airports are John Glenn Columbus International Airport in Columbus, Ohio, approximately 75 miles north, Rickenbacker Airport near Columbus. Ohio approximately 60 miles away. the Tri-State Airport in Huntington. West Virginia approximately 65 miles southeast, and the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, approximately 100 miles west.Commercial air transportation is pro>.*ided through the Greater Cincinnati International Airport (approximately 100 miles west), the Port Columbus International Airport (apprmdmately 75 miles north), or the Tri State Airport (approximately 55 miles south east). The Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, serving pri*,ate and charter aircraft, is located approximately 15 miles southeast near Minford, Ohio, and the Pike C01::mty Airport, located just north of Waverly, is a small facility for pri11ate planes. 3.3 Geology and Soils Physical characteristics of the DOE reservation have been characterized in several previous investigations. This section discusses the geology and soils found on the DOE reservation and areas in the vicinity based on these investigations. Site soils were impacted by past releases of hazardous and radioactive materials. DOE is not on the CERCLA National Priority List of sites requiring cleanup, but is regulated under the provisions of CERCLA by a U.S. EPA Administrative Consent Order. The U.S. EPA Administrative Consent Order, issued on September 29, 1989 (amended in 1994 and 1997), and Consent Decree with the State of Ohio, issued on August 29, 1989, requires the investigation and cleanup of surface water and air releases, groundwater contamination plumes, and solid waste management units at the DOE reservationPORTS. The EPA and OEPA have chosen to oversee environmental remediation activities at DOE under RCRA Corrective Action Program (CAP) instead of the CERCLA Program. The DOE reservationPORTS was divided into quadrants based on groundwater flow 3-10

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 patterns to facilitate the expedient cleanup of contaminated sites in accordance with RCRA Corrective Action and Closure requirements (Figure 3.4.1-1). The Environmental Restoration Program at the DOE reservationPORTS addresses requirements of the Ohio Consent Decree and the U.S. EPA Administrative Consent Order (DOE 2002a, 2003a, DOE 2004a). Section 103 of CERCLA requires notification to the National Response Center if hazardous substances are released to the environment in amounts greater than or equal to the reportable quantity. Reportable quantities are listed in the Act and vary depending on the type of hazardous substances released. The DOE Portsmouth has not Durieg 2003, the United States Enrichmeet Corporation had noany reportable quantity releases of hazardous substances subject to Section 103, Notification Requirements since 2014. On April 1~, 20014, loose and fallen piping insulation was discovered on the west side of the X-333 Process Building. The piping insulation contained friable asbestos. Based on analysis of the piping insulation, approximately 6 lbs of friable asbestos was released. The National Response Center and Ohio EPA were notified of the release. The piping insulation was recovered and the affected area was cleaned. No additional actions were necessary. at appro*imately 0315 hours, outside the X 326 Building at the intersection of 15th Street and Pike Avenue, an 18 inch expansion joint on an exterior steam supply line ruptured during routine utilities operations. The asbestos insulating the expansion joint vras released to the ground resulting in a h02ardous material spill of approximately one to two pounds of asbestos. The material was cleaned up by asbestos trained personnel, double bagged, labeled as asbestos and containeri2ed for proper disposal. United States Enrichment Corporation Ohio EPA Spill 10#0404 66 15 12 National Response Center Report #718893 H02ardous Substaeee Release 30 Day Follow Up Report mailed to OEPA on May 7, 2004 3.3.1 Site Geology The DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio is located within the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province. The uppermost rock units in this region were deposited in an inland sea during the Paleozoic Era. At the end of the Paleozoic Era (230 million years ago), the region was uplifted and gently folded to form a shallow basin that trends parallel to the Appalachian Mountains. Subsequent erosion of the uplifted sediments produced the deeply dissected, knobby terrain that characterizes the region today. The geologic structure of the area is simple and dominated by relatively flat-lying Paleozoic shale and sandstones that are overlain by Pleistocene fluvial and lacustrine deposits. The near-surface geologic materials that influence the hydrologic system of the site consist of several bedrock formations and unconsolidated deposits. The bedrock formations include (from oldest to youngest) Bedford Shale, Berea Sandstone, Sunbury Shale, and Cuyahoga Shale. These formations dip gently to the east-southeast with no known geologic faults that are located in the area; however, joints and fractures are present in the bedrock formations. The unconsolidated deposits that overlie bedrock are comprised of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, and are classified as the Minford (Clay and Silt members) and the Gallia (Sand and Gravel 3-11

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 members) of the Teays formation. Prior to the Pleistocene glaciation, the Teays River and its tributaries were the dominant drainage system in Ohio. The preglacial Portsmouth River, a tributary of the Teays, flowed north across the plant site, cutting down through the Cuyahoga Shale and into the Sunbury Shale and Berea Sandstone, and deposited fluvial silt, sand, and gravel of the Gallia member of the Teays Formation. Figure 3.3.1-1 illustrates the location of the Ancient Newark (Modem Scioto) and Teays Valleys in the DOE reservation vicinity. Figure 3.3.1-2 illustrates the geologic cross sections in the vicinity of the DOE reservation. 3.3.1.1 Bedrock Geology Bedrock consisting of elastic sedimentary rocks underlies the unconsolidated sediments beneath the site. The geologic structure of the area is simple, with the bedrock (Cuyahoga Shale, Sunbury Shale, Berea Sandstone, and Bedford Shale) dipping gently to the east-southeast. No known geologic faults are located in the area; however, joints and fractures are present in the bedrock formations. Bedford Shale is the lowest stratigraphic unit encountered during environmental investigative activities at the site. Bedford Shale is composed of thinly bedded shale with interbeds and laminations of grey, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone. The typical depth to the top of this formation at the site is 21 to 30 m (70 to 100 ft) below ground surface (bgs). However, Bedford Shale outcrops are present in deeply incised streams and valleys within the DOE reservation. The Bedford Shale averages 31 m (100 ft) in thickness. Berea Sandstone is a light grey, thickly bedded, fine-grained sandstone with thin shale laminations. The top 3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft) consists of a massive sandstone bed with few joints or shale laminae. The Berea Sandstone averages 11 m (35 ft) in thickness; however, the lower 3 m (10 ft) has numerous shale laminations and is similar to the underlying Bedford Shale. This gradational contact does not allow for a precise determination of the thickness of the Berea Sandstone. Regionally, Berea Sandstone contains naturally occurring hydrocarbons (oil and gas) in quantities sufficient for commercial production. Generally, within Perimeter Road, the Berea Sandstone is the uppermost bedrock unit beneath the western portion of the site but is overlain by the Sunbury Shale to the east. 3-12

Errvironmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 39°15 39° 39°45 0 I 0 CP-042-RO 83°15 g30 PORTSMOUTH KENTUCKY S KM 83°15 g30 83°45 L ____ r SCIOTO COUNTY 1 ~ 12 , u Ii ~ ~ I r*J 9!1 AREATOWNS ~ AREA OF OLACIATION D NEW ARK RIVER VALLEY ~ TEAYSANDPORTSMOUfH ~ RIVER VALLEY 83°45 Figure 3.3.1-1 Location of Ancient Newark River 3-13 39°15 39° 39°45

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant 900 EO E5,000 El0,000 I I DOE RESERVATION COORDINATES 800 700 Proposed Change 2020 EARLY PORTSMOUTH RIVER VALLEY I 274.32 43.84 fii' 600 ~ 182.88 !:l "' as 5 i::: ~ ~ 500 400 300 91.44 200 60.96 GEEENFIELD DOLOMlTE 100 30.48 CP-043-R0 Figure 3.3.1-2 Geologic Cross Section Sunbury Shale is a black, very carbonaceous shale. The Sunbury Shale is 6 m (20 ft) thick beneath much of the site, but thins westward as a result of erosion by the ancient Portsmouth River, and is absent on the western half of the site. The Sunbury Shale also is absent in the drainage of Little Beaver Creek downstream of the X-61 lA Lime Sludge Lagoons and the southern portion of Big Run Creek, where it has been removed by erosion. The Sunbury Shale underlies the unconsolidated Gallia beneath the most industrialized eastern portion of the site and underlies the Cuyahoga Shale outside of the Portsmouth River Valley. Cuyahoga Shale, the youngest and uppermost bedrock unit at the site, forms the hills surrounding the site. The Cuyahoga Shale has been eroded from most of the active portion of the site. It consists of grey, thinly bedded shale with scattered lenses of fine-grained sandstone and regionally reaches a thickness of approximately 49 m (160 ft). 3.3.1.2 Unconsolidated Deposits Unconsolidated deposits in the vicinity of the site fill the ancient Portsmouth River Valley to depths of approximately 9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft). The unconsolidated deposits are divided into two members of the Teays Formation, the Minford Clay and Silt and the Gallia Sand and Gravel. Minford is the uppermost stratigraphic unit beneath the site. The Minford averages 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) in thickness and grades from predominantly silt and very fine sand at its base to 3-14 ,ii' ~ <ll ffi ~ as 5 i::: ~ ~ ,-l ~

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 clay near the surface. The upper clay unit averages 5 m (16 ft) in thickness, is reddish-brown, plastic, and silty, and contains traces of sand and fine gravel in some locations. These thicknesses vary greatly as a result of construction cutting and filling operations, as discussed in the next paragraph. The lower silt unit averages 2 m (7 ft) in thickness, is yellow-brown and semiplastic, and contains varying amounts of clay and very fine sand. During the initial grading of the site, the deposits within the Perimeter Road were reworked to a depth as great as 6 m (20 ft) by preconstruction cut and fill activity. In most cases, the fill is indistinguishable from the undisturbed Minford. The combination of construction activities, bedrock topography, and erosion by modern streams has influenced the areal extent and thickness of the Minford on the DOE reservation. Gallia Sand and Gravel were deposited prior to Pleistocene glaciation when the Portsmouth River meandered north through the valley currently occupied by the site. The Gallia averages 0.9 to 1 m (3 to 4 ft) in thickness at the site and is characterized by poorly sorted sand and gravel with silt and clay. Channel migration and variation in depositional environments that occurred during deposition of the Gallia resulted in the variable thickness of the Gallia. The areas of thickest accumulation of Gallia may represent the former channel location and include areas under the southern end of the X-330 building and near the X-701B. Gallia deposits beneath the site are generally absent above an approximate elevation of 198 m (650 ft) above mean sea level (amsl). As a result of similar depositional environments and source material, deposits from modern streams at the site often are visually indistinguishable from Gallia deposits. The modern surface-water drainage also has eroded the unconsolidated sediments and resulted in locally thin or absent Gallia and Minford. 3.3.2 Soils Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is protected by the FPP A which seeks "... to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses... " (7 USC 4201 [b ]). According to the Soil Survey of Pike County, Ohio, (USDA 1990) 22 soil types occur within the DOE reservation property boundary with the predominant soil type being Omulga Silt Loam. These soils are well drained and have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown friable silt loam. The underlying soils are approximately 54 in. thick and are distinguished by their yellowish-brown, mottled, and friable characteristics. Most of the area within the active portion of the site is classified as Urban land-Omulga complex with a 0- to 6-percent slope that consists of Urban land soils and a deep, nearly level, gently sloping, and moderately well-drained Omulga soil in preglacial valleys. The Urban land is covered by roads, parking lots, buildings, and railroads and is so obscure or altered that soil identification is not feasible (USEC 2004b ). USEC The Licensee consulted with the DOA NRCS in preparation of this ER. The Pike County Soil Conservation Service determined that, according to the Soil Survey for Pike County, Ohio, soils within and adjacent to the confines of the DOE reservation are of marginal significance 3-15

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 and not prime farmland (i.e., oflow fertility as defined by the Soil Survey for Pike County, Ohio). A copy of the letter is provided in Appendix B of this ER Results of the 2017 soil sampling program collected from 15 locations are detailed in Table 3.3.2-1. Table 3.3.2-1 Soil Sampling Monitoring Results Soil Samolin2 Monitorin2 Results Analvte HiQhest Concentration Plutonium-239/240 0.0152 oCi/g Uranium 2.86 oCi/g Uranium-233/234 1.12 oCi/g Uranium-235/236 0.0494 oCi/g Uranium-238 0.953 oCi/g Source: FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288. Plutonium-239/240 was detected in soil at six of the 15 ambient air monitorin stations including the background monitoring station (A37). These detections were most likely present due to atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing. The detections were 0.0152 pCi/g or less, which is much less than the soil screening level for plutonium-239/240 - 3. 78 pCi/g. These screening levels were calculated using the exposure assumptions in the Methods for Conducting Human Health Risk Assessments and Risk Evaluations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (DOE 2017e). Uranium, uranium-233/234, uranium-235/236, and/or uranium-238 were detected in soil at each of the sampling locations. Uranium and uranium isotopes are usually detected at similar levels at all the soil sampling locations, including the background location (A37), which suggests that the uranium detected in these samples is due to naturally-occurring uranium. A dose assessment was completed based on the detections of radionuclides in soil at the off-site ambient air station with the concentrations of radionuclides that could cause the highest dose to a member of the public (station A12, east of PORTS on McCorkle Road). Detections of uranium-233/234 (0.513 pCi/g), uranium-235/236 (0.0285 pCi/g), and uranium-238 (0.435 pCi/g) result in a calculated dose of 0.018 mrem/year, which is well below the DOE limit of 100 mrem/year in DOE Order 458.1 (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Complete details on the most current DOE reservation soil sampling results are detailed in FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288. In 2002, soil samples in the proeess area at 15 DOE sampling loeations and 46 United States Enriehment Corporation sampling loeations indieated the follo1t*ling measurable ranges of eontamination (see Table 3.3.2 1). Table 3.3.2 1 Soil Sampling Monitoring Results 3-16

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Seuree: DOE 2003a USEC 2004d The 15 DOE sampling locations vrere also analyzed for ~Am;-~Nfr,~Pu, Emd ~ No deteetable concentrations of any of these nuclides \\\\'ere found. The higher results for detected parameters were found inside the security fence, with one sampling location accounting for all of the maximum values. Alla.lytical results for elpha eetivity, beta ectivity, and total urEmium from the eKtemal samples collected near the DOE reservation are net-appFe£-i-ably different from results of samples collected 16. l km (10 mi) from the DOE reservation. wTc was detected at 1.5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) or less at tv10 external soil sampling locations and-at less than 0.5 pCi/g at-four other external soil sampling locations (DOE 2003a, USEC 2004d). For sediment samples, 99To is usually detected in locations dmwstream from the DOE reservation. In 2002, 99To was detected in one of both of the samples ooUeoted from upstream end downstream sampling locations on Little Beaver Creek and Big Beaver Creek. 99'.fc was detected in one of both downstr~am samples collected from Big R~n Creek e.nd the Scioto River. 99Tc was also detected in the sedimeRt samples collected from the X 2230N and X 2230M discharges Emd one of the background sampling locations 16.l km (10 mi) from the DOB reservation. Me.ny of the detections of 99:fc were at or close to the detection limit for the analytical method. In general, ltwels of ~o are consistent 1Nith results from 1999 through 2001, v.rith the eKoeption of RM 8 (DOE 2003a). ---Results of the 2017 soil sampling program collected from 18 locations are detailed in Table 3.3.2-2. 3-17

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 a e.. - e 1ment amo1m2 omtorme esu ts T bl 3 3 2 2 S d" s r M R 2003 2017 Technicium-99 13.4 uCi/g: 3.62 oCi/g Neotunium-23 7 None detected 0.00975 oCi/Q: Plutonium-239/240 None detected 0.00961 oCi/g Uranium 5.44 ug/g 4.57 ug/g Uranium-233/234 7.01 uCi/g: 6.88 oCi/g Uranium-23 5/236 0.358 uCi/Q: 0.291 oCi/EZ Uranium-238 1.80 uCi/Q 1.52 oCi/g Source: FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288 A dose assessment was completed based on the detections of radionuclides in sediment at the off-site sediment sampling location with the detections of radionuclides that could cause the highest dose to a member of the public (RM-7 on Little Beaver Creek). Detections oftechnetium-99 (3.42 pCi/g), uranium-233/234 (2.55 pCi/g), uranium-235/236 (0.128 pCi/g), and uranium-238 (0. 774 pCi/g) result in a calculated dose of 0.019 mrem/year, which is well below the DOE standard of 100 mrem/year in DOE Order 458.1 (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Complete details on the most current DOE reservation soil sampling results are detailed in FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288. In 2002, sediment samples from each sampling location were a:na:l=d for uranium isotopes ~U,'U,'U, and 'U) and transura:nic radionuclides (~Am, Np,'Pu, and ~Pu)-: Total uranium and uranium isotope concentrations *Nere consistent with results from 1999 through 2001, with the e;1rneption of RM 8. Transuranics *Nere not detected, with the exception of RM 8 (DOE 2003a). In the faU of 2002, ~~Np,~Pu and uranium *.vere detected at ele11ated levels at sampling location RM 8 in Little Beaver Creek. This location is dmvnstream of the discharge from the X 230L North Holding Pond and upstream of the DOE reservation boundary (DOE 2003a). When RM 8 was re sampled ia spring of 2003, coaceatrations had returned to aormal levels (USEC 2004d). The measured conceatrations are depicted in Table 3.3.2 2. Table 3.3.2 2 Sediment 8ompling Monitoring Results Sediment Sampling Monitoring Results Fall 2002 ~ ~ Uranium mm4u 'u 'U Souroe: DOE 2003a USEC 2004d 3.3.3 Seismicity 68-9 0:--262 0.0701 ~ J1..:9 :M +:6 3-18 Spring 2003 -H-:-4 Not detected Not detected ~ -7:-0-l ~ :-80

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) dominates the seismicity of the Midwest region, which includes the DOE reservation. The four great shocks in the years 1811-1812 were each large enough to produce intensities capable of causing minor damage in the southern Ohio region (e.g., broken windows, fallen plaster). Three historical earthquakes not associated with the NMSZ were found capable of producing this level of damage. All but one of the epicenters of these seismic events are at least 100 km (62 mi) from the DOE reservation (U.S. Geologic Survey [USGS] 1997). The closest known fault to the DOE reservation, the Kentucky River fault zone, is within 40 km (25 mi) of the site, and no seismicity has been recorded on it. Soil testing for the GCEP facility indicated that the potential for earthquake-induced soil liquefaction is relatively low. The potential for soil-structure interaction (ground-motion magnification) is also slight. Pike County is not one of the potential jurisdictions listed in Appendix VI of 40 CFR Part 264 for which compliance with seismic standards must be demonstrated (USEC 2003a). There are no major geologic fault structures in the vicinity of the site~ and there ha*;e been no historieal earthquake epicenters within less than 25 miles from the site. However, two small earthquakes have occurred since 2014. On December 21, 2014, a magnitude 2.0 event occurred in Union Township of Pike County, approximately four miles southeast of the DOE reservation. On March 20, 2019, a magnitude 2.1 event occurred in Minford, Scioto County, approximately 12 miles southeast of the DOE reservation (OGS, 2020). However, ti here have been eight other earthquake epicenters within 50 miles of the DOE reservation. The maximum event had an epicenter intensity of over IV on the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale. These events were at the site with intensities between IV and I. The maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) of a MM level IV event roughly corresponds to 0.02 gravity. Historically, the maximum earthquake-induced PGA experienced at the site was in 1955 and had a value of only 0.005 gravity. In the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report developed for GCEP during the 1980s, the DOE documented the results of studies of the historic seismicity of the area surrounding the DOE reservation. Data was developed on probable seismic activity and the intensity levels were converted into acceleration values. The maximum earthquake was defined as one with a mean recurrence interval of 1,000 years. This corresponds to an earthquake with a horizontal PGA of 0.15 gravity. Thus, the DOE considered that it was sufficient to design the structures, systems, and components necessary for safety to withstand this level earthquake without leading to undue risk to the health and safety of workers, the public or the environment. That is, the 1,000-year return earthquake was the design basis earthquake (DBE) for GCEP. 3.3.3.1 Surface Faulting The geologic setting of the site suggests there is a low probability of faulting within five miles of the site. No data from the three extensive geotechnical studies at the site (rock shearing, sharp changes in strata dip, and flexures) are characteristic of faulted rocks. The available data indicates the site bedrock is not faulted. 3.3.3.2 Liquefaction Potential 3-19

