ML18204A294

Final Environmental Assessment for Centrus

ML18204A294
Person / Time
Site:	07007003
Issue date:	07/26/2018
From:	James Park, Jean Trefethen Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:	American Centrifuge Operating
Trefethen J
References
Download: ML18204A294 (10)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS DIVISION OF FUEL CYCLE SAFETY, SAFEGUARDS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN UPDATED DECOMISSIONING PLAN UNDER U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE NUMBER SNM-7003 FOR THE AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE LEAD CASCADE FACILITY IN PIKETON, OHIO DOCKET NUMBER: 70-7003 July 2018

ACRONYMS ACO American Centrifuge Operating, LLC ACP American Centrifuge Plant ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DOE U.S. Department of Energy DP decommissioning plan EA Environmental Assessment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FSS Final Status Survey FWS Fish and Wildlife Service Ha Hectare LCF Lead Cascade Facility MSv millisievert(s)

NNSS Nevada National Security Site NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODH Ohio Department of Health Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio SHPO Ohio State Historic Preservation Office PORTS Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant RC Release Criteria ROD Record of Decision SHPO State Historic Preservation Office i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN UPDATED DECOMISSIONING PLAN UNDER U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE NUMBER SNM-7003 FOR THE AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE LEAD CASCADE FACILITY IN PIKETON, OHIO

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO or the licensee), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Centrus Energy Corp. (Centrus), formally named USEC Inc., plans to decommission the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility (LCF) and to terminate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Materials License SNM-7003. Operation of the LCF began in 2006 under License No. SNM-7003, issued by the NRC in 2004 (NRC, 2004a), and ended operations on March 2, 2016 (ACO, 2016a). The LCF is located in Pike County, Ohio, on a site owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS). DOE leases portions of the PORTS site, including the LCF buildings, to the licensee.

By letter dated January 5, 2018, Centrus submitted a decommissioning plan (DP) for the LCF (ACO, 2018a). By letter dated February 21, 2018, the NRC accepted for detailed technical review Centrus LCF DP license amendment request (NRC, 2018a).

In this Environmental Assessment (EA), the NRC staff evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and applicable guidance found in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC, 2003).

After licensing by the NRC, the licensee installed centrifuges in a portion of one of the buildings leased from DOE, and began operating the LCF as a testing facility in August of 2006. The LCFs purpose was to provide reliability, performance, cost, and other data for use in making the decision about whether to construct and operate a commercial uranium enrichment plant, commonly referred to as the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP)1 (NRC, 2004b).

The LCF was authorized to contain a maximum of 240 operating centrifuges at any given time, with a maximum enrichment of 10 percent in the fissile isotope uranium-235 (U-235) by weight.

The licensee operated the centrifuges in recycle mode where the product stream enriched in U-235 was recombined with the stream depleted in U-235 prior to being re-fed to the centrifuges. The licensee took samples of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for laboratory analysis to assess the performance of the centrifuges. The NRCs 2004 licensing EA (NRC, 2004b) contains additional background information about the LCF.

On March 2, 2016 (ACO, 2016a), ACO notified the NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR 70.38(d)(2), of the Centrus decision to permanently cease operation of the LCF, and to terminate NRC License SNM-7003 following decontamination and decommissioning activities.

1 Although licensed, the ACP has not been constructed.

1

Since then, under its existing NRC license, ACO has removed all UF6 from the installed process centrifuges and piping, disconnected centrifuges from their mounts, and packaged, transported and disposed of all LCF centrifuges and equipment at the DOEs Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). ACO completed this work in December 2017. The NRC documented its environmental review of the disposition of these materials and waste in an EA issued in June 2017 (NRC, 2017a).

1.1 Proposed Action As discussed above, the licensee has submitted a decommission plan (DP) for NRC approval.

The DP includes proposed Release Criteria (RC) and a Final Status Survey (FSS) design. The licensee is seeking to meet the unrestricted RC in 10 CFR Part 20.1402; the purpose of the FSS is to ensure that residual contamination is below these criteria (ACO, 2018b).

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action By letter dated January 5, 2018, the licensee submitted its DP to the NRC with a request to review and approve the included RC and FSS design (ACO, 2018a). As discussed in Section 1.1, ACO intends to meet the unrestricted RC in 10 CFR Part 20. Meeting these criteria would support a future ACO request for NRC to terminate Materials License SNM-7003 (ACO, 2018a).

