## DOE/EA-1339-A



# Environmental Assessment Addendum Disposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site

December 2003

U. S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Oak Ridge, Tennessee

## DOE/EA-1339-A



# Disposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site

Environmental Assessment Addendum

December 2003

U. S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge OperationsU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

## Table of Contents

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. .............. v Acronyms....................................................................................................................... ................ vi

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. ................ 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of this Assessment................................................................................................... ... 2 2.0 Proposed Action........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Enhanced Storage Alternative............................................................................................... 3

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed................................................................................ 3 2.3.1 Onsite Disposal of all Waste.......................................................................................... 3

3.0 Affected Environment............................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. .. 4 4.1 Proposed Action Impacts .................................................................................................... .. 4

4.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 4

4.1.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.................................................................. 4 4.1.3 Transportation Impacts .................................................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Ecological Resources Impacts ....................................................................................... 9 4.2 No Action Impacts .......................................................................................................... .... 10 4.3 Enhanced Storage Impacts.................................................................................................. 10

5.0 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... ....... 11

6.0 References............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Persons and Agencies Contacted Appendix B Consultation Letters and Responses Appendix C Biological Assessment Appendix D Draft EA Commen ts Received and ResponsesU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

## Acronyms

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning

DMSA DOE Material Storage Area

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

g Grams

HDDV Heavy Duty Diesel-Powered Vehicle

LCF Latent Cancer Fatality

m 3 Cubic Meters

MEI Maximally Exposed Individual

NCS Nuclear Criticality Safety

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

PM 10 Particulate Matter Smaller than 10 Micrometers

ROD Record of DecisionU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 1 

## 1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes disp osition activities for waste from the Paducah Site in Paducah, Kentucky. As a federal agency, DOE must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by consid ering, in the decision-making process, potential environmental impacts associated with its proposed action. The Council on Environmental Quality promulgated regulations to implement NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) 1500 et seq.] and directed federal agencies to develop their own implementing re gulations. DOE regulations (10 CFR 1021) provide additional direction for conducting NEPA reviews of proposed DOE activities. This environmental assessment (EA) addendum for the disposition of DOE waste stored an d/or generated at the Paducah Site has been prepared in accordance with both Council on Environm ental Quality and DOE regulations and with DOE orders and guidance regarding these waste types.



## 1.1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE must continue to manage (i.e., treat, store, and di spose) its waste and material safely, efficiently, and cost effectively in compliance with applicable federa l and state laws and in a manner protective of human

health and the environment.

DOE is required by the Atomic Energy Act (42 United States Code 2011 et seq.) and DOE Order435.1A to manage the radioactive wastes that it generates. DOE has determined that it will dispose lowlevel radioactive waste at the DOE Hanford Site in Washington and at the DOE Nevada Test Site, as

documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Department of Energy’s Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low- Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste (January 1998, 63 Federal Register 3629). This decision does not preclude treatment or disposal of low-level waste at

commercial facilities in acco rdance with DOE policy.

DOE completed an Environmental Assessment for Waste Dis position Activities at the Paducah Site Paducah Kentucky (DOE/EA-1339 - Waste Disposition EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on November 4, 2002. The Waste Disposition EA analyzed disposition of approximately 11,000

m 3 of various wastes. At the time of issuance of the Waste Disposition EA, DOE anticipated that the removal of remaining waste stored on-site (estimated at 20,000 m 3 in that EA) would be conducted as part of decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (C ERCLA). Consequently, the Waste Disposition

EA included the characterization of these wastes but did not include these additional wastes in the evaluation of off-site disposition activities.

DOE has subsequently decided to propose proceeding w ith disposition of additio nal materials and wastes as part of its recently funded accelerated cleanup plan rather than waiting until facility D&D. Much of the additional material and waste is stored outdoors where there is a risk of spread of contamination to the environment. Also, DOE would experience a long-te rm cost savings through reduction of surveillance and maintenance costs that would be necessary for continued on-site storage.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 2 

## 1.2 Scope of this Assessment

DOE proposes to disposition approximately 17,600 m 3 of material in addition to the 11,000 m 3 of waste analyzed in the Waste Dispositi on EA for a total of 28,600 m 3 of waste and material. The majority of these materials are currently stored in approximately 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) at the

Paducah Site. All of these materials will be characteri zed to determine if they are wastes and, if so, how they are to be dispositioned (i.e., categorized, managed, and treated or disposed).

DOE anticipates that a substantial portion of the

material will be characterized as waste. DOE further anticipates that approximately 45% (7,900

m 3 ) of the material will be waste that meets the permit conditions and Waste Acceptance Criteria for on-site disposal in the C-746-U Landfill. No

low-level radioactive or hazardous waste would be put in the landfill. On-site disposal of waste, which may include authorized limits material, is evaluated

in the Environmental Assessment for the Construction, Operation, and Closure of the Solid Waste Landfill at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky (DOE/EA-1046) and

The Environmental Assessment on the Implementation of the Authorized Limits Process for Waste Acceptance at the C-746-U Landfill Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky (DOE/EA-1414) and is not further

evaluated in this EA Addendum.