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Three extensive exploration and laboratory testing programs (data sets) have been completed at the site, with the total number of approximately 960 exploratory borings. These borings and accompanying laboratory test results were used at the site to analyze the response of soil to ground shaking caused by earthquakes. The laboratory classification tests, shear strength tests, and consolidation test data were used to define the general engineering characteristics of the soil. Analysis of the data indicates that there is a low potential for soil liquefaction at the site, even in the unlikely event of the occurrence of an earthquake of magnitude 5.25 with a maximum PGA of 0.15 gravity. Consequently, settlement in the site area due to liquefaction is unlikely. 3.4 Water Resources This section discusses surface water and groundwater resources present in the vicinity of theACP. 3.4.1 Groundwater The groundwater system at the site includes two water-bearing units (the bedrock Berea Sandstone and the unconsolidated Gallia) and two aquitards (the Sunbury Shale and the unconsolidated Minford). The basal portion of the Minford is generally grouped with the Gallia to form the uppermost and primary aquifer at the facility. The hydraulic properties of these units and groundwater flow at the site have been well defined (USEC 2004b ). Groundwater recharge and discharge areas include both natural and manmade recharge and discharge areas. Natural recharge to the groundwater flow system at the site comes from precipitation. Land use and the presence of thick upper Minford Clay and the Sunbury Shale effectively reduce recharge to underlying units. Recharge to the Minford and Gallia is reduced because a large percentage of the land is paved or covered by buildings. However, recharge to the Berea Sandstone from the overlying Gallia is increased as a result of the absence of the Sunbury Shale beneath the site (USEC 2004b ). For the purposes of DOE environmental restoration activities previously performed at the DOE reservation, the site was divided into four quadrants based on groundwater flow patterns. Each quadrant roughly corresponds to a distinct groundwater flow cell within the primary water-bearing unit beneath the site (DOE 2004a) (Figure 3.4.1-1). Quadrant I - includes the southern portion of the DOE reservation and contains X-749 and X-120 area Quadrant Il - includes the eastern portion of the DOE reservation and contains X-701B Holding Pond Quadrant Ill - includes the western portion of the DOE reservation and contains X-616 and X-740 area 3-20

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Quadrant IV-includes the northern portion of the DOE reservation and contains X-61 lA and X-735 area Groundwater at the site discharges primarily to surface streams. Groundwater in the eastern and northern portions of the facility discharges to the East and North Drainage Ditches and to the Little Beaver Creek. In the southern portion of the ACP, groundwater discharges to the Big Run Creek and to the unnamed Southwest drainage ditch. Along the western boundary of the site, the West Drainage Ditch serves as a local discharge area for the geologic units (USEC 2004b ). Groundwater recharge and discharge areas at the site are also affected by manmade features including the storm sewer system, the sanitary sewer system, the RCW system, water lines, and building sumps. Groundwater is used as a domestic, municipal, and industrial water supply in the vicinity of the DOE reservation. Most municipal and industrial water supplies in Pike County are developed from the Scioto River Valley buried aquifer. Domestic water supplies are obtained from either unconsolidated deposits in preglacial valleys, major tributaries to the Scioto River Valley, or from fractured bedrock encountered during drilling. Groundwater in the Berea sandstone and Gallia sand formations that underlie the DOE reservation is not used as a domestic, municipal, or industrial water supply (USEC 2004b ). 3-21

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 u I I 1: 0 +r DIii I I f 3-22

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 I ,--- J I I I I I I I I I ' I L, I 7 I I, o I I I I :* ___ f r- / 1-1 I I I Jf I[ i u ........ lllif:+~ll---- 1 L ~;\\ - -----...I ~F="~~r---f _ __,;;;i,,,- I r:: H 0 ,-..J I I I I __ ____J II! f Figure 3.4.1-1 U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Quadrants 3-23

E11Vironmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The DOE reservation obtains its water from water supply well fields, which are next to the Scioto River south of Piketon. The wells tap the Scioto River Valley buried aquifer. The maximum potential water production for the DOE reservation water system is 49,000 oubio meters (m-~) daily (1320 million gallons per day [MGD]) for the entire site, including USEC Licensee activities. Current water usage is less than 19,000 m~daily (Sapproximately 2.5 MGD) (USEC 2004b). In 2~ 11, a combined annual total of approximately 107,500 m~/yr (28.435.5 million gallons per year [gal/yr]) of contaminated groundwater was treated through DOE Groundwater Treatment Facilities. Approximately 545 liter~(--14421 gallons [Gal]) of trichloroethylene (TCE) were removed from the groundwater. All processed water was discharged through NPDES outfalls before exiting the site (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288DOE 2003a). Five NPDES outfalls discharge groundwater that is recovered and treated for volatile organic compounds (VOC). These outfalls discharged the follo*t1t1ing maximum concentrations: trichloroethene (11 micrograms per liter [µWL]), and 1,2 trans dichloroethene (<l µwL) in 2002. The maximum trichloroethene ooneentration occurred twice at the X 623 GrnuHdwater Treatment Facility. The maximum rulm.*,able concentration at this outfrul is 10 µwb. Other than this, aAll groundwater discharges were within NPDES discharge limitations in 2017 (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). (DOE 2003a). Eleven groundwater-monitoring areas exist at the DOE reservation. Three of these areas are within close proximity to the buildings proposed to house the ACP facilities: the X-749/X-120/Peter Kiewit Landfill Monitoring Area (located just to the south of the ACP in Quadrant I), the Quadrant I Groundwater Investigative Area/X-749A Classified Materials Disposal Facility (located just to the east of the ACP), and the former X-616 Chromium Sludge Surface Impoundments Area in Quadrant III (located just to the north of the ACP) (DOE 2003a, DOE 2004a, FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Groundwater contamination plumes are associated with the X-749/X-120/Peter Kiewit Landfill Monitoring Area and the Quadrant I Groundwater Investigative Area/X-749A Classified Materials Disposal Facility. The most extensive and most concentrated constituent is trichloroethene. Other contaminants associated with these two plumes include xylene, vinyl chloride, cobalt, and radionuclides (uranium, 99Tc, and 241 Am). Remediation activities are being performed through the RCRA CAP (DOE 2003a, DOE 2004a, FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Chromium was a contaminant at the former X-616 Chromium Sludge Surface Impoundments in Quadrant III. These impoundments have undergone remediation and are currently monitored with 16 monitoring wells. Chromium has exceeded the preliminary remediation goal in one well, and Nickel has been exceeded in two wells. Low levels of volatile organic compounds have also been detected. This area is being addressed through the RCRA CAP (DOE 2003a, DOE 2004a, FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). 3.4.2 Surface Water The Piketon DOE reservation occupies an upland area bordered on the east and west by ridges of low-lying hills that have been deeply eroded by present and past drainage features. The site elevation is 200 m (670 ft) amsl, which is about 40 m (113 ft) above the normal stage of the 3-24

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Scioto River. A network of tributaries of the Scioto River drains both groundwater and surface water at the site. Figure 3.1-1 shows the surface water features in the vicinity of the DOE reservation. 3-25

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The Scioto River, approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) west of the DOE reservation, is a tributary of the Ohio River. The two rivers converge approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of the DOE reservation. Lake White is the only other body of water nearby, located approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of the site. Pike Water, Inc. draws water from wells for a rural public water supply. The Village of Piketon also utilizes wells along the Scioto River for public water supply (OEPA 2004). There are no known public or private water supply draws from the Scioto River (USEC 02). The site is drained by several small tributaries of the Scioto River, which flow south to the Ohio River. Sources of surface-water drainage include storm-water runoff, groundwater discharge, and effiuent from plant processes. The largest stream on the site is Little Beaver Creek, which drains the northern and northwestern portions of the site before discharging into Big Beaver Creek. Little Beaver Creek is a small, high-gradient, unmodified stream that receives the majority ofits flow from East, North, and Northeast Holding Ponds discharges and Ditches (USEC 2004b) (see Figures 3.1-1 and 3.4.2-1). Big Run Creek, located in the southeastern portion of the site, receives outfall effiuent from the South Holding Pond at the headwaters of the stream. Big Run Creek continues southwest from the DOE property line until it discharges into the Scioto River, approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) from the site. The substrates are predominated by gravel and cobble, and the channel has remained unmodified. In addition, two ditches drain the western and southwestern portions of the site. Their flow is usually low to intermittent. These two drainage ditches continue west and, ultimately, discharge into the Scioto River. Storm water discharges from the proposed ACP will exit via the unnamed southwest drainage ditch or limited resource water, a designation that indicates a lower-quality habitat. The fauna in limited resource water has been substantially degraded, and recovery is realistically precluded due to natural background conditions or irretrievable human-induced conditions. The Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) has determined the unnamed southwest drainage ditch to be a "small drainage way maintenance" (i.e., a highly modified surface-water drainage way that does not possess the stream morphology and habitat characteristics necessary to support any other aquatic life habitat use). The unnamed southwest drainage ditch is considered suitable for irrigation and livestock watering without treatment, commercial and industrial uses with or without treatment, and partial body contact recreational activities (such as wading) with minimal threat to public health as a result of water quality (USEC 2004b). The West Ditch is located on the southwest side of the DOE reservation and receives a minimal amount of storm-water runoff from the proposed site for the ACP. The unnamed southwest drainage ditch and the West Ditch eventually drain into the Scioto River, (Figure 3.4.2-2) a warm-water habitat capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of warm-water organisms. The water is considered suitable for irrigation and livestock watering without treatment, commercial and industrial uses with or without treatment, and recreational activities (such as swimming, canoeing, and scuba diving) with minimal threat to public health as a result of water quality. These two drainage ditches continue west and, ultimately, discharge into the Scioto River, which is approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) west of the DOE reservation. There are no known public or private water supply draws from the drainage ditches except for agriculture. 3-26

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3-27

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant URERJ,",,2-1 Rl Proposed Change 2020 INFORIIATION CONTAINED WITHIN DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION ~ ..... J 0 2000 ft 0 600 m Figure 3.4.2-1 Ponds and Lagoons on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 3-28

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant 1**-- I a.. I

E w

~ < z < a:: 0 ~ vi .Id ~ I I I=

)

0 -+J' 11 Proposed Change 2020 ~ I I h ~, q 1 I; II b I I I r I ' l r-**-**_J I I / J ~ i / . _ _ _J I I 3-29

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 1-- a.. <C ~ w 0 <C

z:

<C e::: Cl w I-(/) o'd ~ _j e _j <C ~ LL e: I- ~ => 0 __,====:;:=~~---,__~-~-- ------ ii 7 .,...I l,.eJ ' I I i _____ _J C ' I Figure 3.4.2-2 U.S. Department of Energy Reservation Drainage Map 3-30 -+ I

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 At the Higby gauging station, which is approximately 13 miles north of the DOE reservation, the minimum river flow measured from 1930 to 200+~ was 244 cubic feet per second (cfs) on October 23, 1930 (USEC 02). The consecutive seven-day minimum discharge record of 255 cfs occurred during October 19-25, 1930 (USEC 02). The consecutive seven-day minimum discharge record of 255 cfs occurred during October 19-25, 1930 (USEC 02, USGS, 2020). The volumetric river flow is much greater than the DOE reservation's water use. DOE has ~ several discharge points, or outfalls, through which water is discharged from the site. In support of ACP operations, the GDP NPDES permits have been modified to transfer ownership of certain discharge points. The Licensee now has two outfalls that discharge directly to surface water and one outfall that discharges to the Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth (FBP) X-6619 Sewage Treatment Plant before leaving site through FBP Outfall 003 to the Scioto River. FBP has eight outfalls and nine internal outfalls. Mid-America Conversion Services (MCS) has one external outfall and one internal outfall Three DOE outfalls discharge directly to sutfaee water (i.e., unnamed streams that flow to the Scioto River aad Little Beaver Creek); three outfalls discharge to the GDP X 6619 STP before lea*t'ing the site through the Uaited States Enrichmeat Corporation Outfall 003 to the Scioto River; aad Pn'O outfalls discharge to holdiag poads. The URited States Enrichment Corporatioa is responsible for 11 NPDES outfalls at the DOE reservatioa. Eight NPDES outfalls discharge directly to surface water (i.e., \\1/est Drainage Ditch to Scioto River, Little Beaver Creek, Big Ri.m Creek, and the Scioto Ri¥er); two outfalls discharge to the GDP X 6619 STP (Outfall 003); and one outfall discharges to the X 230K South Holding Pond (Outfall 002) (USEC 2004b) (see Figures 3.4.2-3 through 3.4.2-9). The domestic wastewater, generated by the offices and change houses, is treated locally at the GDP X-6619 STP, which is currently operating within its NPDES permit. As per the United States Enrichment CorporationFBP's NPDES permit, the design capacity of the STP is 2,275,032 liters per day (L/d) (601,000 gallons per day [GPO]) (USEC 2004b). As per NPDES monitoring over the pre¥ious yearin 2017, it is currently operating at 2-53-7 percent of that capacity. The following maximum contaminant concentrations were measured in the STP discharge in 2002-17: alpha aetiYity (46 pCi/g), beta acti¥ity (335 pCi/g), 99Tc (2&8-55.7 pCi/g), and uranium (-1-82.2-61 µgig). In 2017, the overall Licensee's NPDES compliance rate was 100 percent. Discharge limitations at the Licensee's NPDES monitoring locations were not exceeded. In 2017, the overall FBP's NPDES compliance rate was 99 percent, with further details being provided in FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288. In 2017, the surface water sampling program collected samples from 14 upstream and downstream locations on the Scioto River, Little Beaver Creek and Big Beaver Creek. Samples were collected semiannually and analyzed for transuranic radionuclides (americium-241, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239/240), technetium-99, uranium, and uranium isotopes (uranium-233/234, uranium-235/236, and uranium-238). No transuranic radionuclides were detected in the local surface water samples collected during 2017. Maximum detections of technetium-99 and uranium isoto es in local surface water sam les are listed in Table 3.4.2-1. 3-31

CP- 047-RO Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 SC~L£ : 1" = 50' 0 100 114 mt l&ic::J~l!!!!ll::::===ll--11::::::== COHlOUA tnEIYM..

2.0 RE1 QIP
CORRUGAnD IIIETN.. PF£ CONTOUR M/\\P X-2230M Figure 3.4.2-3 Contour Map of X-2230M 3-32

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020

- =-c::a1tO===:,IO ___

,,tOO:::::::;:=:::::::i'"" FUT COHl'OUI: llf1BNM.

2.0 ntr QI'
COll'lUCA1m METAL PIPE CONTOUR MI\\ P X-22JIJN CP-0i5-R0 Figure 3.4.2-4 Contour Map of X-2230N 3-33

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 SCALE : 1" = io- ~ll!!!!r::::11!!1~-0==:::::::m:l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*~=====:i~ nu CONTOUR INTEWAL

t.O FOOT CONTOUR MAP X-23()15 CP-O il-Figure 3.4.2-5 Contour Map of X-230J5 3-34

CP--050-RO Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 SCAU: 1 l"*SO' IO-==-==-==:::::::l"°*--'°":::::::=:::::::ilSO f'UT CONT0UR lffDNM.

2.0 fttr CONTOUR MAP X-230L Figure 3.4.2-6 Contour Map of X-230L 3-35

1 Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 SCALE : 1*

20'
-=,_,=-o===-"--**t====i* P<Er COHrOUR WIUML. -

LO PED' CONTOUR MI\\P X-2JQJ6 Figure 3.4.2-7 Contour Map of X-230J6 3-36

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 .. lllc::-=::a"i:::::===:::i"°---**E==:::::::1'*,m Figure 3.4.2-8 Contour Map of X-230J7 3-37 OCllfflUllffi:JMIL-Z.OflU cw,

0QltRUQIJED WEtN.. Pft CONTOUR Mt\\P X-23017

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant SCAl£ : 1*

200'

;,J CDf1':Ull'"'11W&.*.Z.lnET QI'

CCIMUGA11D _,.AL l¥t Figure 3.4.2-9 Contour Map of X-230K 3-38 Proposed Change 2020 CONffiUR Ml'tP X-230K

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.4.2-1 Surface Water Sampling Monitoring Results Derived Radionuclide Maximum Location Concentration Percentage of activitI (nCi/L} Standard DCS ffiCS) Technetium-99 9.12 RW-13 44,000 0.02% Uranium-233/23 4.72 RW-7 680 0.7% Uranium-0.214 RW-7 720 0.03% 235/236 Uranium-238 1.02 RW-7 750 0.1% Source: FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288 In 2017, the following maximum levels of uranium and uranium isotopes were detected in surface water at the 9YFeDOE cylinder storage yards: uranium at 44.5 µg/L, Alpha Activity at 303 pCi/L, and Beta Activity at 232 µCi/L. Results for the MGSDUF6 cylinder storage yards were: uranium at 13 µg/L, Alpha Activity at 7.1 pCi/L, and Beta Activity at 10.5 µCi/L. Surface water from the cylinder storage yards flows to FBP NPDES outfalls prior to discharge from the site; therefore, releases of radionuclides from the cylinder yards are monitored by sampling conducted at the FBP outfalls. Com lete details on the most current DOE reservation soil sam lin results are detailed in FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288. In 2002, the following le,*els of uranium and uranium isotopes *.vere detected in surface water at the DOE oylinder storage yards: uranium at 10 µg/L, ~ u at 2.0 pCi/L, mu at 0.16 pCi/L, and mu at 3.5 pCi/L. The following were not detected in any of the samples collected in 2002: 'u, w.Am,~ Np,m Pu, and ~ Pu:-99:fc v,as detected in two samples at a maximum concentration of 14 pCi/L (DOE 2002b). Similar concentrations of radionuclides were detected at upstream and downstream locations on the Scioto R1*,er a.ad Big BeB:Yer Creek. Beta aetivity, 99Tc, a.ad uranium were detected more frequently a.ad at higher concentrations at the downstream sampling locations on Little Bea1t*er Creek than at the upstream sampling location. Uranium was detected more frequently at one of the downstream sampling locations on Big Run Creek thaa at the upstream sampling location. Detections of uranium at the dovmstream sampling locations, *,*thile different from concentrations detected upstream, are similar to detections of naturally occurring uranium at the upstream Scioto River sampling location and may be attributable to natural variation (DOE 2003a). Samples collected at the surface water monitoring points in 2002 were analy2ed for total uranium, isotopic uranium (~-U,m.u,'u, and mUt,-99Tc and selected traasuranic radionuclides ~Am,m:Np,-mPu, and ~~Am was detected in only one sample, from Big Bea,*er Creek, at a concentration of 0.184 pCi/L. 99Tc was detected in t't\\'O samples from different locations in Little Beaver Creek at a maximum concentration of 22 pCi/L, which is below the DOE derived concentration guide of 100,000 pCi/L for 99:fc in ingested water. U *.vas detected at a maximum concentration of 2. 4 pCiP&.J. 'U *.vas detected at a maximum concentration of 0.095 pCi/L. ~u was detected at a maximum concentration of 0.51 pCi/L. Each of these detections is well below the DOE derived concentration guide for the respective uranium isotope in drinking water (500 pCi/L for ~u and 600 pCi/L for 'U a.ad mu). Neither 'U nor any 3-39