1.3 Scope of the Environmental Analysis The NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the no-action alternative, and has documented the results of the assessment in this EA. The NRC staff performed this review in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 and applicable staff guidance found in NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003). The NRC staff reviewed the documents submitted by the licensee, the EA for the licensing of the LCF (NRC, 2004b),

and the NRCs EA for approval to transport radioactively contaminated and non-contaminated classified material waste from the LCF (NRC, 2017a). These documents are identified in Section 9.0 of this EA.

2.0 ALTERNATIVE The alternative considered in this EA is the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC could deny the licensees request to approve the DP, and request ACO to submit a revised DP. However, the NRC considers the environmental impacts of this alternative to be similar to those of the proposed action. Furthermore, the no-action alternative does not comply with the licensees commitments made during licensing or the decommissioning requirements of 10 CFR 70.38, Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that denying the DP is not a reasonable alternative.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The licensee conducted the LCF process operations primarily in a portion of an approximately 28,242 square meter (303,994 square feet) building leased from DOE (ACO, 2018a; NRC, 2006). This building and the other buildings leased from DOE are located on approximately 10 percent of the 200-acre (81-ha) ACP site leased from the DOE, which lies within the 2

3,700-acre (1,500-ha) PORTS site (NRC, 2004; 2006). The LCF is located within a highly developed DOE industrial site that is marked by signs and fences, and gates are in place where public roads cross the site boundary (ACO, 2017a). The LCF operations also involved the use of buildings leased from DOE to provide process and administrative support; centrifuge training and testing; centrifuge storage, handling, and assembly; and transporter storage and maintenance. An enclosed transfer corridor was used to move the centrifuges between the process and testing buildings.

The LCF is located in Pike County, Ohio, a rural, sparsely populated area in south central Ohio (ACO, 2017a). The nearest residential center, Piketon, lies about 6 km (4 mi) north of the site on U.S. Route 23, while Waverly, the largest town in Pike County is located approximately 13 km (8 mi) north of the site. The largest cities within an approximate 50-mile radius are Portsmouth, Ohio (approximately 43 km [27 mi] to the south) and Chillicothe, Ohio (approximately 43 km [27 mi] to the north). Two major four-lane highways serve the PORTS industrial site; U.S. Route 23 runs north-south and State Route 32/124 runs east-west (ACO, 2017a).

Although several environmentally sensitive areas lie within the larger DOE site, the areas occupied by the LCF are either inside an existing concrete-floored building, or are located on paved surfaces that are not near these environmentally sensitive areas (NRC, 2004b). All radiological survey activities would occur within the leased buildings, and no new construction or land disturbance is expected (ACO, 2018a).

Environmental monitoring for both radiological and chemical components is required by State and Federal regulations and/or permits. The licensee indicated that there were no spills during LCF operations wherein radioactive material contaminated local ground water supplies (ACO, 2018a). Currently at the LCF, there are no liquid operations, permanent contamination areas, or instances of airborne radioactivity exceeding 0.1 percent of the LCF derived air concentrations set at 1 X 10-10 microcurie(s) per milliliter. The licensee indicated that no radiological work was performed outside the facility buildings, and there is no evidence of soil contamination attributable to the LCF (ACO, 2017b).

Prior to the NRCs issuance of License No. SNM-7003 for the LCF in 2004 (NRC, 2004a), the Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer (Ohio SHPO) in 2003 made a finding that the licensing action would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The Ohio SHPO stated that the LCF licensing action met the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4) Criterion A because of the sites previous significance in the development of nuclear energy potential in post-World War II U.S. history (NRC, 2004b). For the 2017 EA regarding disposition of radioactively contaminated and non-contaminated classified material waste from the LCF, the NRC consulted with the Ohio SHPO (NRC, 2017a). The Ohio SHPO responded by letter dated May 8, 2017, stating that a finding of no adverse effect for the proposed action is appropriate (Ohio SHPO, 2017). The Ohio SHPO also stated that, during future decommissioning activities, further consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be necessary. For the present action, the NRC staff again consulted with the Ohio SHPO as discussed in Section 6.0 of this EA.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The NRC staff reviewed the documents identified in Section 9.0, below, and independently evaluated the potential environmental impacts to the various resources of the affected 3

environment that would result from the proposed action. The NRC staff used the guidance outlined in NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003) in its evaluation. In accordance with this guidance, the NRC staff evaluated the direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative impacts that each resource area may encounter from the proposed action.