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 ef.tfle-ether trallStl-fani-ss-E~N--f},mP-H,~Ptl)-were-<leteeted-in any 2002 surface water samples ~ 3.4.3 Floodplains Floodplains consist of mostly level land along rivers and streams that may be submerged by floodwaters. The Flood Insurance Rate Map provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency indicates that the 100-year floodplain extends on both sides of Little Beaver Creek upstream from the confluence with Big Beaver Creek to the rail spur located near the X-230J9 North Environmental Sampling Station. The 100-yr floodplain ranges on either side of Little Beaver Creek from 15 to 61 m (50 to 200 ft) roughly following the 175 m (575 ft) amsl topographic contour and is confined to the bed contour of Little Beaver Creek. Flooding is not a problem for the majority of the site. The highest recorded flood level of the Scioto River in the vicinity of the site was 174 m (570 ft) amsl (January 1913), which is approximately 30 m (100 ft) below the level of most site facilities. No portion of the floodplain for Big Beaver Creek is located within the DOE reservation boundary (see Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2). The average annual discharge at the Higby station for the period of record (1930-2001) is 4,721 cfs, while the maximum discharge of record is 177,000 cfs observed on January 23, 1937. The average annual mean flow has ranged from 4,7256 to 8,090 cfs from 2001 to 2018, similar to the historical flow rates (USGS, 2020). The stage of the 1937 flood was 593.7 ft amsl. The historical flood stage of the Scioto River next to the site was estimated to be 556.7 ft amsl by using the estimate that the Scioto River drops approximately 37 ft between the Higby gauging station (river mile [RM] 55.5) and the mouth of Big Beaver Creek (RM 27.5). Elevations for floods (with three recurrence intervals) at the confluence of the Scioto River and Big Beaver Creek (RM 27.5), estimated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, are compared with the site nominal grade elevation in Table 3.4.3-1. 3-40

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant 4 ( r-1 I I I I I I L_, __.-J I I I I 663.2 662.8 665.2 674.1 680 685.9 670.3 670.5 669 669.6 671 664.8 I 660 650 \\ LJ 670 668.2 Proposed Change 2020 685.2 680 I ~ 690 ~ I I I I I I 680 I r----.J I I I r-' 660 I L _______ ~_--------- 7.. ________ _ F - _....1 r J INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN 0 1000 ft 1-\\ __ __,.,1 0 300m URER 3.4.3-1 R1 3-41 DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION ~v...._, ____ *...____ ELEVATIONS EXPRESSED IN FEET

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 I I l I I I I I I I I I .,J 665.2 674.1 x-1725 670.5 680 685.9 670 657.2 666-671 \\_ \\ LJ x-745C-2 670 668.2 ~ 690 a:: a: w ~

i; ii.

w

a.

680 ( I I I ~ ) I I I f, I sao I r---J I I I ,.J 660 f - I etSO L - - - - - - - -,_ DOE RESERVATION BOUNDARY 1.iNE- - _r--J r J 1000 ft I / / 0 I 0 I .lOOm ELEVATIONS EXPRESSED IN FEET Figure 3.4.3-1 Elevations of Roadways 3-42

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.4.3-2 Topographic Map of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 3-43

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Since the site has a nominal elevation of about 670 ft amsl and about 113 ft above the historical flood level for the Scioto River in the area, the site has not been affected by flooding of the Scioto River (see Figure 3.4.3-1). Table 3.4.3-1 Comparison of Flood Elevations of the Scioto River Nnear the DOE Reservation wWith the Nominal Grade Elevation Elevation Recurrence interval Meters Feet 50-year flood a 170.1 558.0 100-year flood a 170.8 560.3 500-year flood a 172.4 565.7 Historical written record b 169.7 556.7 Probable Maximum flood c 174.0 571.0 Nominal grade 204.2 670.0 a Estimates by U.S. Anny Coips of Engineers (Reference 5). b Estimated from records at Higby, 181.0 m (593.7 ft) (Reference 5), assuming the flood level at the mouth of Big Beaver Creek is 11.3 m (37 ft) lower. 0 Probable Maximum Flood calculated flow is greater than that of the estimated 10,000-year flood discharge, (USEC 02). 3.4.4 Wetlands Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil condition. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The area of the Proposed ;\\ction is either inside existing concrete floor buildings, paved, or previously disturbed industrial property, consequently there are no environmentally sensitive areas within the immediate project area. The DOE reservation contains 41 jurisdictional and four non-jurisdictional wetlands totaling 14 ha (34 acres) (DOE 2003a). The majority of the wetlands are associated with wet fields, areas of previous disturbance, drainage ditches, or wet areas along roads and railway tracks. 3.5 Ecological Resources This section describes the ecological resources, including terrestrial resources, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and rare, threatened, and endangered species within the DOE reservation. The area selected for the ACP includes existing facilities formerly used for GCEP, and located in a fully developed industrial area. As such, the grounds are maintained as lawns and support various species of grasses and herbaceous divots. 3-44

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.5.1 Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Much of the DOE reservation and the area in the vicinity of the site has experienced extensive disturbance. There is very little in terms of vegetative communities within the Perimeter Road on the site. The area of the Proposed Action is either inside existing concrete floor buildings, paved, or previously disturbed industrial property. The vegetation of surrounding Pike County consists primarily of hardwood forests. Field crops constitute the other major category of vegetative cover in the surrounding area. The 10 terrestrial habitat types identified at the site are as follows (DOE 1997): Old field areas - Early successional stage of disturbed areas dominated by tall weeds, shade-intolerant trees, and shrubs. Scrub thicket - Later successional stage covering old-field areas dominated by dense thickets of small trees. Managed grassland - Open areas actively maintained and dominated by grasses. Upland mixed hardwood forest - Mesic to dry upland areas dominated by black walnut, black locust, honey locust, black cherry, and persimmon. Pine forest - Advanced successional stage following scrub thicket. The over story is dominated by Virginia pine. Pine plantation - Nearly pure stands of Virginia pine. Oak-hickory forest - Well-drained upland soils. White oak and shagbark hickory are the *most dominant of the oaks and hickories. Riparian forest - Periodically flooded, low areas associated with streams. Dominated by cottonwood, sycamore, willows, silver maple, and black walnut. Beech-maple forest - Undisturbed areas dominated by American beech and sugar maple. Maple forest - Dominated by sugar maple and other shade-tolerant species. The habitat types covering the largest area on the DOE reservation are managed grassland, oak hickory forest, and upland mixed hardwood forest. 3-45

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.5.2 Wildlife The area of the Proposed Action is either inside existing concrete floor buildings, paved, or previously disturbed industrial property; consequently, there is no animal habitat within the immediate project area. There are 49 mammals that have ranges which include the DOE reservation. The most abundant mammals include the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), and opossum (Didelphis virginiania) (DOE 1996c, DOE 2001b). There has been 114 bird species, including year-round residents, winter residents, and migratory species, observed on the site (DOE 1996c, DOE 2001b). The species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), water birds such as the mallard (Anas platrynchos) and wood duck (Aix sponsa), game birds such as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), non-game birds such as nuthatches (Sitta sp.), and wrens (Troglodytes sp.). There has been 11 species of reptiles and six species of amphibians observed on the site. The most common reptiles include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), and northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor). The most common species of amphibians are the American toad (Bufo americanus) and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathusjuscus) (DOE 1996c, DOE 2001b). Common insects include cicadases, aphids, bees, wasps, ants, flies, beetles, and grasshoppers (DOE 1996c, DOE 2001b). 3.5.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas The area of the Proposed Action is either inside existing concrete floor buildings, paved, or previously disturbed industrial areas; consequently, there are no environmentally sensitive areas within the immediate project area. However, there are several environmentally sensitive areas within the DOE reservation. These include areas where Ohio endangered or threatened species have been observed, and wetland areas and the floodplain of the Little Beaver Creek. There are no exceptional water streams within the plant. Discussions of these areas were presented in previous NEPA documents (DOE 2001, 2001c, 2002b). Northwest Tributary. This area is a stream corridor considered a sensitive area because it represents the best habitat for Indiana bats (Myotis soda/is) at the DOE reservation. X-611A Former Lime Sludge Lagoons. The area near the sludge lagoons is sensitive because of the presence of Virginia meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica) adjacent to the base of the dike. Wetlands also are present in this area. X-61 lB Sludge Lagoon. The area near the sludge lagoon should be considered a sensitive area due to the possible presence of Carolina yellow-eyed grass (Xyris difformis), which was observed at the site in 1994 (DOE 1996b). Confirmation of this species is necessary, however, as the original identification occurred while the plant was not flowering. 3-46

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 There are no state or national parks, conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, or other areas of recreational, ecological, scenic, or aesthetic importance within the immediate vicinity of the DOE reservation (DOE 2001 b ). 3.5.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species The potential occurrence of Federal and State rare, threatened, and endangered species in the project vicinity was determined by consulting with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, and previously prepared environmental assessments. A comprehensive evaluation of the site for the presence of Federal and State listed rare, threatened, and endangered species was conducted in 1996 (DOE 1997). USEC The Licensee consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in order to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, in preparation of the Lead Cascade ER (USEC 2004b ). In their letter dated August 30, 2002, the USFWS indicated that the Indiana bat (Myotis soda/is) is the only Federally listed endangered animal species whose home range includes the DOE reservation. USEC The Licensee also consulted the ODNR. The ODNR's letter, dated December 1, 2003, indicated that there are no records of rare or endangered species in the project area, including a one-mile radius at the DOE reservation in Piketon, Ohio (USEC 2003a). The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) has been identified as present by the USFWS 20-25 mi from the DOE reservation (USEC 2003a) and should not be affected by the Proposed Action. Surveys were conducted for the presence of the Indiana bat in 1994 and 1996. As part of the 1996 survey, potential summer habitat for the Indiana bat was identified in the Northwest Tributary stream corridor, the Little Beaver Creek stream corridor, and along a logging road in a wooded area te-on the east of the X 100 buildiHgside of reservation (see Figure 3.5.4-1). Mist netting was conducted in those areas in June and again in August. Although 14 bats representing four common species were captured during the August survey, no Indiana bats were collected. The survey also indicated that most of the site has poor summer habitat for Indiana bats. The few woodlands that occur on the property are small, isolated, and not of sufficient maturity to provide good habitat. The exception is an area of deciduous sugar maple forest along the Northwest Tributary stream corridor, where several of the bats were collected (DOE 1997). The Northwest Tributary begins just southwest of the Don Marquis substation and flows approximately 3,200 ft before leaving the DOE property prior to its confluence with Little Beaver Creek. Historically, isolated sightings and observations of threatened, endangered, or special interest species have occurred at the plant. An Ohio endangered raptor, the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), has been observed at the site in the past. One Ohio endangered plant species, Carolina yellow-eyed grass (Xyris dif.formis), and a potentially threatened species, Virginia meadow beauty (Rhexia virginica), have been found at the site (DOE 1996c). The rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), listed as an Ohio special interest species, has been observed at the site (DOE 1996c). The OEPA determined that two State endangered fish species and four State threatened fish species near the site are restricted to the Scioto River. In support of this determination, the Biological and Water Quali"ty Study of Little Beaver Creek and Big Beaver Creek-1997, an OEPA study, indicated that Little Beaver Creek and Big Beaver Creek do not provide sufficient habitat to support threatened or endangered species. Little Beaver Creek runs through the eastern end of the site and is a tributary to Big Beaver Creek, which flows into the Scioto River (OEPA 1998). 3-47

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.5.4-1 Suitable Indiana Bat Habitats on the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 3.5.5 Background Radiological and Chemical Characteristics (Environmental Media) This section describes the naturally occurring sources of radiation and the levels of exposure that may be found at the Piketon DOE reservation. 3.5.5.1 Average Population Dose Humans are exposed to ionizing radiation from many sources in the environment. Radioactivity from elements in the environment is present in soil, rocks, and in living organisms. A major proportion of natural background radiation comes from naturally occurring airborne sources, such as radon. These natural radiation sources contribute approximately 300 mrem/yr total to the dose that everyone receives annually. Manmade sources also contribute to the average amount of dose a member of the U.S. population receives. These sources include x-rays for medical purposes (39 mrem/yr), nuclear medicine (14 mrem/yr), and consumer products (5 to 13 mrem/yr) (e.g., smoke detectors). A 3-48

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 person living in the United States receives a current average dose of about 360 mrem/yr (NRC 2002). 3.5.5.2 Site-Specific Background Chemical and Radiological Characteristics The environmental radiological monitoring program at the DOE reservation collects samples of air, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, and biota in order to detect releases of radionuclides and calculate the estimated maximum radiation dose. Information on the most recent environmental radiological program monitoring results can be found in the Annual Site Environmental Report (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Air Coneentrations Table 3. 5. 2 1 summarizes the 2002 background air coneentrati ens based on an air sampling station specifically located to collect background data. This air sampling location is located approximately 20.9 km (13 mi) southv1est of the DOE reservation. ttble 3.S.2 1 Baekground Air Ceneentrations Number er Samples°' (Measurements;-~ Minimttm~ Maximum-e ~Am 12 02) 0 3J

IQ~

Fluoride ~ 2.4

IO~

1.1

IQ..(}l 5.1
IO~

~Np 12 (12) 0 1.3

IQ~

~Pu 12 (12) 0 1.4

IQ~

~ 12 (12) 0 3.8

10-G(;

~ 12 (12) 0 4.1

10..w Y:ranium

~ 4.0

1044 8.2
1044 e.3
10.(}4 m.my

~ 1.2

1044 1.2
IQ-CB 3.1
l0-G4

~y ~ 9.5

IO-@

a.a* 10~ w;y 12 (10) 0 1.2

IO~

~y ~ 1.3

1044 2.8
10.(}4 2.1
10.(}4

" All pommeters are measared in pCi/m3 *.yith the e!tception of l::lfflRium and flueride. which are measured in µg/m3~ " Radiological samples are analyzed moathly, samples for fluoride are analyz:ed weekly. Number in parentheses is the oomber ef samples that. were below the detection limit. e For mdioooclides. W+'emges are oot calculated for locations that had greater than 15 peroent of the results below the detection limit. If the analytical result for a sample '+Vas below the detection limit, the ambieat air coooentmtion was calculated based on the detection limit for the sample. A1,*emges were calculated for fluoride at aU S&Jupliog locations. &uree: DOE 2003a Sediment Coneentratiens 3-49

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.5.2 2 summarizes the 2002 background sediment concentrations. Sampling points are apprrncimately 16 km (10 mi) from the DOE reservation. Table J.S.2 2 Baeligreund Ceneentretiens ef Rftdienuelides end Chemieals in Sediment-ii Parameter RM lOE1t RM 1os1t Alph-a-Aetivity pGilg H ~ H 9:& ~Am pGilg 0.0288\\:J 0.0639\\:J 0.056+\\:J 0.0363{:l Beta Actiivity pGilg ~ 6-:W ~ H Gadmium mg/kg +.-mB 0.489B J.4-l-Y ~ Ghromium mgiLkg ~ M--0 24.{i H:-+ ~ mg/kg ++:4B &:-SW ~ ~ m:Np p8+g 0.046+Y 0.0204:Y 0.0309:Y 0.00652Y Nicl~el mg/kg 9:-0 ~ -14:-& 21:-& PGB, Total m w w w w 2J&Ptt ~ 0.0332\\:J 0.0254Y 0.03+6Y 0.036+Y ~Ptt pGilg 00 0.0084+Y 0.0188Y 0.00646Y ~ pGtlg 0.0496Y 0.0160Y 0.0568Y G-444 Hranium f+/-glg ~ ~ ~ 4.-M ~y pGilg 0.055+ ~ ~ 46 my pGilg 0.03++Y 0.0930 0.0400Y

G.0485tl

~y p8+g G.Gl26Y G.0G0QG9Y 0.0G+I+Y 0.0580Y 2J&y pGilg O:-e08 M98 0:-8&-l- +.44 a Abbre.,*iatiees aRd data qualifiers are as follows: B result is less than the pmetieal quaetification limit: but greater than or equal to the instmmeet detection limit: U l:tndeteeted.

i. Maxinmm,;all:te taken from biannual meas1:11emems.

Seuroe: DOE 20030;. USEC 2004d. 3-50

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Soil Coneentrations Soil sampling locations approximately 16 km (10 mi) from the DOE reservation are used to determine background eoneentrations in soils. Table 3.5.2 3 summarizes the 2002 soil monitoring results. Table J.S.2 J Bael,ground Soil Coneentration for Seleeted Radioaetive Elements Loeation RS-1-0N RS lGS RS IQe RS lOW " U uRdetected. Alpha eeti-tity ~_.,

/-.-0 1-:6

~ +:() Beta aetivity (pCi/g) ¥ U 7--0Y e:-ru 9:4 9 Mmdnnun ¥alue taken from hianauru measureinents. Source: USEC 2003e Vegetation ~ (pCi/g)-ay11 O+/-ti ~ ~ ~ Ur11nium (ttglg)-1, +:-1 ~ H ~ The United States Eruiehment Corporation monitors background coneentrations of fluoride, 99Tc, and uranium in plants loeated appFOKimately 16 km (10 mi) av,ay from the DOE reservation. Table 3.5.2 4 presents the baekground data obtained in 2002 for ¥egetation. Tobie J.S.2 4 Vegetation Monitoring Progr11m Baeltground Levels Loe11tion Fh1oride ~ Ur11nium (ttglg)11 (pGi'g)BJh (ttglg)a.11 RV lQN ~ R-" ~ -y-IQS 6-;& R:¥ IOE l.3 R:¥ IQ\\\\l ~ 8 U undetected. b Ma'<imum,;alue taken from hian.'ltlal measurements. Source: USEC 200 Id. Surfaee Water Coneentratiem ~ 0:-06 ~ 0:-04,U 02-U 0.04-Y ~ 0:-04,U I Backgrouad coaeeRtratioas of radioauetides are provided for streams that are not coRsidered impacted by DOE reservatioR operatioas. Streams used for background data are loeated approximately 16 km (10 mi) w.vay from the site. Chemieals that are routiRely moaitored 3-51

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 in surfaoe *.¥ater inelude total phosphate, fluoride, B:Rd 29 metals. Table 3.5.2 5 summe:ri:z:es the background data oollected in 2002 for surface *Nater. Table l.S.2 S Surfftee Water Monitoring Baeli:ground Results... Leeatian Parameter RW ION Alf)ha Ael:i,,*i~* 241-Am Bela Aeli>,*i~, WNp

mPtl

~~ 99:fi, Yraniwn ~ y ~y ~y 2J8y RW ms Atpha-Ativ-itt 241-Am Beta-Aet:i-v-it y WNp

mPtl

~ PH ~ Ymaium ~ y my 2-36y 2J8y RW IOE A-l-f}ha--Ati Vtly 24l-Am Beta-Aetivity 2.nNp

mPtl Numherof Samples"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i--(-i) -l+fU U-(-1-(B ~ i--~ ~ ~ -2-(-l-lc) ~ 1--l--f!O) i-w ~ i-w li{ll) -2---fl-O) 1f2- ~ H1) i-w +2-#2 i-w 12-f-l--l) i-w i-w 3-52 Yniff f)Gij6 J:}C--flb ptilb pGi,lb ptilb f}Ci/L ptilb ~ ptilb p('i/L p(.'.tlb ptt,16 pG1/4/b ptffb ptt,16 ptt,16 ~ ptffb pf'-ilb ~~g/6 pGi,lb pGi,lb f}Cilb ~ ~6 f)til6 p('ilb 1fb1b pf'-i/L Minimum* .Maximum

4Y w

O.O+S8Y 0.0902.Y w -l4 0.084SY 00 O.O(H+OY ~ 00 0.000~68Y w l-1-4 0:-m -h9 0.06~4(:J ~ 00 0.000002Y 00 0.01 4SY O.OaS:3Y ~ m w 0.024W o.o@:rn +Y -l4 O. la2Y 0.0822.Y O.OOll+Y O.OGISY O.QWSY (Hl2 iSY 8Y -lW (HY :e 0.4:3SY ~ 00 O.IJ208Y 0.02l9Y O.Ol8+Y Q.098eY 0.0182.Y 4Y w 0.0:391Y 0.0+88Y +Y J 00 0.0129\\:J 00 O.OHIY

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.5.l 5 Surfaee Water Monitoring Baekgroued Results-it Leeatien Parameter ~ ~ HraaittHI mP-34g mg ~H my R\\V WW Alpha--Aetwtt:~ il4+Am Beta Aeli't'ily ~-'°N-!3

Hl!Pu

~ 9'>_fe HraaiaRt ~ g mg ~g mg Nttmheref SR1Rples * ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~(2-) 2---f+:l l-f 1-B 2-%) +HW) 2-%) ~ti) ~ -U~ l-f+B 2~ 2-%) ~ ~ YRits ~ p8,ib ua1L ~ pGi,4, p8,ib pGi,4, p8,ib f)Gilb pGi,lb pGi,4, pC-ilb f)Gilb pti/L tte!L f}C-i/L f)Gilb pGi,lb pGt/L Minimum* Ma:1Jm11m

gJ)4e2l:J o.Qe9eY SY HY 9:-W

+,-() 0-:-HeY O:-l4-9Y Q.Olii::m 0.0240H 0.02+5Y 00 1.Hl3+2H ~ 4Y 6 0.0689(::J 0.0835H +Y H O.O+OW 0.0311(::1 O.OQOe2m 0.03 lQH Q.0245(::1 ~ SY 1W 9:-W H Q.l 16H 0:-l-04-Y Q.0213l:J Q.QQQOOQ+Y Q.Q60+H 0.0383\\:J Q.QQQ003H Q.Q+IHl::J

Based on WQI monitoring data. Tlie EieriYeEI ooneentmtion gt1iEle (DCG) f.er eaoh mdionueliEle is as fellows:

!41-Am, 3g pCi/L; w Np. 3g f)Ci/L; ~ Pu, 40 pCilL; ~99'.fe, rng,ogo pCilL: '

U, 500 f)Ci/L: 'U. 600 pCilL: ~u. 500 pCilL: ;wiu, eOO f)Ci/L. AU results are well l:lelow these DOE stanEIB:FEls. DCGs aFe oot ft'i'IHl:oole fer the other mEliologioal pam1netefS (alpha aelivity. beta aoti1,*ity, and total umnium). b The nwHber in parentheses is the numl:ler of samples that were below the Eleteolioe limit. 0 H unEleteeteEI S8N,cee: DOE 2003a, USEC 20Q4d. External Gamma Radiotien Menitorine Table 9.2 8 of the LieeA:se Application summarirtes eKternal gamma radiation le1t*els from 1998 ~ Ground Woter Coneentrations Greundwoter monitoring at DOE PORTS is required by a eembination ef state and federal regulotiens, legal ogreements with Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA, ond DOE Orders. Mere than 400 monitoring well are used ta traek the Aew ef groundwater and ta identify and measure 3-53

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 groundwater contaminants. Groundwater programs also inelude on site surfaee water moniroring and-water~ 3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 3.6.1 Meteorology A 60-m (197 ft) tower is in use by the United States Enrichment Corporationused on the DOE reservation. It is equipped with instrument packages at the 10-, 30-, and 60-m (33-, 98-, and 197-ft) levels. In addition, ground-level instrumentation measures solar radiation, barometric pressure, precipitation, and soil temperatures at 1-and 2-ft depths. Hourly temperatures at the 10- and 30-m (33-and 98-ft) levels above the ground were recorded at the site meteorological tower from-since at least 1995 to 2002. Data from the 1995 to 2002 period show that At--at the 33-ft, 69,734 of the possible 70,080 data points arwere available. At the 33-ft level the average annual hourly temperature was 10°C (50.6°F), the minimum average hourly temperature was 19°C (-1.4°F), the maximum average hourly temperature was 35°C (94.1°F). Of the 70,080 possible hourly wind speed and wind direction data for 1995 through 2002, approximately 70,000 data points are available for wind speed and direction. The average wind speeds were 4.0, 6.2, and 7.5 mph at 10-, 30-, and 60-m (33-, 98-, and 197-ft) levels, respectively. The average wind direction is from South 11 ° West (lcr = 33°) and the most frequent wind direction is from the south. Wind roses at 10-, 30-, and 60-m (33-, 98-, and 197-ft) at the site constructed from the 1998 through 2002 data are compared in Figures 3.6.1-1, 3.6.1-2, and 3.6.1-3, respectively. Additional data from calendar year 2016 was also obtained for this report. The average wind speeds were 3.6, 5.0, and 6.5 mph at the 10-, 30- and 60-meter levels, respectively (Brust, 2020). At the IO-meter level, the minimum average hourly temperature was 4.0 °F, and the maximum average hourly temperature was 96.4 °F. This data is similar to the historical (1995-2002) results. 3-54

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant WIND ROSE PLOT X-120H Meterological Tower-10 meters 1998-2002 WrdSpeedjml9) >10.00 8.00 - 10.00 S.00-11.00 4.00-8.00 2.00-4.00 D.00-2.00 MODELER USEC DISPLAY Wlnd Speed AVG WIND SPEED 1.75 mis ORENTATION DlrecUon Cblov.tng from) --*--~ _ _:_ ____ __ ~ I I I I I --~---

souTH

~-----*--

DATE 1/8/2004 UNIT mis CALMWNDS 1.17% PLOT YEPR-OA.TE-TME 19981999 2000 2001 2002 Jan 1

Dec 31 Midnight - 11 PM COi.i' />NY NAME USEC COMMENTS Nona PRO.ECTl!'LOT NO.

American Centrifuge ' Figure 3.6.1-1 Wind Roses at 10-Meters 3-55 Proposed Change 2020

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant WINO ROSE PLOT X-120H Meteorological Tower-30 meters 1998-2002 I I I I I I I I /, I l, ,r I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I t _____ __ L-------L----

wEST I

I I 1 I l I I t I I l l I I I I I I I I \\ ' ' ' ' ' \\ Wind Speod (mlS) >10.00 8.00-10.00 5.00- 8.00 4.00-8.00 2.00- 4.00 0.00-2.00 I \\ ' I I MOCleLER USEC OISPI.AY Wind Speed AVG. WINO SPEED 2.7m/s ORENTATION DlrecUon (blo\\l'Ang from) I I I I -~-

soUTH

~-~~~--

.J----~--...

DATE 11126/2003 UNIT mis CALM WINOS 0.05'4 PLOT YEAA-DATE-TME 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Jan 1-Dec 31 Midnight

11 PM COIFANYNNIE USEC COt.t>iENTS Nona PRO.ECTA't.OT NO American Centrifuge' Figure 3.6.1-2 Wind Roses at 30-Meters 3-56 Proposed Change 2020

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant WINO ROSE PLOT X-120H Meterological Tower - 60 meters 1998-2002 I r, I I I I,,* t I I / I I / J I I t ' t I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I ,/ I -------L-------L------ 'WESf I I I I l I I I I I I I l \\ I I I l I I \\ \\ \\ I I I I \\ I \\ I \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\

\\.

\\ \\ \\ \\,,\\. '\\. "~l\\... \\ I I I / SOUTH

~---~---~~

MODELER 'Mnd Speed lrnJt) USEC > 10.00 DISPLAY 800-1000 Wind Speed 800 - 800 AVG.WNO SPEED 4.00- 8.00 3.35 mis 2.00 - 4 00 ORie.TAHlN 0.00- 2.00 Direction (blowing from) DATE 1/1012004 UNIT mis CAI.MWINOS 4.75% PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Jan 1 - Dec 31 Midnight

11 PM COMPANYNME USEC COMMENTS Nona PRO..ECTIPI.OT NO.

American Centrifuge 1 111 Figure 3.6.1-3 Wind Roses at 60-Meters 3-57 Proposed Change 2020

El1Vironmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.6.2 Climate Located west of the Appalachian Mountains, the region around the site has a climate essentially continental in nature, characterized by moderate extremes of heat and cold and wetness and dryness. July is the hottest month, with an average monthly temperature of 23 °C (74~.2Q°F, and January is the coldest month with an average temperature of 1 °C (3029.9°Fj. The highest and lowest daily temperatures from 1951 to 200192 were 39 and 35 °C (103 and -31°Fj on July 14, 1954, and January 19, 1994, respectively (NOAA, 2019a and bNOAi<\\ 2003a, NOAA 2003b). Moisture in the area is predominantly supplied by air moving northward from the Gulf of Mexico. Precipitation is abundant from March through August and sparse in October and February. The average annual precipitation at Waverly, Ohio, for the period from 1951 to 20()2.19 was 102 oeHtimeter (omj 40 in. The greatest daily rainfall during this period was 12 om (4.9 in.), occurring on March 2, 1997. Snowfall occurrence varies from year to year, but is common from November through March. The average annual snowfall for the area is about 54 om (21.1 in.j, based on 1951-200219 data. During that time period, the maximum monthly snowfall was M-em (25.4 in.j, occurring in January 1978 (NOAA, 2019 and Menne, 2019NOAA 2003a). Occasionally, heavy amounts of rain associated with thunderstorms or low-pressure systems will-fall~ in a short period of time. The Midwestern Climate Center, Climate Analysis Center, the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Illinois State Water Survey Division of the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources has published values of the total precipitation for durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years (NOAA 2003c). The results for the geographic locale including the site are summarized in Table 3.6.2-1. A local drainage analysis for extreme storms at the site has been performed (see Table 4.4.3-1). Table 3.6.2-1 Precipitation as a Function of Recurrence Interval and Storm Duration for the DOE Reservation Storm duration (hrs) Recurrence Interval 0.5 1 2 3 6 12 24 (yrsb) Precipitation (ina) 1 0.85 1.08 1.33 1.47 1.72 1.99 2.29 2 1.03 1.31 1.62 1.79 2.09 2.43 2.79 5 1.27 1.61 1.98 2.19 2.57 2.98 3.42 10 1.48 1.88 2.33 2.57 3.01 3.49 4.01 25 1.8 2.29 2.82 3.12 3.65 4.24 4.87 50 2.09 2.66 3.28 3.62 4.24 4.92 5.66 100 2.4 3.06 3.77 4.16 4.88 5.66 6.5 10,000 3.85 4.91 6.05 6.67 7.83 9.09 10.44 aNOAAa bNOAAc 3-58

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Tornadoes do occur in Southern Ohio: however, specific analyses of the frequency of tornadoes in the region show that they are rare. On the average, from 1991 to 2010, 19 tornadoes per year were reported in Ohio, but the total varies widely from year to year (e.g., 63 in 1992 and 4 in 2005). Pike County has experienced eleven tornados since 1950. When considering the surrounding counties, (Adams, Jackson, Highland, Ross and Scioto) the total number of tornadoes experienced is 54 since 1950. Twelve of those tornadoes were rated F2 or greater on the Fujita Tornado Scale. The DOE reservation had an average of three days per year between 1990 and 2019 with severe storms with winds exceeding 58 mph, defined as severe thunderstorm winds (NOAA, 2020). Tornadoes do oeeur io Southern Ohio; h011>1re>1er, specific aealyses of the frequeoey of tornadoes in the region show that they are rare. On the &¥erage, from 1950 to 2002, 18 tornadoes per year were reported in Ohio, but the total *raries widely from year to year (e.g., 63 in 1992 and O io 1988). Pike County has CKperieoeed three tomados sinee 1950. When considering the surroundieg counties (Adams, Jaoksoo, Highland, Ross and Scioto), the total number of tornadoes CKperieoeed is 46 since 1950. Fifteen of those tornadoes were rated F2 or greater oo the Fujita Tornado Seale (NOAA 2003d). The site had an average of 3 days per year betweeo 1950 aed 2002 with seyere storms *N4th wiods eKceeding 58 mph (NOAA 2003d). Because the DOE reservation is not a coastal location, the effects of hurricanes are not considered other than increased rainfalls as remnants of the storm affected weather patterns in the upper Ohio River Valley. Severe storms can and are likely to produce lightning strikes, which can interrupt and cause a partial power failure. However, the buildings are heavily grounded and some have installed lightning protection. The DOE reservation had an average of three days per year between 1990 and 2019 with severe storms with winds exceeding 58 mph, defined as severe thunderstorm winds (NOAA, 2020)The DOE reservation is iR ae area that had an aYerage of 36 thunderstorms betweeo the years 1989 and 1998. The DOE reservation is at a "moderate" risk value ofloss due to lightning strikes. Lightning has not been a problem for these structures, since initial construction in the mid-1980s. 3.6.3 Air Quality Non-radiological emissions are regulated under NAAQS and the standards adopted by the State of Ohio. The EPA under National Emission Standard regulates radioactive emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H). This emission standard limits emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air from the DOE reservation not to exceed amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive an EDE of 10 mrem/yr. 3.6.3.1 Non-Radiological Air Quality As directed by the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §7401), the EPA has set the NAAQS for several criteria pollutants to protect human health and welfare (40 CFR Part 50). These pollutants include particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and ozone (03). Non-radiological air quality can be characterized by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or in micrograms per cubic meter 3-59

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 (µg/m 3). The standards and limits set by State and Federal regulations are provided in concentrations averaged over incremental time limits (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours). The averaging times shown in the tables of this section correspond to the regulatory averaging times for the individual pollutants. An area is designated by the EPA as being in attainment for a pollutant if ambient concentrations of that pollutant are below the NAAQS or in non-attainment if violations of the NAAQS occur. In areas where insufficient data are available to determine attainment status, designations are listed as unclassified. Unclassified areas are treated as attainment areas for regulatory purposes. The Piketon region is classified as an attainment area for the pollutants listed in the NAAQS (OEPA, 2020DOE 2001b). These standards are shown in Table 3.6.3.1-1. Primary standards protect against adverse health effects, while secondary standards protect against welfare effects such as damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings. The State of Ohio has adopted the NAAQS and regulations to guide the evaluation of hazardous air pollutants and toxins to specify permissible short-and long-term concentrations. Existing air quality on the site is in attainment with NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. Table 3.6.3.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Allowable Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments 3-60

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 NAAQS Standard Allowable PSD Pollutant Averaging (µg/m3) Increment (µg/m3) Time Primary Secondary Class I Class II Sulfur dioxide 3 ha 1,300 25 512 24 ha 365 5 91 Annual 80 2 20 Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100 100 2.5 25 Ozone 1 hb 235 235 8h 157 157 Carbon monoxide 1 ha 10,000 8 ha 40,000 PM-lOd 24 hb 150 150 8 30 Annual 50 50 4 17 PM-2_5c,e 24 h 65 65 Annual 15 15 Lead 3 months e 1.5 1.5 a Not to be exceeded more than once per year b Not to be exceeded more than one day per year on average over three yean; c Particulate matter less than 10 µm in diameter d Particulate matter less than 25 µm in diameter e Calendar quarter 3-61

Environmental Report for the American Centrifage Plant Proposed Change 2020 The DOE reservation is located in a Class II prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) area. PSD regulations were established to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas that already meet the NAAQS. Specific details of PSD are found in 40 CFR 51.166. Among other provisions, cumulative increases in SO2, NO2, and PM10 levels after specified baseline dates must not exceed specified maximum allowable amounts. These allowable increases, also known as increments, are especially stringent in areas designated as Class I areas ( e.g., national parks and wilderness areas) where the preservation of clean air is particularly important. Areas not designated as Class I currently are designated as Class II. The nearest Class I PSD area is the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, which is approximately 280 km (174 mi) east of the DOE reservation in West Virginia. OEPA issued a Title V permit to the Licensee with an effective date of August 21on July 27, 2017 with the following sources listed: Pump down cart No. 2 Analyzer cart No.1 X-6002 Boilers 1 and 2 Unit group - feed carts, sample carts, dump carts (19 sources) Unit group - gulpers (5 sources) Unit group - vacuums (11 sources) De Minimis sources - 11 emergency generators, 2 emergency pumps, and a refrigerant recovery system Most of these sources (except for the boilers) were part of the former Lead Cascade project and have been dismantled. The Title V permit will be modified as needed to reflect the new planned equipment for the HALEU project. In addition, OEPA issued a permit to FBP in 2014 for the following sources: Plant roadways and parking areas Unit group - misc. (9 sources) Unit group - significant tanks (2 sources) Unit group - X-300 series buildings {15 sources) Unit group - X-700 building (6 sources) Unit group - X-705 building (28 sources) De Minimis sources - 6 emergency generators. 2 emergency compressors, 5 emergency pumps, the X-623 Groundwater Treatment Facility, the X-749 Soil Venting System, a mobile pump, the X-670A cooling tower, and a gasoline dispensing facility , 2003. Under the Title V regulations, the United States Enrichment Corporation has 66 non insignificant sources and 15 l insignificant sources. The X 3001 purge vacuum and evacuation *,acuum system is included in the Title V permit. DOE reservation operations are minor emission sources that do not require a Title V permit. The largest non radiological airborne emissions from the DOE reservation are from the coal fired boilers at the X 600 Steam Plant. These emissions are shovm in Table 3.6.3.1 2. The boilers are permitted by OEPA. 'tvith opacity, particulate, and so~Hmits. Electrostatic precipitators 3-62

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 NO~ on each of the boilers coR-trol opacity and particulate emissions. In addition, the boilers emit and CO. There are also minor contributions of these pollutants from oil fired heaters, statio diesel motors, and mobile sources (e.g., cars ftRd trucks). Other air pollutftRts emitted from DOE rese~*ation in Piketon, Ohio, include gaseous fluorides, 'Nater treatment chemicals, clea nary the mng solYent 11apors, and process coolants. ound DOE applied for ftRd reoei¥ed air emission permits for two boilers and two abovegt= storage tanks (AST) associated with the X 6002 Recirculating Hot '.Vater Plant in 2001. The was built to pro1ride hot water to heat DOE buildings that 1+1t1ere formerly heated by hot '9 produced from the heat giYen off by the gaseous diffusion process. Because the gaseous diffu process is no longer operating in Piketon, Ohio, an alternati11e source of heat for the recircul hot water system was needed. In 2002, DOE submitted a modification to the permit to instal the Hot Water Plant to allow the plant to bum either fuel oil or natural gas to produce heat. 0 plant ,ater SlOn ating 1 for EPA appro1t1ed the modificatioR in October 2002. In addition to the air permits associated with the Hot \\Vater PlftRt, DOE/ PORTS had permitted ftRd nine registered air emission sources at the end of 2002 (DOE 2003a). Table J.6.J. l l United States Enriehment Cerperfttian Nan Redielegieel Tatel Pertieulete Metter Beiler-Number-+ Boiler Number 2 Beiler---Number-J. Sulfur Dioxide Boiler Number 1 Boiler Number 2 Boiler Number 3 Airborne Emissions Air Permit Limit 0.19 lb/million british thermal un~t--fmmb-t1::1--) 0.19 lb/mmbtu 0.19 lb/mmbtu Air Permit Limit 6.16 lb/mmbtu 6.16 lb/mmbtu 6.16 lb/mmbtu Stftelt Test Results 11 0.04 lb/mmbtu O. 05 lb/mmbtu 0.05 lb/mmbtu Anelytieel Results "