For the purposes of this EA, in determining whether a proposed action may have significant effects on the human environment, the NRC staff categorizes environmental impacts as follows:

• SMALLenvironmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

• MODERATEenvironmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

• LARGEenvironmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

The proposed action is described above in Section 1.1. The licensee will perform the FSS activities inside the LCF buildings, and no activities involving land disturbance are planned. As addressed in the sections below, the environmental impacts of the proposed FSS for the LCF would be small. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that there would be no impacts to the following resources areas: land use, geology and soils, water resources, ecology, meteorology, climate, air quality, noise, transportation, waste management, visual and scenic resources, and socioeconomic resources.

4.1 Radiological Impacts All LCF decommissioning activities, with the exception of the FSS, have been completed under the current license authority (ACO, 2018a). The radioactively contaminated and non-contaminated classified material waste from the LCF has been shipped by ACO via truck to the NNSS. After the waste was shipped, the licensee cleaned the areas and began the FSS.

The FSS goal is to ensure that residual contamination levels are less than the 10 CFR Part 20 unrestricted RC. After remediation to remove elevated contamination from two areas, the licensee found that all residual contamination levels were less that the unrestricted RC (ACO, 2018b).

Occupational Dose To protect LCF personnel from unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation, ACO maintains a radiation protection program to ensure that radiation doses are maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation (ACO, 2017c). The primary focus of the FSS was the floor surface; the surveys were performed with a Ludlum 239-1 Floor Monitor (ACO, 2018b). Personnel performing these activities were monitored for external and internal doses. Licensee review of this monitoring data found that the while thermoluminescence dosimeters showed positive readings the bioassay data indicated that all exposures were less than the minimum recording level (ACO, 2018b). Recent surveys at the LCF indicate a background dose rate of approximately 0.006 microroentgen(s)/per hour (ACO, 2017c). Personnel external doses are expected to remain less than 100 millirem/yr (1 millisievert(s)/year) (ACO, 2017c) which is within the occupational dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201, Occupational dose limits for adults.

4

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological doses to workers from the proposed action would be SMALL.

Dose to the Public Based on the radiological dose rate information provided above, the dose to the public is estimated to be minimal and indistinguishable when compared to background radiation.

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological impacts to the public from the proposed action would be SMALL.

4.2 Non-radiological Impacts Performing the FSS does not include any activities involving land disturbance and would occur within LCF buildings. Sanitary waste water is treated at the PORTS Reservation. Stormwater runoff is directed to existing onsite holding ponds. The Lead Cascade Regulatory Manager coordinates activities to minimize waste and prevent pollution. The LCF is required to follow State and Federal regulations and/or permits for environmental monitoring of chemicals (ACO, 2017b). Furthermore, all LCF equipment and waste have been removed from the facilities (ACO, 2018b). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the non-radiological impacts from the proposed action would be SMALL.

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The NRC staffs assessment of cumulative impacts considers the impacts of the proposed action when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at the DOE site that could affect the same resources impacted by the proposed action.

DOE is in the process of decontaminating and decommissioning the former PORTS that enriched uranium at a location adjacent to the ACP site (Ohio EPA, 2017). In May 2001, the PORTS ceased enriching uranium and was placed in cold stand-by mode until September 2005, when the PORTS was placed in cold shutdown.

Previously, in 1989, DOE and the State of Ohio entered into a consent decree that outlined the requirements for handling hazardous waste generated by the PORTS, and for conducting investigation and environmental remediation at the DOE site. Additional consent agreements were negotiated involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA's) role under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as integration of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and CERCLA into an overall PORTS cleanup process. Since the 1989 consent decree, several landfills, groundwater plumes and various units have been closed, remediated, or removed under Ohio EPA oversight. By the end of 2007, DOE had removed all PORTS legacy waste from these areas.

Additionally, DOE began operating a depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) deconversion facility on its site in 2011. This facility is in the process of deconverting DUF6 generated during operation of the PORTS (NRC, 2017b).

Currently, Ohio EPA is working with DOE to plan for long term decontamination and decommissioning of obsolete buildings and infrastructure at DOEs site. Negotiations addressing natural resource damages are also ongoing (Ohio EPA, 2017). In a January 24, 2017, public meeting (DOE, 2017), DOE provided a status of the PORTS -related activities that included the following:

5

• advancements toward a demolition-ready state for the first of three massive uranium process buildings with deactivation of the second building underway;

• timing these future demolitions with the ongoing construction of the On-Site Waste Disposal Facility that will hold some demolition debris and whose site preparation, infrastructure construction and utilities installation are largely completed; and

• near completion of waste shipping and right-sizing of key infrastructure while recovering some costs and supporting local economic development through recycling.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action discussed in Section 4.0 above would not have a significant impact on environmental resources. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not significantly contribute to potential cumulative impacts when added to the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions at the PORTS site.