4. 72 lb/mmbtu

~oilers land 2 tested iB April 2003. Boiler 2 tested ia No*,iember 2003. " Steam plant tetal for 2002. 3.6.3.2 Radiological Air Quality four nder Atmospheric emissions of radionuclides from the DOE reservation are regulated u EPA regulations found under NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H. The EPA Effective D Equivalent (EDE) BOE-limit of 10 mrem/yr to members of the public for the atmospheric path is also incorporated in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environm The pertinent NRC regulations related to the radiation dose limits TEDE to individual membe the public are also listed in 10 CFR Part 20. Additional EPA dose limits are listed at 40 ose way ent. rs to CFR Part 190. At the DOE reservation, unrestricted areas are not exposed to any significant direct 3~3 I I I

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 radiation sources, and the public dose is dominated by gaseous eflluents. Consequently, the public TEDE is equal to the public EDE calculated under the NESHAP regulations. The NRC has recognized this and accepted demonstrations of NESHAP compliance as demonstrating compliance with the TEDE limit as well (USEC 02). The environmental radiological monitoring program at the DOE reservation collects samples of air and conducts air modeling in order to detect releases of radionuclides and calculate the estimated maximum radiation dose. Information on the most recent environmental radiological program monitoring results can be found in the Annual Site Environmental Report (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). DOE and the United States Earichmeat Corporatioa aaaually caleulate MEI and collective doses and a pereentage of dose contribution from each radioauelide emitted using the CAP88 computer code. Since the United States Enriehmeat Corporation is responsible for the principal site process and support operations and DOE is responsible for operations such as the X 326 L Cage and its Glo*.*eboK, the X 345 High Assay Sampling Area, the X 744 GlO¥ebmc, ftftd site remediatioa activities, separate annual NESHAP reports are submitted due to the separation of responsibilities. Results of the DOE reservation compliance modeling are discussed below. Details of the annual compliance modeliag are also reported in the NESHAP 2002 Annual Report for the Department of En.ergy Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion. Plant (NESHAP 2003a) and the NESHAP Radionuclide Emissions Report For 2002, United States En.richmen.t Corporation (NESHAP 2003b). Deseriptien ef Dose Medel CAP88 PC, a computer program appro1t*ed by the EPA for compliance vf'ith 40 CFR Subpart H, *.vas used to calculate the dose due to radionuclide emission.s to air from DOE operations, and CAP88 PC mainframe model was used to calculate the dose due to radionuclide emissions to air from site operations. The programs are identical eKcept for the operating system and use a modified Gaussian plume equation to estimate the dispersion of radionuclides released from up to siK sources. The program computes radionuclide concentration.s in air, rates of depositioa on. ground surfaces, concentrations in. food, and intalce rates to people from ingestion of food produced in. the assessment area. Summon* ef Input Parameters Input parameters for the CAP88 model include physical parameters for each radionuclide emission source, radioRuclide emissions, meteorological data, and agrieultural data. DOE has four unmonitored min.or emission sources regulated by the EPA *. United States Enrichment Corporation has thirteen mon.itored and se1t*eral unmonitored sources at the DOE reservation regulated by the EPA. The radionuclide emissions for each source are presented in the NE8HAP reports (NESHAP 2003a, NESHAP 2003b). For modeling purposes, the physical emissioR sources are grouf)ed into three emission release points for DOE and ten emission release points for the United States Enrichment Corporation as sho*;m in Tables 3.6.3.2 1 and 3.6.3.2 2. Default values were used for the si:z:e and class of each radioisotope. Tables 3.6.3.2 I and 3.6.3.2 2 provide the physical parameters for each source modeled from DOE and the United States Enrichment Corporation's operations, respecth*ely. Table J.6.J.2 1 Physieol Parameters fer DOE Air Emissions Seurees .Seuree 3-64 Stoek diametff (ID} Effl "teleeity

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant X 326 L Cage Glovebm£ X 623 Groundwater Treatment Facility X 624 Groundvt1ater Treatme0t Facility S011roe: NESHAP 2003a Proposed Change 2020 (m-h) Table 3.6.3.2 2 Physical Parameters fer United States Enrichment Cerperation Air Emissien Sources 8ottffe Stack height Stack diameter (m) kit yeloeity (mis) fin) X 326 (Purge Cascade) -SQ ~ -l-8 X 3 26 (other vents) 20 0-:91-24 X 330 20 ~ 6 X 333 20 0-:& ~ X 344A 20 0:-3e 0:-3 X 700 6 0:-3 -l-4 X 705 -l-4 H ~ X 710 9 -l- ~ X 720 -t--8 -h-1--9 9 XT 847 H ():4-0e ~ X 343 ~ 0:-076 ~ X 344 S ~ 0:-4 ~'ot1?1-ee: NBSH,A.12 WIHb Site specific meteorologica-l data is collected at the 30 m (98 ft) height from the on site meteorological tower. Data collected for between 1998 and 2002 indicate:

Annual preeipitation: 101.6 cm/yr (40 in./yr)
At1erage air temperature: 10.3 °C (50.6°F)
A.*1erage mixing layer height: 1,000 m (3,280 ft)

The wind file used if1 the CAP88 PC model is also generated from data oolleeted at the on site meteorological tower. Note that the default values pro*lided *.vith the CAP88 PC model can be very eonservative. The rural food array used to estimate the DOE dose assumes that the public obtains foodstuffs within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant (see Table 3.6.3.2 3). In reality, the majority of the foodstuffs consumed are purchased at supermarkets that receive foodstuffs from all 0'1er the world. Table 3.6.3.2 3 Agricultural Data: Rural Default Food Array Values 3-65

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Fredieu ef-f.oodstttffs.-fr.&m Vegetables and Produce Meat Milk &uree: CAP88 PC 1/4fSioe 2 User's GaiEle. 2{)00 Results Leeal--ftffft 0:-100 0-442 0-:-3-99 Proposed Change 2020 W-ithin 50 miles Beyond ~o miles 0 0 0 The effect of radionuclides released to the atmosphere was characterized by calculating EDEs to the MEI (a hypothetical individual who is assumed to reside at the most exposed point on the plant boundary). In 2~ 17, the maximum EDE rate from United States Enrichmentall sources at the DOE reservation Corporation sources was 0.'2 mrem/yr. This anticipated dose is much lower than the EPA limit of 10 mrem/ r and the NRC Total EDE limit of I 00 mrem/. Details on calculations of this dose can be found in the Annual Site Environmental Re ort FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). DOE operations contributed an additional 0.0042 mrem/yr to the indh*idual's EDE resulting in a combined EDE of 0.031 mrem/yr. The United States Enrichment Corporation's MEI is located 2,530 m south southwest of United States Enrichment Corporation's predominant emissioa sources X 700, X 705 and X 720 building ¥ent. These are modeled as a single source ia the middle of building X 705 (NESHAP 2003b). The CAP88 model calculated the 2002 maximum EDE for the MEI near the DOE reservation based on emissioas from DOE operation sources to be 0.0046 mrem/yr. The DOE MEI is located 1,114 m south of DOE's predomiaant emission source, the X 622 Groundwater Treatment Facility. United States Enrichment Corporation operations contributed an additional 0.021 mremlyr to this indiit'idual's EDE for a total of 0.025 mrem/yr from total plant operations. In accordance vt'ith 40 CFR 61. 92, EDEs to individuals based on site emissions should be combined with the DOE EDEs. The maximum EDE for the entire DOE reserYation is calculated by adding the DOE and USEC EDEs for each indh*idual. When the two EDEs are combined, the EDE to the MEI in 2003 is 0.031 mrem/yr, the United States Enrichment Corporation's MEI discussed above. This EDE is substantially belov, the 10 mrem/yr NESHAP limit applicable to the DOE reservation and the apprmcimately 300 mrem/yr dose that the a¥erage indi*1idual ie the U. 8. receives from natural sources of radiation. During Lead Cascade operations, radionuclide releases to the air were measured b a continuous vent or estimated in accordance with idance in 40 CFR Part 61 A en dices D and E. Atmos heric dis ersion of the releases was modeled and the consequent public radiation dose was estimated using EPA approved computer models in accordance with EPA guidance. The table below provides the Collective EDE (i.e., population doses) in person-rem/yr. due to the Licensee's operations since the beginning of Lead Cascade operations. The Collective EDEs are provided for the 50-mile radius population and the village of Piketon: the individual EDEs for the MEI due to the Licensee's operations are provided for comparison. Because of the change in the Licensee's responsibilities, Table 3.6.3.2-1 lists the ublic doses due to combined Lead Cascade and GDP emissions throu h 2010 and the 3-66

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 corresponding public doses from the Lead Cascade alone from 2007 through 2016 (DP-2605-0001). 3-67

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.6.3.2-1 Annual Dose Due to Licensee Airborne Emissions, 2006-2016 Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 EPA Std 50-mile

0. 0 1 4 0.077 Q_,_l_Q Q_,_LJ Q_,__LJ Collective NA EDE2*4

~ Llill.:: 6.5x[Q *S 1.lx[0*1 3.9x10* 1 J.8x[0*1 5.3xl0*1 4. 6x. I o-s 6.8x I o-s ~ 2.97xI0*5 Piketon 0.0037 0.0024 0. 0051 0. 0046 0. 0 2 8 Collective NA EDE3*4 ~ 2.3x]0*6 2.7x[0*1 2.5xJO*' L.1J..l.Q..:!. ~ 2.IxlO*' 2. JxJO*' 3.6x I 0-1 U111*1 l.39xl0-6 0.0045 0.0034 0.0053 0.0069 Q__,__Qj_!_ MEIEDE5 10 (mrem/yr) ~ 3.htO *' 3.4xl0*1 2.8xJO*' 2.3xJ0* 6 2.6xJO*' 2.7xJ0*1 3.7x[0*1 5.3x[0*1 11111*1 2.lOx:10-6 Notes:

l. All dose figures in this table are for Licensee operations only. Prior to 2011 this included both GDP and ACP operations. From 2011 onward, Licensee operations are limited to ACP operations.

2. Collective EDE in person-rem/year for 50-mile radius. This is a summation of the dose to each individual living within a 50-mile radius.

3. Collective EDE in person-rem/vear for the Village of Piketon. This is a summation of the dose to each individual living within the village.

4. Population distributions for calendar war 2009 and earlier are based on 2000 census data.

5. Population distributions for calendar year 2010 and later are based on 2010 census data.

Source: (DP-2605-0001}. The calculated ublic airborne radiation doses are all lower than the antici ated maximum the EPA standard, and the NRC limit. The eolleetive EDE to the entire population within 80 km (50 mi) of the DOE resef\\'ation in 2002 was O. 095 person rem/yr. DOE eolleeted data from a monitoring netvtork. of 15 air samplers in 2002 (DOE 2003a). Data were eolleeted both on site and in the area surrounding the DOE reservation. The monitoring network is intended to assess whether air emission from the DOE resef\\'ation affeets air quality in the surrounding area. A background ambient air monitoring station is located approximately 21 km (13 mi) southwest of the site. The ftfl:alytieal results from air sampling stations eloser to the plftfl:t are compared to background measurements (DOE 2003a). Uranium 233/234 (~ U) and urftfl:ium 238 ('U),.,.,ere routinely detected at the stations ftfl:d in most of the samples eollected from each station. mu was deteeted in slightly less than half of the samples colleeted in 2002. Uranium 236 (~U) was detected in one or tv,o sam~s at 8 of the 15 stations. Amerieium 241 (ui.Am), neptunium 237 (~1Np), and plutonium 238 (

Pu) 'Nere deteeted once each at stations A28, A36, and A24, respeetively. Technetium 99 (99Tc) was deteeted onee at three sampling stations in 2002. Detections of the transuranie radioA:uelides, 99+e, and--'U 'Nere usually near the deteetion limit for the ftfl:al.ytical method (DOE 2003a.).

3.7 Noise Noise on the DOE reservation is intermittent and intensity levels vary. Noise levels associated with refurbishment, construction and processing activities, and local traffic are 3-68

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 comparable to those of any other industrial site. No sensitive receptor sites, such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, or hotels, are in the immediate vicinity of the site (DOE 2001 b ). Because actual noise estimates are not available, measured noise levels around an automobile assembly plant were used to estimate, and conservatively bound, any potential noise impacts. These noise levels are 55 to 60 decibel A-weighted (dBA) at about 60 m (200 ft) from the plant property (Cantor 1996). These noise levels would be inaudible 500 m (1,640 ft) from the site, even with low background noise levels. EPA has identified 55 dBA as a yearly average outdoor noise level that, if not exceeded, would prevent activity interferences and annoyance (EPA 1978). Various standards that regulate the noise levels are given below:

The NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) for occupational noise exposure is 85 dBA as an 8-hr Time-Weighted Average (TWA) (NIOSH 1998). Exposures at or above these levels are considered hazardous.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (23 CFR Part 722) regulates maximum per truck noise levels of 80-83 dBA depending on the truck type measured 15 m from traffic centerline.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 has set the noise abatement criteria (NAC) by land use type and human activities (23 CFR Part 722). The following NAC are the unacceptable levels, which are used to determine impacts.

NAC for the outdoors range from 57 dBA to 75 dBA NAC for parks (most similar to National Resources and Environmental Research Program [NRERP]) is 67 dBA NAC for developed areas is 72 dBA Typical noise levels of familiar noise sources are provided in Figure 3.7-1. 3-69

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Decibel, A.. Weighted PUBLIC RESPONSE

tt,i*

~

**=

FAMILIAR NOISE SOURCES Physically Painful J~: Extnmely Loud :*:*:*.*:*,(-)",;>;w,.*

13.s.:

JI;

t~:-

lllrnhold of Physical ~art ::::::::::::::,:=:-::: *. *,.,

~

.--+.

,;:::~

.*::=-

=:~~

. Jet Takeoff (nw run-,} Hearing Damage Criteria for 8-Hour.....................,... Wortuiay............. Most Residents Highly Annoyed (DNL) :*: ** :*:*:*:* :*:*:*: *:,* *** .1... -......ilitu Linit for Resident! I ~t"-***1 I :*:*:::*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*.*** DMlopment(DNL)

"~;

Jf !-. .1:,,: ..... m .....,m:i:

- x
Rock MUllc Band (Mir stage)

~.*.*.**.:

1 r.li-= .. ~ .. *.:-*.':o:'!':

.:*:*:~---=*=*=,-**:*:* Well Mllng (1UO flat)

---.~*.*.*.;.~

.*=***=:~

-****=**~.*. *.* Generalor (at 1,_..,

-~-:

'Vlftf

- ~: ~~

j:: :1 ._.,.*.**:.*:*:;:;:::~*:**: ComprlllOf (at 1 foot)

~

- *,,,:.:,:.:::**.* Fl'ligtltTrainC..(at100faet)

~I t

.........,...,:..:-........ Wel1Sampler(at1 foot) t?:t.......... ;,:;:-:.-:-,,*.. ,:. Spol1s Cir (illlide

60 miles per hour)

/1:(t ..... ::*:***::**, HGmt ~ DilpoNl tat 3 fNt) ]f *****.***:***=***=*::****(*: Considered Acctptablt for Residential Land. Use

*.* *_=:.

Average Ult>aArea (DNL)

,.*,,:,:M.-*:*****:***** Department Stole (inside)

Goal for IMJan Arns (OM.)

=*=***:*:::*:;*****...-.... ]f
- .*,m:***********:***:~ Typic:at Daytime Sublnan Bacl!ground (DNL)

]f

iij!;: _ ___,,._

__ -.=,;,*,;,:,=:,.:-:-=m: Typical Bird Calls -: ~ .... U-1 _ _._ ("--1..1-,

~ ::

.........,.,.*w.....-.*:*. nu1,_ r1¥1**.,._ 11-Jf..,.... :*:****,-:.***:* ** Typical Unry No Com1111nlty Amoyance (ONL) ::*::::*::::::::::1-:-:-.,.

jf....,

... **::-:::~::-:*:::)). Quiet Rural, A,u (DM.)

Jt -.

..1r1

-:- Recording Studio (Inside)

=:ir \\ti!:: .... :~.. LEGEND: }ft...... :-::-:-:-:-:*****:*:*:

Leavts Rultlint DNL
Day-Night Level Threshold d, Hearing ***:;:::::*~::::::*::*:*.-.-.-.* ~!l:lf i

Decibel,.A,Weighted Source: Adapted. from Fednl lniaragency Comm~ on Urban Noise, 1980. Figure 3.7-1 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses 3-70

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 3.8.1 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. When these resources meet any one of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NRCE) (36 CFR 60.4), they may be termed historic properties and thereby are potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The plant is located within a region where Adena and Hopewell Indian mounds have existed. Additionally, several historic Native American Indian tribes are known to have had villages nearby. Two preliminary Phase I archaeological surveys have been completed on the DOE reservation and were used in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Reindustrialization Program at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio (DOE 2001 b ). The combined surveys covered 836 ha (2,066 acres) in Quadrants I through IV (Figure 3.4.1-1). There are few prehistoric archaeological resources at the site. Whether this is indicative of the local prehistoric upland settlement pattern or is a consequence of the extensive land disturbance associated with development of the site is not known. In contrast, historic archaeological resources at the site are relatively abundant, conspicuous, and undisturbed due to the nature and development of the plant. Dobson-Brown et al. (1996) developed a predictive model of archaeological resource locations at the site based on variations in modem plant communities, topography, and soils, and on the location of previously identified archaeological resources in a 6.5 km (4 mi) literature review study area radius around the plant (DOE 2001b). Survey methods in Quadrants I and II included visual inspection, surface collection, and hand excavation of shallow, less than 13 cm (less than 5 in.), shovel test pits. Similar shovel test pits inside the Perimeter Road area did not identify archaeological resources and indicated that this area has been highly disturbed. Survey methods in Quadrants III and IV consisted of visual inspection, surface collection, hand-excavated shovel tests to 30 cm (12 in.) in depth in high-probability areas lacking significant disturbance and less than 15 percent slope. Additionally, hand-excavated deep shovel tests (greater than 30 cm or 12 in.) were accompanied by 2 cm (0.75-in.)-diameter hand-coring in three areas in Quadrant IV along Little Beaver Creek. Portions of Quadrants I and II that were not investigated during the preliminary Phase I archaeological survey were also investigated by shallow shovel tests. The combined Phase I archaeological surveys identified 38 archaeological resources. Nine of the resources contain prehistoric components. Five are identified as prehistoric isolated finds. Two are identified as prehistoric lithic scatters. Two contain prehistoric and historic components: a prehistoric isolated find in an historic cemetery and a prehistoric lithic scatter and historic farmstead. These sites are located in Quadrants I, II, and IV. No archaeological resources have 3-71

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 been identified in Quadrant III. Thirty of the archaeological resources are associated with historic-era properties located within the site. Fifteen are remnants of historic farmsteads. Seven are scatters of historic artifacts or open refuse dumps. Two are isolated finds of historic artifacts. Four are remnants of the DOE reservation structures. Two are historic cemeteries. One of the historic cemeteries has an associated chapel and remnant of an observation tower. The draft cultural resource report (Schweikart et al. 1997) determined that 22 of the archaeological resources do not meet the NRCE. Insufficient data were collected at the remaining 14 archaeological components and two historic-era cemeteries, one of which (33 Pk 189; PIK.-206-9) includes an associated historic archaeological component, to determine whether they meet the NRCE (DOE 200 I b). An archaeological survey of an area in the southwest comer of the PORTS reservation was begun in June 2003. No sensitive archaeological deposits were identified on DOE property. The State Historical Preservation Office reviewed the report (Phase II Architectural Testing at Site 33PK210, Scioto Township, Pike County, Ohio) (DuVall 2003) and agreed that no further investigations are needed (DOE 2005a). Site 33PK2 IO is not within the proposed areas of construction or operation of the ER 3.8.2 Architectural Historic Resources Two architectural historic surveys have also been completed at the site (Dobson-Brown et al. 1996; Coleman et al. 1997). The combined surveys covered an approximate 1,497 ha (3,700 acre) area and identified several structures that may have historical significance (DOE 2001b). A draft historic context for the DOE reservation has also been prepared. This historic context is broken into four development periods for the site: Development Period 1 (1900-51), Development Period 2 (1952-56), Development Period 3 (1957-78), and Development Period 4 (1979-85). In the draft architectural survey report (Coleman et. al. 1997), recommendations were made concerning which buildings and structures were considered contributing and noncontributing resources to the historic property. DOE will evaluate these recommendations in conjunction with the SHPO to determine which buildings and structures are considered historic properties under the NHP A and whether any of the properties are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (DOE 2001 b ). Cultural resource reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis, and consultations with the Ohio State Historical Preservation Office are made as required by Section 106 of the Act (DOE 2005a). 3.9 Visual/Scenic Resources The dominant view shed in the vicinity of the DOE reservation consists of support facilities, transmission lines, open and forested buffer areas, marginal farmland, limited residential areas, and densely forested hills. The DOE reservation consists mainly of a 1,497 ha (3,700 acre) fully developed industrial area. The majority of the industrial area is centrally located within a fenced 223 ha (550 acre) Controlled Access Area. Within this area are approximately 190 facilities as well as utility structures, water towers, and auxiliary facilities that support site activities. A second, large 3-72

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 developed and fenced area covering about 81 ha (200 acres) contains the facilities built in the early 1980s for the GCEP. The grounds are maintained as lawns, and support various species of grasses and herbaceous di cots. These facilities are generally not visible off the DOE reservation because views are limited by rolling terrain and heavy forests and vegetation. Photographs of the GCEP facilities that will be utilized for the ACP are shown in Figures 3.9-1 through 3.9-6. The developed areas and utility corridors (i.e. transmission lines and support facilities) of the DOE reservation are consistent with a Visual Resources Management (VRM) Class IV designation. The remainder of the DOE reservation is consistent with VRM Class III or IV. There are no existing state nature preserves or scenic rivers in the area. Figure 3.9-1 View of the X-7725 Building and X-7727H Facilitiies [Looking East] 3-73

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Figure 3.9-2 View of the X-7725 FaeilityBuilding [Looking Southwest] Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.9-3 View of the X-3001 and X-3002 Process Buildings [Looking Northeast] 3-74

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.9-4 View of the X-3346 Building and X-7745S Area for the X-3003 and X-3004 Process Buildings [Looking West] Figure 3.9-5 View of the X-3346, X-3001, X-3012, and X-3002 Buildings [Looking Northeast] 3-75

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.9-6 Site of X-3346A Feed and Product Shipping and Receiving Building [Looking South] 3.10 Socioeconomic This section describes current socioeconomic conditions within a ROI where appro*imately 92almost 95 percent of the DOE reservation workforce currently resides. The region of influence (ROI) is a four-county area in Southern Ohio comprised of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. Employment and Income Employment by sector over the last decade has changed slightly, as shown in Table 3.10-1. The service sector provides the highest percentage of the employment in the ROI, almost 40 percent, followed by the government, wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing sectors, with 17.9 percent, 15.1 percent, and 12.1 percent, respectively. The past decade has continued an employment shift from the government, construction, and manufacturing sectors towards the service sectors within the ROI. 3-76

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.10-1 Employment by Sector (Paercent) Sector Jackson 2000 2010 Services 18.9 32.5 Wholesale and Retail 21.5 13.6 Trade Government and 10.7 12.1 imvemment entemrises Manufacturing 27.0 23.l Construction 0.0 5.1 Finance, insurance and real ti 5.0 estate Transru2rtation and QUblic 3.8 J2 utilities Fam1 emolovment 4.8 3.4 Mining, oil and gas 2.4 1.7 e>,.1raction Other sectors 0.0 0.1 D - Not shown (confidential information) Source: BEA, 2020a Pike 2000 2010 16.0 33.0 16.0 24.5 12.3 12.9 38.2 2.3 5.9 6.4 5.9 5.0 3.4 J2 3.6 0.0 J2 0.0 D Ross Scioto 2000 2010 2000 2010 25.0 38.3 3 l.l 45.8 22.1 14.8 24.0 12.4 19.0 20.5 18.6 19.6 14.4 10.2 8.3 5.3 5.1 4.7 5.8 4.9 3.9 4.9 4.2 5.2 5.7 3.0 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.0 2.5 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 ROI 2000 2010 23.4 39.4 21.4 15.1 18.6 17.9 17.8 12.1 5.2 5.0 3.9 5.0 4.3 J2 4.3 2.9 0.3 J2 0.6 D The ROI experienced negative growth over the last 10 years. The labor force decreased from 96,333 in 2008 to 84,186 in 2018, for a growth rate of -12.6 percent for that period. Employment decreased less than the labor force, decreasing from 85,465 in 2008 to 82,108 in 2018, for a growth rate of -3.9 percent for that period. The ROI unemployment rate, which was 8.1 ercent in 2008 decreased to 6.0 ercent as of2018 as shown in Table 3.10-2. The avera e unemployment rate for the State of Ohio was 4.6 percent in 2018, down from 6.4 percent in 2008 (FRED, 2020). The unemployment rate in the ROI is higher than for the state. Per capita income in the ROI was $28,604 in 2010, a 41 percent increase from the 2000 level of $20,272. Per capita income in 2010 in the ROI ranged from a low of $27,233 in Pike County to a high of $28,896 in Ross County. The per capita income in Ohio was $36,683 in 2010 (Ohio, 2020). Table 3.10-2 Region of Influence Unemployment Rates (Ppercent) AdminMratiye Unit 2008 2018 Jackson Countv 8.5 6.6 Pike Countv 10.2 6.5 Ross Countv 7.9 4.6 Scioto Countv 8.3 6.8 ROI Total 8.1 6.0 Ohio 6.4

4.6 Sources

BLS, 2020a; FRED, 2020Employment by sector 0*1er the last decade has changed slightly, as sho*Nn iR Table 3.10 1. The service sector provides the highest perceata:ge of the employment in the ROI, a:t 24.7 perceftt, followed closely by the *Nholesa:le and retail trade with 21.7 percent, manufacturing 1tvith 17.9 percem, and government enterprises with 16.6 percent. The past decade has seeR a slight employment shift from the go:Yemmeat, eoHstruetion, and farm sectors to*.vards the service, wholesa:le ftRd retail trade, ftRd manufaeturing sectors *#ithiA the ROI. 3-77

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table J.10 1 Employment By SeetaF (Pereent) Jaeltsan Pike Reff Seiate ROI 199(J ~ mo ~ mo ~ 1990 ~ 199(J ~ Services U-:-e 1&:-9 6:-7 6:-0 U:-8 ~ ~ M ~ 24-:-1 1+1-Jhelesale &Hd R<<ail Trade ~ ~ -14.9 M-:-0 U-:-0 ~ ~ 24.-0 U-4 U:--1 G011emment and gevemment ~ 0:-1 -l-S-:-6 ~ U-4 +9:--0

l-94 8-:e 8-:e

~ enterprises Manufacturing U: ~ ~ ~ +&:-8 -l-4.-4 ~ ~ -H -l+.-9 Construction 4.-9 G-:-0 4.-8 .-9 4.-9 H ~ ~.-2 4--1 Finance, insumnee, 4: H ~ ~ µ ~ 4.-8 44 ~ 44 and Feal estate TFanspoFtation and 4:4 3-:-8 1/4

A 3-.;/-

~.-2 4:-s ~ 4-{j public utilities Farn1 employment 64 4.-8 H 3--;e ~ 3--;e H H ~ ;A

MiRing H

~ ~ G-:-0 0: G-:-0 ~ 0: ~ 0:4 9theF SeetoFs 0:4 G-:-0 ~ G-:-0 0:-6 G-:-0 G-:1 Q.:-9 0:-6 ~ Smw-ee: BEA 2002b The-ROI e,cperieneed stable gy:01.vth eveF the last 10 years. The laboF fot:ee gy=ew from 86,670 iR 1992 to 95,030 in 2001, foF a grnwth Fate of 9.6 peFGent for that period. BmploymeBt gF01.¥th outpaced labor fot:ce gFO'+¥th, incFeasing from 77,721 in 1992 to 88,980 in 2001, foF a gm,.vth rnte of 14.5 percent for that period. The ROI unemployment Fate, whieh was 10.3 pereeBt in 1992, is 6.4 peFCeat as of 2001, as sh01Nn in Table 3.10 2. The aveFage unemploymeat Fate for the State of Ohio 'tY-as 4.3 peFGent is 2001, do'HR from 7.3 pereent in 1992 (BLS 2003). The unemployment rate is the ROI is higher than fOF the state. PeF capita income in the R-01,.vas $20,272 in 2000, a 54 peFCest increase from the 1990 level of $13,142. Per capita income in 2000 in the ROI mnged from a 101.'+' of $19,158 in Pike County to a high of $21,849 in Ross CouRty. The peF capita income in Ohio was $27,977 in 2000 (BBA 2002a). Table J.10 l Regien of InAuenee Unempleyment Rates (Pereent) Administrati'le Unit 992 2002 JacksoR CoUBty 9:-2 +.9 Pike Couety 1-:-7 8-:9 R-0ss County 9:-2 ~ Scioto County ~ +:-8 3-78

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant ROI Total Ohi-e Sou!'ee: BLS 200J 3-79 Proposed Change 2020

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Current Licensee Employment At the time of this document +the Licensee presently employs 67 workers on the program, which is approximately 0.07 percent of the total individuals working within Pike County. Of the total number employed on the program, 53, or 79.1 percent live within the ROI. Table 3.10-3 lists the number of Licensee workers by their county of residence within Ohio. Table 3.10-3 Licensee Workers by County of Residence Countv Number of Workers Percent of Total Emolovment Jackson 8 11.9% Pike 10 14.9% Ross 13 19.4% Scioto 22 32.8% Outside of ROI 14 20.9% Total 67 100% Source: Conley. 2020. Resen*ation Employment In January 2004, the Urnted States Enrichment Corporation and USEC employment was 1,223 workers at the site, v'hich is approKimately I 1.0 percent of the total individuals working within Pike County. Of the total number employed at the site, 1,192, or 97.5 percent a-re residents of Ohio. Table 3.10 3 lists the number of Ueited States Enrichment Corporation and USEC 'Norkers by their couety of residence within Ohio. In addition, the DOE Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, Subcontractors, and the Ohio Army National Guard employ an additional 374 workers at the DOE reservation. Table J.10 J United States EnFiehment Cor13oration and USEC WoFlieFS by County of Residenee ~ Jackson Pike County Ross County Scioto Count)* Outside ROI Source USEC 20(Ha Tax Structure Numbers of Worli,ers Pereentege of Total Empleyme&t The average property tax rates for Ohio cities are divided into two separate classifications: Class I Real residential and a ricultural and Class II Real commercial industrial mineral and public utility). For Waverly, in Pike County, the rate is $0.0896 per $1,000 for Class I and $0.1265 for Class II; for Portsmouth, in Scioto County, the rate is $0.0913 per $1,000 for Class I and 0.1036 for Class Il for Jackson in Jackson Coun the rate is 0.101 er $1 000 for Class I and 3-80

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 $0.1038 For Class II: and in Chillicothe, in Ross County, the Class I rate is $0.296, and the Class II rate is $0.3361 per $1,000 (ODT, 2020a). The State of Ohio has a graduated personal income tax. For example, the tax rate for incomes ranging from $21,750 to $43,450 is $310.47 plus 2.85 percent of excess over $21,750, for incomes ranging from $43,450 to $86,900 it is $928.92 plus 3.326 percent of excess over $43,450, and for incomes ranging from 86,900 to 108,700 it is $2,374.07 plus 3.802 percent of excess over $86,900. Ohio also has a 5.75 percent sales tax rate. In addition to the state sales tax, each county in Ohio has a county sales tax. Jackson. Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties have a county sales tax rate of 1.5 percent (ODT, 2020b). The &¥erage property tax rates for Ohio cities are diYided into three separate classifications: Class I Real (resideatial and agricultural), Class II Real (commercial, industrial, mineral, &Ad public utility), ftfld Class III T&Rgible Personal (geaeral aRd public utility). For Wa?rerly, ia Pike County, the rate is $0.07412 per $1,000 for all three classifications; for Portsmouth, ia Scioto County, the rate is $0.06663 per $1,000 for all three classifications; for Jackson, in Jacksoa County, the rate is $0.04864 per $1,000 for all three classificatioas; Md ia Chillicothe, ia Ross Couaty, the Class I rate is $0.05401, the Class II rate is $0.05386, &Ad the Class Ill rate is $0.05405 per $1,000 (ODT 2003). The State of Ohio has a graduated persoaal iRcome tax. For example, the tax rate for incomes rB:A:ging from $20,000 to $40,000 is $445.80 plus 4.5 perceat of ex.cess O¥er $20,000, for incomes r&Rging from $40,000 to $80,000 is $1,337.20 plus 5.2 percent of ex.cess over $40,000, and for incomes rangiag from 80,000 to 100,000 is $3,417.60 plus 5.943 perceat ofeKcess o*rer $80,000. Ohio also has a 6.0 percent sales tax rate that was raised temporarily from 5.0 percent on July 1, 2003, with the present rate authorized uRtil June 30, 2005 (ODT 2003). IR addition to the state sales tax, each couRty in Ohio has a county sales tax. Jackson, Ross, aRd Scioto Counties ha.v:e a county sales tax rate of 1. 5 percent and Pike County has a county sales tax rate of 1. 0 percent (ODT 2003a). Area Residential Population The nearest residential center and the closest town to the DOE reservation is Piketon, located in Pike County about four miles north of the DOE reservation on U.S. Route 23 with a population of2,181 in 2010. The largest town in Pike County is Waverly, about eight miles north of the DOE reservation, with a population of 4,408 in 2010. Chillicothe, in Ross County about 27 miles north, is the largest population center in the ROI with a population of21,698 in 2010. Other population centers include Portsmouth. about 27 miles south in Scioto County, and Jackson, about 26 miles east in Jackson County, with populations of 20,340 and 6,242 in 2010, respectively (Census, 2020). The total population within the five-mile radius of the DOE reservation is 5,805 in 2010 (Missouri, 2020). Over the last 20 years, population within the ROI has grown at a slightly lower rate compared to the State of Ohio. ROI population is projected to slightly decrease, decreasing 4.2 percent between 2010 and 2020, compared to the state rate of an increase of 0.3 percent. Table 3.10-4 presents historic and projected population in the ROI and the state. The nearest residential center and the closest towR to the DOE reservation is Piketon, located in Pike County about four miles aorth of the DOE reservation on U.S. Route 23 vAth a population of 1,907 in 2000. The largest to*.vn in Pike County is Wa,*erly, about eight miles north 3-81

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 of the DOE reservatioe, *.vith a populatioe of 4,433 in 2000. ChiHieothe, ie R-0ss County about 27 miles north, is the largest population eeeter in the R-OI *with a populatioe of 21,796 ie 2000. Other population centers include Portsmouth, about 27 miles south in Scioto County, and Jackson, about 26 miles east in Jackson County, with populations of 20,909 and 6,184 in 2000, respectively. Table 3.10 4 presents historic and projected population in the ROI and the state (CBP 2000). The total population 'tv-ithin the five mile radius of the DOE reservation is 5,836. Table 3.10-4 Historic and Projected Population Administrative 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Unit Jackson Countv 30 592 30.230 32,641 33 225 31.600 Pike Countv 22 802 24.249 27,695 28 709 29.000 Ross Countv 65 004 69.330 73 345 78064 76.000 Scioto Countv 84 545 80.327 79,195 79 499 73.730 ROI Total 202.943 204 136 212.876 219.497 210.330 Ohio 10 797.630 10.847,115 11 353.140 11 536.504 11.574,870 1-980 1-99{) 2000 ~ Jackson Couety 30,592 30,230 32,641 34,724 Pike County 22,802 24,249 27,695 29,981 R-0ss Couety 65,004 69,330 73,345 80,111 Scioto County 84,545 80,327 79,195 81,307 ROI 202,943 204,136 212,876 226,123 Ohle lG,797,630 10,847,115 11,353,140 11,805,877 Settrce: CBP 20QQ; OOSR WOI Year wrn 13rejeotieRS based eA established rates a1313lied to 20QQ oeRSas oeaAts. Sources: Census. 2020; OOSR, 2020. Year 2020 projections based on established rates applied to 2010 census counts. Housing characteristics for the ROI are presented in Table 3.10-5. Owner-occupied housing units account for 70.7 percent of the total housing units while renter-occupied units accounted for 29.3 percent. The vacancy rate in the ROI was 4.2 percent in 2010, indicating that over 3,400 units are available for occupancy (Census, 2020). Housing characteristics for the ROI are presented in Table 3.10 5. Owner occupied housing units accouH:t for 71.8 pereent of the total occupied housing ueits v.r.hile renter occupied uRits accounted for 28.2 percent. The vacancy rate in the ROI was 3.6 percent in 2000, indicating that over 3,200 units are available for oceupaney (CBP 2000). Table 3.10-5 Region of Influence Housing Characteristics Administrative Housing Units Unit Owner-Occupied Units 3-82 Owner-Occupied Vacancy Rate Rental Units Rental Vacancy Rate {Percent)

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 (Percent) Jackson County 14,587 9,193 2.6 3,817 8.7 Pike County 12,481 7,541 1.5 3,471 11.2 Ross County 32,148 20,404 2.6 8,515 8.8 Scioto County 23,142 21,126 1.7 9,744 7.8 ROI Total 82,358 58,264 2.1 25,547 8.7 Owner Rental Owner Oeeupied Rental Vaeoney ~ Occupied Vacancy Units Rate Units Rate (Pereent) fPereent~ JacksoH CouHty 13,909 9,m -:-1 ~ 3-:e Pike CouHty 11,602 ¥-1-4 2-:-0 ~ ~ Ross CouHty 29,461 19,958 -:-8 ¥-18 H Scioto County 34,054 21,646 -:9 ~ 9:-S R-Ol 89,026 58,246 -:-8 22,824 3-:e & JU>'"ee: GBP ;!QQO 3-83