6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1969 (ESA) and through its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B), prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether: (1) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (2) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the Federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accordingly, in preparing its EA for the initial licensing of the LCF in 2004, the NRC consulted with the FWS and determined that operation of the LCF would not affect listed species or critical habitat. As noted in the 2004 EA, the LCF is in an industrial area, and a favorable habitat does not exist for species of concern as identified by the FWS (NRC, 2004b).

As in 2004, the proposed action involves the same industrial area in which a favorable habitat does not exist for species of concern. Additionally, the proposed action will not result in construction activities or land disturbance. Accordingly, consistent with guidance provided in NUREG-1748, the NRC determined that even if listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitats were now present in the vicinity of the LCF the proposed action would not affect such species or their habitats. To confirm/update the 2004 findings the NRC staff visited the FWS website and completed the online review of the LCF geographic area. The results of that consultation effort was a no effect determination (FWS, 2018). Therefore, the NRC has determined that no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the ESA.

The NRC consulted by letter dated April 9, 2018 with the Ohio SHPO (NRC, 2018b). In the consultation letter, the NRC staff further explained the activities involved in the proposed action and noted that the LCF buildings would remain intact after completion of the FSS. The Ohio SHPO replied by letter dated May 16, 2018 (Ohio SHPO, 2018). In the reply, the Ohio SHPO indicated that they could not concur with the NRCs determination of no adverse effects and that the NRC needed to complete consultation that seeks input from concerned parties. The Ohio SHPO also recommended that NRC contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). On June 11, 2018, a conference call was held between the Ohio SHPO, the ACHP 6

and the NRC to discuss the concerns expressed in the SHPOs May 16, 2018, letter. During this call the ACHP expressed its agreement with the NRC that the activity under review falls under 10 CFR 36 800.3(a)(1) and has no potential to affect to the historic properties on the PORTS site. The NRC sent a letter, dated July 16, 2018, to the Ohio SHPO summarizing this activity and concluding Section 106 consultation (NRC, 2018c). The DOE conducted a National Historic Preservation Act Section 110 survey of architectural properties at PORTS (DOE, 2010).

An additional summary report of cultural resource surveys was also developed for PORTS (DOE, 2014). A DOE record of decision (ROD) identified 33 of the 196 buildings at the PORTS site to be historic properties. The ROD indicated that the historic properties are directly related to the PORTS Cold War Mission and are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation measures were identified and are being implemented by DOE to address impacts to the 33 buildings (DOE, 2015). None of the 33 buildings identified are part of the LCF, and the proposed DP activities have not had an adverse effect on any of the 33 buildings.

The NRC consulted by letter dated April 11, 2018, with the Osage Nation (NRC, 2018d). In the consultation letter the NRC explained the activities involved in the proposed action and asked if the Osage Nation had specific knowledge of any sites they believe have traditional religious and cultural significance. By letter dated May 29, 2018, the Osage Nation responded to the NRCs consultation request. In their reply, the Osage Nation stated it concurred with the NRC determination that the proposed DP most likely would not adversely affect any sacred properties and/or properties of cultural significance to the Nation, and also stated, [t]he Osage Nation has no further concern with this project (Osage Nation, 2018).

On June 12, 2018, a copy of the draft EA was sent to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) for comment (NRC, 2018e). ODH responded in a letter dated July 6, 2018, stating that, they had received and reviewed the draft EA and had no further comments (ODA, 2018).

7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DP for the LCF would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

As discussed in this EA, no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts are expected to result from approval of the proposed action. Occupational dose estimates associated with the proposed action are expected to be ALARA and within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201. Approval of the proposed action is not expected to result in measurable radiation exposure to a member of the public. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for this proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Jean Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC James Park, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC 7

9.0 REFERENCES

(ACO, 2018a). American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility License Amendment Request -

Submittal of Revision to the Decommissioning Program. ADAMS Package No. ML18025B285.

January 5, 2018.

(ACO, 2018b). Final Status Survey Report for the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility Decommissioning Project in Piketon, Ohio. ADAMS Package No. ML18145A127.

April 19, 2018.

(ACO, 2017a). License Application, Revision 62, American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML17107A403. January 2017.

(ACO, 2017b). RAIs and Responses for Centrus ACP March 23, 2017. ADAMS Package No.

ML17107A384.

(ACO, 2017c). Supplemental Information for Shipment of American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility Classified Matter and/or Contaminated Waste for Disposal. ADAMS Accession No.

ML17087A285. March 10, 2017.