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Seasonal Populations In season recreational activities include boating and swimming at Lake White and Pike Lake State Parks, golfing on championship courses, and great hunting and fishing areas. Schools There are a number of educational institutions inside a five-mile radius of the DOE reservation. All of the Scioto Valley Local School District's (SVLSD) schools are within the five-mile radius. As of January 2020, these schools are the Piketon High School and Junior High School, located in the same building with 492 students and 27 teachers: Zahn's Corner Middle School with 303 students and 18 teachers (relocated to Piketon High School and Jasper Elementary for the 2019-2020 school year): and Jasper Elementary School with 385 students and 18 teachers (NCES, 2020). In addition to the SVLSD there is the Pike County Career Technology Center with 400 vocational high school students and adult education students, and 70 staff. There are also two public preschools with daycare: Early Childhood Family Center with 35 students and 32 staff, and the Pike County Community Action Committee with 267 students and 63 staff In addition, there is a private pre and elementary school, Miracle City Academy, with 32 students and 5 staff (Kaylor, 2020). The proximity of these schools to the DOE reservation is shown in Figure 3.10-L. The tv10 sehool systems ie the area are the Pike CouRty Schools and the Scioto Couftty Schools. However, oely Pike Couety has school facilities within fh'e miles of the DOE reservatioe: one pri*'ate school that iecludes preschool through grade 8; two elemeetar)' sohools, both of whieh include a preschool program; oRe juRior high school; aRd oee high school. The eombiRed enrollment of these sehools for the sehool year 2003 2004 is apprrncimately 2,437 (USEC 2004 SP). The total school populatioo Y1ithin th*e miles, iecluding faculty aed staff, is approximately 2,718. The proximity of these schools to the DOE reservation aRd their eRrollmeRts are showa iR Figure 3.10 1. Four facilities *.v-ithie five miles of the DOE reservatioR prO¥ide day eare or sehooliRg for preschool aged children and after school care for school aged ehildreR. ORe faeility has 114 registered ehildreR and is located in Piketon. The remaining three facilities are consolidated ie the numbers pmvided in the abO¥e paragraph (USEC 2004 SP). The locatioRs of these facilities are shov+'R in Figure 3.10 1. Hospitals and Nursing Homes Adena Pike Medical Center is the hospital closest to the site, located approximately 7.5 miles north of the facility off State Route 104 south of Waverly. The hospital facility has 25 licensed beds, approximately 147total staff, and operates at full capacity. Adena Health Center operates an urgent care facility located in Waverly approximately 1 mile north of the hospital. The Southern Ohio Medical Center Family Health Center also operates an urgent care center in Waverly. The Valley View Health Center is located next to the Adena Pike Medical Center. The Adena Family Medicine - Piketon and another Valley View Health Center are both located in Piketon. There are two licensed nursing homes in the Piketon area: Piketon Nursing Center and Pavilion at Piketon. As of January 2020, the Piketon Nursing Center had 46 patients and 46 staff, and the Pavilion at Piketon had 193 atients and 220 staff. Additional} a home for eo le with 3-84

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 intellectual and developmental disabilities is located in Wakefield, Scioto Trails Group Home, with 32 beds and 100 staff (Kaylor, 2020). Pike Com.m.uA:ity Hospital is the hospital elosest to the DOE reserve.tioR, loeated e.ppro~cime.tely 7.5 miles A.Orth of the DOE reserve.tioR OR State Route 104 south of \\Ve.verly. The facility has 70 liceRsed beds. No other a.cute care facilities are located in Pike County. Adena. Health Center operates as an urgent care facility, located approximately 7.5 miles north of the DOE reservation. Piketoa and Waverly Family Health Centers, both located north of the DOE reservation, are also e.¥e.ile.ble during workiRg hours for minor em.ergeReiesThe locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 3.10-1. Law Enforcement Several state, county, and local police departments provide law enforcement in the ROI. Pike Coun which is where the DOE reservation is located has 15 officers and will rovide law enforcement services to the DOE reservation. Other counties in the ROI have a total of 109 full-time officers, 20 in Jackson, 54 in Ross, and 35 in Scioto (FBI, 2020).The on site health protectioa program. provides services for individuals to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain a high le¥el of employee health. The X 1007 Fire Station m.e.intaias a. first aid room. and pro¥ides ambulance serYice for emergency coaditions. Pike Comm.unity Hospital *w-ill pr01Ade healthcare services to ACP workers. Three licensed nursing hem.es are located near Piketon, one in Wakefield, and one iR Bea¥er. Four of these rrursing hem.es a.re located withiR fi1t*e miles of the DOE reservation. The largest of these facilities is a. 193 bed facility in PiketoR. The combined licensed cape.city of the facilities neighboring the DOE resefYe.tion is approx.im.ately 375. Figure 3.10 1 depicts these facilities and shows the number of beds per facility. Se¥eral state, county, a.Rd local police departments pr01Ade lw.v eRforeem.ent ia the ROI. Pike County, *Nhieh is where the DOE reservation is located, has 19 officers and will provide lavt' eRforeem.ent services to the site. Other counties in the ROI ha¥e a total of 101 full time officers, 16 in Jaoksoa, 32 ia Ross, and 53 in Scioto (FBI 2000). 3-85

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Facility Schools f:rr Piketon High School 600 fit Jasper Elementary 343 'fit Pike County Caicer 393 Technology Center fit Piketon Jr. High 540 fit Parker Elementary 500 ~ Miracle City Academy 61 (Private School Pre K-12) Da;rcare/Prcschool <1) Pike Commwuty Head Start 114 Early Childhood Family Center 16 CP-027-R0 ) I ( I I ..J PIKE COUNTY SCIOTO COUNTY 3-86 <D Lake White State Pm a> Brush Creek State Forest Facility Hospitals [l] Pike Community Hospital ~ Adena Regional Medical Center [3] Piketon Family Health Center iii Waverly Family Health Center Nursing Homes Beds &. Riverside Manor 25 & Pleasant Hill Manor 193 & Good Shepard Manor (for the mentally retarded) S6 & Piketon Nursing Center Sl & Pineview Manor Inc. so

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 School* fit Piketon Hi1h Sdlool fit JupCI' Elementary fit Pike Coianty ere -400 fit Zahn'a Corner Middle School 303 School* with Dl)'Clll'C ~ Pike C'<<lnt)' Community Action 2117 ~ Minich: City Academy 3l <) Early Childhoocl Family Cenler 35 CP-159-R0 PROPOSIZD ,~ I r' I ,i r.a DOE I i RESERVATION ) I ' I ,..J I... fit (D Lake White State Park (%> BMh Creek State Forest Rock Water C*mpground Hollf'ital ID Adcaa Pike Modical Ccnrcr I!! Adena Heakh c.er-wave.ty dJ Valley View Health Cerm-Pikcton ~ Valley Vift Health Cealor-Wavorty i SOMC Family Hoallh Cenw-Waw,ty Adena Flfflily Medicine Center-Pwtan u1111na Home& & PaviUion 11 Pikelon PimoaNuniqCcal<< Scioto Trail, Group Home None None None None None

19) 46 32 Figure 3.10-1 Special Population Centers within Five Miles of the U.S. Department of Energy Reservation 3-87

Environmental Report for the American Centrifage Plant Proposed Change 2020 Minority and Low-Income Population This section details the racial composition and income status of the county where the DOE reservation is located. Data is provided on the county and census tract level using Census 2010 data (Census, 2020). The DOE reservation is located in central Pike County just south of the Village of Piketon. The site lies near the eastern edge of Census Tract 9522, near the border with Census Tracts 9523 and 9527. Tables 3.10-6 and 3.10-7 present the individuals of each category of race within the local areas b number and ercent res ectivel. The state levels are resented for com arisen. Low-income o ulations are identified usin statistical ove thresholds from the Bureau of Census (defined in 2010 as income ofless than $22,314 for a family of four). Poverty status data from the 2010 Census is not available for individual census tracts, but an estimate of 2017 data was available, and is included. The estimated number of persons below the poverty level and the rates for each of the geographical areas are presented in Table 3.10-8. 3-88

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 U.S. census data from the 2000 census 1.vas used to determine the minority and lffi.v income status of the areas within a four mile radius of the DOE reservation. The 2000 U.S. census was also used to determine what Census Block Grnups (CBG) are wholly or in part \\.vithin a four mile radius of the DOE reservation. See Figures 3.10 2 and 3.10 3 for the 2000 U.S. Census maps of the DOE reservation; Table 3.10 6 for the raw data on minority population; Table 3.10 7 for the minority population percentages; and Table 3.10 8 for lm.v income information. This data was used in the environmental justice evaluation contained in Section 4.11. 3-89

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.10-6 Minoritv Pooulation (Raw Data) Geography -Total White t'.frieafl 6- ,.. mencan . I 6-Indian .._ -r*-.. -... - ,dBeAcan Ghi-e ll,353,140 9,640,523 l,288,359 26,999 Pike Go1::1Aty, Ghio 21,695 2e,e15 222 285 Scioto Go1:1Atj', Ghio 19,195 15,025 2,026 434 Tract 9522, GBG 3, -l-S-'7-l- ~ 0 n:* r'- n.1-*_ ..a.. J..--- -----1.- 7, -*--'-"' Tract 9522, GBG 4, 1,534 1,525 0 0 n:1 r,_ .. l'"\\L:-

i.....__ -----.1.-y,._...... v TFact 9523, GBG 1, 2,493 2,391 32 15 In:'- - £"-

n.1- : _ I.&... ___ __, __ __.. "--'*.&.A'-' Tract 9527, C'BG I, 1,350 1,305 0 e In:* r,_ l'"\\L: - '£ * - '-'"ll'LI TFaet 9922, GBG 2, 793 786 0 "'7 C"-" r, __ -- n.L * - _.,_ ---*"'",......,.,.11.v Racial Composition Total White African Pooulation American Census 5,757 5,490 94 Tract 9522 Census 5,497 5,319 47 Tract 9523 Census 4,463 4,361 15 Tract 9527 Pike 28,709 27,729 258 County Scioto 79,506 74,729 2,202 Countv Ohio 11,536,504 9,539,437 1,407,681 Note: Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Source: Census, 2020. One.Race American Asian Indian 30 2 15 12 29 1 150 55 372 99 25,292 192,233 3-90 Asian Pacifio lslaneeF 132,Bl 2,641 91 14 300 e2 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 Pacific Other blander 1 10 1 3 0 1 4 44 Q 730 4,066 130,030 Othef Two or Hispanio meFe Faces Of tifttifte 89,149 113,338 213,889 51 351 146 125 1,223 41e 9 42 +4 0 0 J 2 51 14 14 14 14 0 0 0 Ethnicity Twoor Non-More Hispanic races Hispanic 130 52 5,705 100 37 5,460 56 19 4,444 469 207 28,502 1,374 880 78,626 237,765 354,674 11,181,830

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.10-7 Minority Population (Percentages) Geography White African A nmencan Asitm ~ 1dHeF1CaR ladiaa 9hie 84.9% ll.3% ~ ~ n:1-- r~. -~ ru.*- ~ 0:-S3/4 +:-G3/4 0:4-% .... *--- - -----'-J,...., ***- "-*-~- r- -~ AL "- 94.'.7% 2-#/4 ~ 0:4-% .....,.,__...,.., _, -- - - - J, -*** - +raet 9522, GBG 3, 96.6% ~ 0:-01/4 0:-01/4 Pilce Gmmtv, Qhie +ract 9522, GBG 4, 99.4% 0:-01/4 0:-01/4 0:-01/4 ln:1. - r<- AL ! - ,~. ~ Tract 952;;, GBG l, 95.9% +.-:1-1/4 Ml1/4 0:--l-% ln:1 r<- AL!- ,~. ~ Tract 952'.7, GBG 1, 96.7% 0:-01/4 9:-4-% 0:-S3/4 ln:1 r~ n.1.* ~ I.&.*--- _,_,_.... *".J, '-' +ract 99::t2, GBG 2, 99.1% 0-01/4 0:-91/4 0-01/4 C'-: - r........ -* AL " -

....,........ _...,.......... J, -*

Racial Comoositions (nercent) Total White African Population American Census 5,757 97.6 1.6 Tract 9522 Census 5,497 96.8 0.9 Tract 9523 Census 4,463 97.7 0.3 Tract 9527 Pike County 26,709 96.6 0.9 Scioto 79.506 94.0 2.8 County Ohio 11,536,504 82.7 12.2 Note: Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Source: Census, 2020. One Race American Asian Pacific Indian Islander 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 Q 0.2 1.7 0.0 3-91 Paeifie Islander 0:-01/4 0:--!--3/4 0:--1-3/4 0:-01/4 0:-01/4 0-01/4 0:-01/4 0:-01/4 Other 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.1 Gthef 0:-S3/4 ~ ~ 0-#/4 0:-01/4 0:--1-3/4 +:-G3/4 0-01/4 Two or More races 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.7 2.1 v.voor HispaBie or mere raees 1:,atiao ~ +.-9% -81/4 ~ ~ 0-#/4 ~ 0;--93/4 0-#/4 0-01/4 ~ 0:#1/4 +:-G3/4 1--:-01/4 0-01/4 0-01/4 Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic 0.9 99.1 0.7 99.3 0.4 99.6 0.7 99.3 Ll 98.9 3.1 96.9

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant ,S'euree:Ce11S1:1s2000 3-92 Proposed Change 2020

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.10-8 Low-Income Population Geography '.fetal I,ew lneome Pereeet (Belo*t1,1 Pm*erty bf:fle} 9hte ! 1,G4e,98+ 1,1 :rn,W8 W.0% Piker-_ f"\\l.. *, ~ 2+,220 5,Gel-18.0% ~- ......, ~---.. - C"-' -L- /"'- -~- ni.* - +S,08~ 14,eGG 19.J% +raet 9522, GBG ~. Pilce ~ 3/4+ 10.5% Ir<-,.-*. r'II *. - ---.... _,, - **~ +met 9522, GBG 4, Pi-Ire 1,449 .-,,H1 ++43/4 / Ir-.. -*. r'll... - '-'-~ 11.J,....., _____ +Fat-9~ l, P+ke 2,329 ---499 £-1-A1/4 Ir<- *-*- r\\1..' - ~--* "J' ~ - '.f raet 952+, GBG l,Ptke I,~ JJ9 25.1% Ir<-.. -*. r\\1.. ' - ~ ~ - T-r-aet~, -C-BG-2-; SB 114 14.~ c-:~*- r~-.. -*. r'lt.. - SA1:o*ce* Census 2000 Low Income Pooulations (2017 data) Population for Population Below Region Population Determination of Poverty Level Percent Poverty Status Census Tract 9522 5,757 6,073 1,662 27.4 Census Tract 9523 5,497 4,603 982 21.3 Census Tract 9527 4,463 4,610 962 20.9 Pike County 28,291 27,763 5,565 20.0 Scioto County 79.506 72,072 16,538 22.9 Ohio 11,609,756 11,269,161 1,683,890 14.9 Source: Census, 2020. 3-93

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Al! r-o,c., :12 mlle!i a~,1J1n. Source: ;woo..census. 2020 ~ 1kP ottio, \\ ~l / Figure 3.10-2 Census Block Group Map 3-94 Proposed Change 2020

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Figure 3.10-3 Census Tract Map 3.11 Public and Occupational Health Air releases of radionuclides from the operations at the site result in radiation exposures to people in the vicinity well within regulatory limits. Based on the year 20~ 17 total radionuclide releases from United States Enriohment CorporationDOE reservation operations, the radiation dose calculated to the MEI is 0.~ .2...mrem/yr. The oolleotive dose to population *within 80 km (SO mi) of the site is 0.10 person rem (NESHAP 2002b). This calculated MEI dose of 0.~ 2 mrem/yr is much lower than the EPA standard of 10 mrem/yr and the NRC TEDE limit of 100 mrem/yr. 3-95

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The Department of Labor has documented eight cases of beryllium sensitization and 14 cases of Chronic Beryllium Disease among current and former workers at the Portsmouth GDP. It has been estimated that only about 1,200 of a total of 28,000 personnel (including subcontractors) who have worked at PORTS have received a medical test to determine beryllium sensitivity. The Department of Energy authorized Bechtel Jacobs Company (BJC) LLC to initiate characterization of potential beryllium contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. In December 2003, under contract to BJC, the United States Enrichment Corporation began performing surface wipes, surface bulk, and destructive analysis sampling in various locations throughout the plant. Low levels of beryllium h1we beenwere found in aluminum parts machined and used in several PORTS facilities and these levels are significant based on initial surface characterization results in comparison with DOE 850 contamination limits. At least one credible exposure pathway has been identified with machining of aluminum parts, and several more have been suggested by professionals within the beryllium processing industry; these include grinding, buffing, welding and chemical treatment/cleaning of beryllium-containing materials. The NIOSH conducted an epidemiologic study to examine the causes of death among workers employed by the facility between September 1, 1954 and December 31, 1991. Deaths among the workers were compared with rates for the general U.S. population. Possible relationships were evaluated for deaths from several types of cancer and exposures to ionizing radiation and certain chemicals (fluoride, uranium metal, and nickel). Based upon previous health studies of nuclear facility workers, including an earlier NIOSH investigation at the DOE facility, deaths from cancers of the stomach, lung, and the lymphatic and the hematopoietic systems including leukemia, were evaluated in more detail. The final report, Mortality Patterns Among Uranium Enrichment Workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, was published in July 2001. The Announcement of Findings by NIOSH, published October 2001 states: "Overall cohort mortality was significantly less than expected, when compared to the United States population, as was mortality from all cancers. The lower mortality among these workers is consistent with the healthy work effect, which is found in most occupational epidemiologic studies. No statistically significant excesses in mortality from any specific cause were identified. Analyses of possible relationships between causes of death and the identified exposures failed to reveal any dose-response trends. For leukemia, no effect of cumulative exposure to either external or internal radiation was identified. Additionally, no dose-response relationships were observed for cancers of the stomach, lung, Hodgkin's disease, lymphoreticulosarcoma, and all cancers combined. Workers deaths from cancers of the lympho-hematopoietic tissue, including leukemia equaled U.S. rates. Stomach cancer deaths were greater than expected, but this difference was not statistically significant. Deaths from these cancers had been found to be slightly elevated in a previous NIOSH study of PORTS" (NIOSH 2002). The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), compiles annual injury and illness data including the incidence rates by industry. United States Enrichment CorporationThe Licensee's NAICS designation 32518, Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 3-96

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Manufacturing. standard industrial elassifieation (SIC) is 2819, "Industrial Inorganie Chemieals, not elsewhere elassified." Calendar year ~ 2019 BLS average incidence rate of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses are not currently published. The BLS average incidence rate of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for SIC 2819NAICS 32518 for calendar year 2002,_IB is 0.5 3-:-4-(20~ 19 data are not currently available). The United States Enriehment CorporationLicensee maintains a log and summary of recordable occupational injuries and illnesses under the guidance of OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910, Part 1904, Recording & Reporting Occupational Injuries & Illnesses. A compilation of Recordable Injury/ Illness Rates (RIIs) including the Days Away Restricted: Transferred (DART) rates for the Licensee operations at the DOE reservation are shown in Table 3.11-1.,, Table 3.11-1 Recordable Iniuryffilness Rates (Riis) for Fiscal Years 20092-20-1-903 Year Licensee RII BLS National DART BLS National Avera11P AverlllOP 2009 0.33 2.0 0.0 0.9 2010 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.1 2011 0.46 3.4 0.0 2.0 2012 1.42 1.9 0.0 1.0 2013 0.77 1.7 0.0 0.9 2014 0.88 2.3 0.0 1.3 2015 0.89 2.0 0.45 0.9 2016 0.00 1.1 0.0 0.6 2017 2.99 2.3 2.24 0.7 2018 5.37 1.3 5.37 0.5 2019 1.90 Not Available 1.90 Not Available Source: Bennet. 2020. Table 3.11 l summarizes a eomparison of year to date monthly Reeordable Injury/Illness rates (Riis) for fiseel years 2002 and 2003. 3-97

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table J.11 1 Reeerdahle Jnjury/Dlness Rates (Riis) fer Fiseftl Years 2002 ond 200J 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 CY-2002 CY-2003 4.40 3.86 2.58 1.93 1.77 1.84 2.21 1.94 Solil"ee: Waste Ma:nagemeet, EwriF0eraental Cemplieeoe, lndl!Sl.-ial Safety Nate: The rates ere caleulated based en the llttffl:ber ef i~tu=ies aed illnesses Eli'.'ided b~ the Htnnber ef heurs werked by empleyees times 200,000 hours. Calendar year 2002 and 2003 Recordable IHjury/Illness rates are 2.95 and 1.94, respectively *t11hieh are well belov, the national a*1erage of 3.4 for 81C 2819 published for ~ Over the years, the major sources of significant chemical exposures at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant have been to the following agents:

Acids (Hydrochloric, Hydrofluoric, Nitric, Sulfuric) - Nitric acid levels ranged up to 8.14 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)
Arsenic - Levels ranged up to 2.1 mg/m3
Asbestos - Levels ranged up to 1.4 fibers/cubic centimeter (cc)
Chlorine, Chlorine Trifluoride - Chlorine levels ranged up to 1.8 mg/m3
Chlorinated Solvents (TCE, Methyl chloroform, etc.) - TCE levels ranged up to 145 mg/m3 Chromium (Total) - Levels ranged up to 1.6 mg/m3
Fluoride, Fluorine, and HF - HF levels ranged up to 4.2 mg/m3
Lead, Copper (weapons qualification)- Lead levels ranged up to 19.5 mg/m3
Mercury - Levels ranged up to 0.19 mg/m3 3-98

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020

Nickel - Levels ranged up to 0.45 mg/m3 Exposures to the above chemical agents are controlled by administrative and engineering methods and/or personal protective equipment. Exposure results are reported as an 8-hour TWA as specified in 29 CFR 1910. 1000, Table Z-1.

The following Extremely Hazardous Substances are stored and used on the DOE reservation site as identified by Ohio Revised Code Section 3750.02(B)(1Xa), Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Title III, Community Right-To-Know:

Chlorine

~ Fluorine

Nitric Acid
----S(h
Sulfuric Acid There have been no industrial fatalities on the DOE reservation.

3.12 Waste Management The DOE and United States Enrichment Corporation's 'Haste Management Programs direct the safe storage, treatment, and disposal of v1aste generated by past and present operations and from current environmental restoration projects. DOE also stores United States Enrichment Corporation generated mixed v1aste in the RCRA Part B permitted storage areas in agreement with the OEPA Director's Final Findings and Orders, issued to the United States Enrichment Corporation on October 5, 1995. Waste management requirements are varied and are sometimes complex because of the variety of waste streams generated by the United States Enrichment CorporationLicensee and DOE activities. DOE Orders and NRC, EPA, OEP A, and Ohio Department of Health (OOH) regulations must be satisfied to demonstrate compliance for waste management activities. Additional policies have been implemented for management of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes.. The United States Enrichment Corporation is currently operating in accordance with an NRG Certificate of Compliance in accordance with 10 CFR Part 76. 3.12.1 Waste Handling Operations Waste is managed safely, effectively, and in full compliance with federal and state regulations, while protecting the environment from present and future degradation. Waste is typically transferred to the XT 847 facility. At the XT 847 facility, the waste may be further sampled/measured to assist in determining the proper *Naste characterization and proper disposal/treatment. 3-99

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 After ensuring proper containerization, characterization, labeling/marking, etc., the waste is scheduled for off-reservation disposal/treatment at a Treatment, Storage, Disposal, Recycling Facility (TSDRF) in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. 'Naste Operatiot1s ia the XT 847 facility also includes Uaited States Eariohment Corporatioa geaerated *Naste aad waste generated from Uaited States Earichmeat Corporation Project/Contract work. These wastes may process through the XT 847 facility for preparatioa for off reservatioa shipment (this includes sampling, batchiag/blending, packaging, labeling, etc.). With the beginning of D&D at the DOE reservation, DOE is placing increased emphasis on the evaluation of materials generated by D&D for reuse or recycling. An agreement between DOE and the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI) allows DOE to transfer excess equipment, clean scrap materials, and other assets to SODI. SODI first attempts to reuse the excess equipment and property within the local community. Pursuant to the agreement, if SODI is unable to place the property for reuse in the local community, SODI may sell the property. When SODI sells the property, the proceeds are used to support economic development in the southern Ohio region. Between 2012 and 2017, SODI received over 4,600 tons of materials from the former Portsmouth GDP, including recyclable materials (metals, paper and plastic). recyclable oil, excess office furniture: and over 200 passenger vehicles (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). DOE obtained approval from the OEP A in June 2015 to construct an OSWDF in the northeast portion of the DOE reservation. The record of decision for site-wide waste disposition was concurred with by Ohio EPA in June 2015. Approval of Phase I and Phase II of the remedial design/remedial action work plan for the OSWDF was obtained in September and October 2015, respectively, which allowed initial site construction activities such as tree clearing, fencing, utility installation, and installation of erosion and sediment controls, retention ponds for surface water runoff, and installation of office trailers. These activities began after approval of the work plan and are continuing {FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). The latest information for the former Portsmouth GDP waste generation rates can be found in the Annual Site Environmental Report (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Waste Streams Various waste streams are generated and are designated as one or more of the following, as applicable: low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), RCRA hazardous waste, LLMW, non-regulated/recyclable waste, classified/sensitive waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. Low-Level Radioactive Waste LLRW is radioactively contaminated waste that is not classified as high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product materials as defined in section l le(2) of the Atomic Energy Act. Some examples of LLRW include dry active waste (DAW), radioactively contaminated metal, trap material, and used oil. 3-100

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 LLRW including mixed waste exhibit radionuclide activities that will typically range from the minimum detectable activity of0.2 to 0.5 ug/g for total uranium and 1.0 pCi/g technetium up to 0.5mg/g for total uranium and 30 pCi/g for technetium. Higher concentrations do occasionally occur. Trap material consists of alumina, magnesium and sodium fluoride pellets. Activities will typically range from the minimum detectable activity of 0.2 to 0.5 ug/g for total uranium and 1.0 pCi/g technetium up to 10.0 mg/g for total uranium and 100,000 pCi/g for technetium. Magnesium trapping material from the feed stock decontamination project has had levels ofup to 4.78 µCi/g. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Hazardous Waste RCRA waste is a hazardous waste that is listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart Dor exhibits any hazardous waste characteristics reported in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C or in equivalent state regulations. Some examples of RCRA hazardous waste include mercury batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, lithium batteries, aerosol cans, solvents, and laboratory waste. Low-Level Mixed Waste LLMW is a waste that contains both low-level radioactive waste and RCRA hazardous waste, as defined in OAC 3745-266-210. Some examples of LLMW include laboratory waste, decontamination solutions, and solvents. Non-Regulated/Recyclable Waste Non-regulated/recyclable waste includes waste that is: Not radioactively contaminated, Not RCRA-hazardous, Not Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)-regulated, Not classified/sensitive, and Is not acceptable for disposal at a sanitary landfill. Some examples of non-regulated/recyclable waste include used oil, fluorescent bulbs, incandescent bulbs, High Intensity Discharge bulbs, circuit boards, scrap metal, and lead-acid batteries. 3-101

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Classified/Sensitive Waste Classified/sensitive waste is any waste considered as such for security reasons. These materials may be classified due to configuration, composition, contamination, or contained information. Sanitary/Industrial Waste Sanitary/industrial waste includes non-hazardous solid waste generated by industrial process and manufacturing and conventional waste material that is no longer usable for plant operations. Some examples of sanitary/industrial waste include sludge from wastewater treatment, alkaline batteries, trash, paper, wood, metal, glass, and cafeteria/office refuse. Waste Stream Characterization/Classification Waste are classified based upon various factors, which includes, but is not limited to, laboratory analysis, radiological assessment, process knowledge, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), and Non-Destructive Analysis (NOA). Waste Segregation and Collection Generated wastes are collected and packaged, where feasible, by the waste generator. Wastes known to be suitable for release to unrestricted areas based on the point and process of generation are segregated at the source, when possible, from wastes not suitable for release to unrestricted areas. Until characterized, wastes from areas controlled for loose radioactive contamination are considered to be potentially contaminated, these wastes are segregated until completion of such characterization. Waste collection and segregation activities are completed in accordance with applicable state and federal rules and regulations and site procedures. Waste are collected and packaged, where feasible, by the waste generator. Waste are segregated into the various waste streams and handled accordingly to minimize the generation of hazardous, LLMW, and LLRW.Waste Qpeftltions Within the XT 847 Facility For long term storage and preparation of waste for off reservation shipment to TSDRF, se,v:eral operations are performed within the XT 847 faeility by the United States EmichmeRt Corporation. These operations iRelude, but are not limited to: sampling, batching, blendiRg, glo1t'e brnc operations, non destructi*1e assay measurements, DA'N and contaminated metal sorting, repaekaging, and 0*1erpaeking. Sampling, batching, and repackaging may also be performed elsewhere on site, as necessary (e.g., X 710 buildiRg). Sampling and batching of some solid waste, with air borne potential, may be performed with-in the glove box enclosure. Sampling and batching of some liquid waste may be performed by utilizing a blending unit (a liquid waste collection and sampling system). Additional sampling and batching of both liquid and solid waste is performed within the XT 847 foeility outside of glove box and blending unit operations. 3-102

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 The ROA destruetive assay eql:tipmeet loeated withie the XT 847 faeility ineludes, but is not limited to (portable NOA equipmeet may be utilized within the XT 847 faeility), a Low Density Waste Assay Monitor (LDWAM.) and bmc monitor. This equipme1lt is utilized to measure the aeth*ity of waste iR a variety of eoRtaieers ieeludiRg small diameter eoetaiRers, drums, aRd B 25 bmces. DAW aed coetamiRated metal is typically eolleeted iR 55 galloR eontainers, but iR some iestanees may be placed direetly iRto B 25 boxes. The eontems of the filled 55 galloR eoataiRers is sorted aed transferred ieto B 25 boxes 1NithiR the XT 847 faeility ie preparation for off reservation shipmeRt to a TSDRF. Waste is also repaekaged aRd/-or o,;erpaekecl within the XT 847 faeility. Prior to off reservation shipmeet or upon diseo*rery, leakieg and/or damagecl eontaieers are either repaekaged ieto a similar eontainer or overpaeked. The contents of a leaking or damaged waste eontainer may be repaekagecl by hand, or by utilizing a barrel lift, forklift, forklift rotator attachment, pump, or other means of transfer. Waste Packaging and Labeling Waste is containerized and labeled in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and site procedures. Some general types of waste packaging include, but are not limited to:

Solid Waste
Liquid Waste
Corrosives, Acids 5, 30, 55, or 110.:-gallon drums; small diameter containers polybottles; 5, 30, or 55.:-gallon drums polybottles or polydrums
Scrap Metal/DAW B-25 boxes or other similar boxes; various drums In addition, 85-and 110-gallon overpacks may be used for appropriate wastes and leaking/damaged containers.

Waste Storage Waste is typically removed from the generating facilities and transferred to a waste storage facility (typically the XT 847) prior to final disposal; however, in some instances, waste may be shipped directly from other on-site areas. RCRA hazardous waste is stored on-site for up to 90 days prior to off-reservation shipment to a TSDRF. Non-regulated/recyclable waste, LLMW, and LLRW are stored on-site until off-reservation shipment to a TSDRF can be scheduled. The LLMW waste is exempted from the storage requirements of RCRA hazardous waste as defined in OAC 3745-51-03. LLMW is eligible for this conditional exemption as it is a RCRA hazardous waste and is generated and managed as described in 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart N and OAC-3 7 45-266. 3-103

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Contaminated scrap metal, DAW, and other boxed waste may be stored outside. TypicaJly, ~re-stored on the XT 847 facility *.vest pad; howev-eF,--they-may be stored outside elsewhere on the DOE reservation. If outdoor storage of waste is necessary in other than B-25 boxes, radioactive wastes with removable contamination are packaged in containers, wrapped or covered to prevent the release of radioactivity. Off-reservation Waste Shipments Waste shipments are packaged, labeled, and manifested in accordance with applicable state, federal, DOT, NRC, EPA requirements, and plant procedures. Packages are inspected prior to shipment, as appropriate, to verify compliance with applicable packaging and transportation requirements. Off-reservation shipments of waste are made only to approved TSDRFs. Prior to off-reservation shipment, it is confirmed that the waste meets the waste acceptance criteria CW AC) of the TSDRF. During 20~ 17, over 4 million lb of waste from the DOE Portsmouth were recycled, treated, or disposed (Table 3.12.1-1). Future DOE v,aste management projects include the Sfilf}ffleftHeHH*sf}OOaJ--eftl:R-W-an-d~e-treatm~f.m-Hfed-and poly chi ori nated e-iphenyl (PCB) mixed waste at-DGE--app-roved off reservation facilitiesThese figures include waste from FBP only, and do not include waste from the Licensee (FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288). Waste Tracking and Documentation All LLRW, LLMW, RCRA hazardous waste, and non-regulated/recyclable waste are tracked through a Request for Disposal (RFD) system. Each waste container is given a unique identification number. The identification numbers are entered and maintained in a database. The database is updated to reflect location, characterization, and waste disposal information. 3-104

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 Table 3.12.1-1 U.S. Department of Energy Waste Management Program Treatment, Disposal, and Recycling Accomplishments for 201702 Waste Tvpe RCRA RCRA LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW/BSFR RCRA/LLW RCRA/LLW RCRA/LLW RCRA/LLW LLW/PCB LLW/PCB RCRA/LLW/ PCB PCB Solid Waste Solid Waste Watte Stream PCB cantaminated saft cambustible deoo5Aerosol cans and other liquids classified as hazardous waste Battery acid and air filters contaminated with metals Used oils Sludges, contaminated liquids, scrap metal, and other debrisLa"'" le*;el mdiaaeli*;e waste Contaminated paperSail caRtamiaated with trichlaraethene RCRA debrisAsh and other solids D&D waste, uranium materials, scrap metal, and other soilds, Sil.,*er Salutians Assorted solids (wood. metal, plastic, ~ Lab wastes, gas cylinders, and other liquids Batteries D&D waste. soil, lab wastes. and other materials -Alumim.tm-Afl Metal turnings, carbon filters. and other materials Cardbaard Solids contaminated with RCRA metals Oil/water mixture contaminated with PCBs PCB ballasts, wire, and other D&D waste Used PCB oil PCB Transfonner D&D waste, concrete, asphalt metal. office waste, and otller solid materials Non-haz.ardous liquids (antifreeze, refrigerant) Recyclable aluminum cans, batteries, electronic materials, plastic, batteries, light bulbs, etc. Recyclable materials transferred to SODI Source: FBP-ER-RCRA-WD-RPT-0288DOE 2003a Quantity Obs) l 2. 999 Elmms/ 262,0201,396 lbs 1,559 81,392 25 116 cantainersl 2,937.5l8 lbs69,315 2,29592+ eaRtainefS/ 639,469 lbs 676422 CORtaiRefS/ 59.529 lbs 1,747,657~ 60Rta.iRefS/ 1616lbs 192,3706.360 lbs 3,55639.906 lbs 70,3472,112 lbs 124,212ll,430 lbs 5,61335,760 lbs 11,675 51,803 353 427 562.600 21,0ll 294,750 1,192,021 3-105 Treatment, disposal, or recycling facility EwlirocareEnvironmental Quality Co. Michigan Disposal Waste Treatment Plant Diversified Scientific Solutions En.,.irocareEnergy Solutions Clive, UT Materials & Energy CeFf)amtieREnergy Solutions Bear Creek, TN Materials & Energy Corp.+SGA-Inciaemtar Nevada National Security SiteSafety Kleen Omega Waste Logistics~ Diversified Scientific Solutions~ Energy Solutions Clive. UT Star. Inc. Materials & Energy Corp.Star, Inc. Perma-Fix FloridaRumpke Diversified Scientific Solutions Nevada National Security Site Diversified Scientific Solutions Environmental Protection Services Rmnpke/ Pike Sanitation Landfill Environmental Quality Co. Various (not including SODI)

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Proposed Change 2020 On March 2, 2016, the Licensee notified NRC of their decision to permanently cease o eration at the Lead Cascade and to terminate the NRC Materials License SNM-7003 followin decontamination and decommissioning activities. The packaging and shipping activities associated with the classified and/or contaminated waste were completed over a IO-month period which began in March 2017 and the final shipment was completed in December 2017. Waste categories handled during the Lead Cascade decommissioning efforts, were as follows: 1) solid radioactive waste, 2) liquid radioactive waste, and 3) solid Low-Level Mixed Waste (DP-2605-0001). Unclassified, low-level contaminated liquid waste was handled as an on-site transfer for processing to the DOE's Prime Contractor for the D&D activities at the former Portsmouth GDP, FBP in Piketon, Ohio (DP-2605-0001). During calendar year 2003, the United States Enrichment Corporation disposed of 5,465 cubic feet (ft3) ofLLR\\l/ and 524 ft3 of mixed wastes. The United States Enrichment Corporation was able to recycle 2,700 ft3 of batteries, bulbs, and used oil (Table 3.12. l 2). The generation rates for LLRW and mixed wastes are expected to remain constant for the ne,ct few years. The projected annual United States Enrichment CorpomtioR generation rates for *.vaste is 13,000 ft3 for LLRW and 500 ft3 of mixed wastes. _Table J.12.1 2 United States Enriehment Corporation Waste Generation and Shipment Rates CaleRdar Year 2003 3-106

Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant Weste Category Mixed/H&HFdous: Aerosol Cans Lithium Batteries Ni cad Batteries Metal Bearing Solids Solvent Laden Solids Solvent Laden Paint Laboratory & Off ~ Chemicals Misc. Lab Solutions Alumina Sludge LOVi' Level Redioeetive: Dry Activated Waste Scrap Metal Oily 3M Cloth Used Oil Alumina Sludge Reeyelebles: Fluorescent Bulbs Incandescent Bulbs Circuit Boards Lead Acid Batteries Used Oil Sanitary/Industrial Generated (ft') J.-1-7 217 Mixed J00RCRA 10,016 ~ -148 300 ton Shipped ffr -143-0

1-300 ton NOTE: \\l/astes shipped include shipping those in backlog.

Proposed Change 2020 T,e11tmem/Dispesal Faeility LWl) DSSI Perme Fix Envirocare DSSI GTS Dureteh. AERC DOE Run Safety Kleen Pilie Sanitary Londfill Seuroe: United States Eerielunent Corpomtioa Waste Managemeat/EwliroBmemal Complianee/IBEIHstrial Safety. 3-107}}

ML20139A098

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Response

3.0 DESCRIPTION

- ~: ~~

4.6 Sources

Navigation menu

ML20139A098

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Response

3.0 DESCRIPTION

*- *~: ~~

4.6 Sources

Navigation menu

Search

- ~: ~~