(ACO, 2016a). Letter from S. Toelle, of Centrus Energy to S. Moore, NRC, Notification of Cessation of Principal Activities at the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML16074A405. March 2, 2016.

(DOE, 2017). Large Crowd Turns Out for Public Update on Portsmouth Site Cleanup Progress. https://energy.gov/em/articles/large-crowd-turns-out-public-update-portsmouth-site-cleanup-progress. Accessed on April 14, 2017.

(DOE, 2015). Record of Decision for the Process Buildings and Complex Facilities Decontaminations and Decommissioning Evaluation Project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. July 2015.

(DOE, 2014). Comprehensive Summary Report of Cultural Resources Investigations Conducted at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS Facility), Scioto and Seal Townships, Pike County, Ohio. May 22, 2014.

(DOE, 2010). National Historic Preservation Act Section 110 Survey of Architectural Properties at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Scioto and Seal Townships, Piketon, Ohio.

August 3, 2010.

(FWS, 2018). US FWS No Effect Determination for Projects within a Developed Area -

Endangered Species Review for the Lead Cascade Facility Decommissioning Plan. Website accessed on March 28, 2018. ADAMS Accession No. ML18136A499.

(NRC, 2018a) Letter to S. Toelle, Director Regulatory Affairs, Centrus Energy Corporation, from J. Zimmerman, NRC. Acceptance Review of American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility Decommissioning Program Amendment Application (Enterprise Project Identification:

L-2018-DDP-0000. ADAMS Accession No. ML18030A442. February 21, 2018.

8

(NRC, 2018b). Letter to B. Logan, State Historic Preservation Office, Ohio History Connection, from C. Roman, NRC. Request for Concurrence on the Determination of No Effects on Historic Properties for the American Centrifuge Operating LLC Request to Review and Approve the Decommissioning Plan for the Lead Cascade Facility (Docket No.: 70-7003). ADAMS Accession No. ML18078B230. April 9, 2018.

(NRC, 2018c). Letter to B. Logan, State Historic Preservation Office, Ohio History Connection, from C. Roman, NRC. Concluding Section 106 Consultation for the American Centrifuge Operating LLC Request to Review and Approve the Decommissioning Plan for the Lead Cascade Facility (Docket No.: 70-7003). ADAMS Accession No. ML040210751. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 16, 2018.

(NRC, 2018d). Letter to G. Standing Bear, Chief, Osage Nation, C. Erlanger, NRC. Section 106 Consultation Under the National Historic Preservation Act. ADAMS Accession No.

ML18088A036. April 11, 2018.

(NRC, 2018e). Letter to S. Kubera, Sr. Health Physicist, Ohio Department of Health, C. Roman, NRC. Review of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Approval of an Updated Decomissioning Plan Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Number:

SNM-7003 for the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio (Docket Number: 70-7003. ADAMS Accession No. ML18130A468. June 12, 2018 (NRC, 2017a). Environmental Assessment for the Approval to Transport Classified Matter and Wastes from the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML17153A093. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

June 2017.

(NRC, 2017b). Deconversion of Depleted Uranium. https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion.html. Accessed on April 14, 2017.

(NRC, 2006) Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio. NUREG-1834. April 2006.

(NRC, 2004a). License for the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility - Redacted Version.

ADAMS Accession No. ML062630432. February 24, 2004.

(NRC, 2004b). Environmental Assessment of the USEC, Inc. American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML040210751. Washington, DC:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January 2004.

(NRC, 2003). Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NUREG-1748). ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. August 2003.

(ODA, 2018). S. Helmer Letter Re: ODH Comments on the NRC Draft EA for the Lead Cascade, Columbus, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML17153A269. July 6, 2018.

(Ohio EPA, 2017). Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

http://epa.ohio.gov/sedo/portsmouth/cleanup.aspx. Accessed on April 14, 2017.

9

(Ohio SHPO, 2018). D. Welling Letter Re: Disposal of Waste from Lead Cascade Facility (Docket No: 70-7003), Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS), Pike County, Ohio.

ADAMS Accession No. ML18155A298. May 16, 2018.

(Ohio SHPO, 2017). D. Welling Letter Re: Disposal of Waste from Lead Cascade Facility (Docket No: 70-7003), Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS), Pike County, Ohio.

ADAMS Accession No. ML17144A176. May 8, 2017.

(Osage Nation, 2018) B. Deere Letter RE: NRC, American Centrifuge Lead Cascated [sic]

Facility Decommissioning Plan, Docket 70-7003, License SNM-7003, Pike County, OH.

ADAMS Accession No. ML18158A263. May 29, 2018.

10