This EA Addendum evaluates the potential impacts to human health and the environment that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives a nd it is intended as a supplement to the Waste Disposition EA. Evaluation of impacts from the ope ration of off-site waste treatment and disposal facilities is discussed in the Waste Disposition EA (p. 6) and, consequently, is not further evaluated in this

EA Addendum.



## 2.0 Proposed Action

DOE proposes to disposition 11,000 m 3 of waste as described in the Waste Disposition EA and approximately 17,600 m 3 of additional material currently stored at the Paducah Site for a total of 28,600

m 3 of waste and material. Disposition activities for the additional material include characterization, storage, packaging, loading, and shi pping wastes to disposal locations.

For purposes of impact evaluation, DOE has establishe d a “worst-case scenario” for the Proposed Action whereas all 28,600 m 3 is considered low-level radioactive waste requiring transportation off-site for treatment or disposal. The additional waste would be transported in the same timeframe, same manner, same representative locations, and same representative routes as described in the Waste Disposition EA. DOE currently anticipates that the waste would be disposed primarily at the DOE Nevada Test Site although disposition at the Hanford Site and commercial facilities, such as Envirocare of Utah, Inc. and Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Texas, are also analyzed as possible locations. Low-level Waste – Radioactive waste that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, byproduct material (as defined in section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended), or naturally occurringradioactive material (DOE G 435.1-1). ). Lowlevel waste can be evaluated to determine if the material meets the requirements of the approved

authorized limits.

Authorized Limits Material – Residual radioactive material that meets the requirements of the approved authorized limits developed in accordance with DOE Standard 5506-99 (Guide to Good Practice for Establishing Authorized Limits for the Release of Waste Containing Residual Radioactivity) and DOE Order 5400.5 (Radiation

Protection of the Public and the Environment )

.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 3 Most of the additional material is currently stored in approximately 160 DMSAs at the Paducah Site. Due to the undetermined nature of a majority of the DMSA wastes, Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) characterization must first be performed. NCS ch aracterization provides the information necessary to move or manage materials safely without the threat of uncontrolled nuclear criticality. The material must also be examined to determine if any Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or Toxic Substances Control Act regulated wastes are present. Material would not be available for disposition until DMSA characterization activities are completed. DOE antic ipates this characterization could occur over a 10- year period. Material would be disposed throughout the 10 years as portions of the characterization are completed.



## 2.1 No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the additi onal low-level waste would be stor ed on-site until removed during D&D

activities. The activities associated with the continue d storage of the low-level waste are the same as those described in the Proposed Ac tion in the Waste Disposition EA.



## 2.2 Enhanced Storage Alternative

The activities associated with enhanced storage would be similar to those describ ed in Enhanced Storage Alternative in the Waste Disposition EA.



## 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

2.3.1 Onsite Disposal of all Waste

DOE considered the option to dispose all wastes on-s ite. This action would result in the need to build a new landfill or landfill cells for disposal of low-leve l waste. This alternative was not considered

reasonable. Based on the Record of Decision for the Departm ent of Energy’s Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Waste (January 1998, 63 Federal Register 3629), DOE has determined that low-level waste should be disposed either at the Nevada Test Site or the Hanford Site rather than constructing ne w landfills or landfill cells. (The Record of Decision did not preclude disposal at commercial facilities.)



## 3.0 Affected Environment

The affected environment description in the Waste Dis position EA is still valid a nd has not changed. The additional 17,600 m 3 of low-level waste are currently stored both outdoors and indoors at the Paducah Site. The only on-site activities planned for the additi onal low-level waste would be storage, surveillance, characterization, packaging, repack aging, and loading onto transport ca rriers. All of these activities are analyzed in the Waste Disposition EA. Therefore, th e affected environment is the same for this EA Addendum as for the Waste Disposition EA.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 4 

## 4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.1 Proposed Action Impacts

Potential environmental impacts that could r esult from the Proposed Action (using the worst-case scenario described above) were evaluated for the foll owing: land use, geology and seismicity, soils and prime farmland, water resources and water quality, groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, ecological resources, threatened and endangered species, noise, cultural resources, archaeological resources, Native American resources, air quality, socioeconomics and environmental justice, on-site accidents, transportation, and transportation accidents.

Potential impacts identified were compared with th e impacts identified in the Waste Disposition EA. There would be no change for impacts to: geolog y and seismicity, soils and prime farmland, water resources and water quality, groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, noise, cultural resources, archaeological resources, Native American resources, air quality, and on-site accidents. These impacts were not analyzed further in this EA Addendum.

Impacts of land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, transportation, and ecological resources may change from the Waste Disposition EA as a result of disposition of the additional material, and are evaluated further in this EA Addendum. The biolog ical assessment prepared for the Waste Disposition EA to evaluate potential impacts on federally listed species was revised to full y incorporate the Proposed Action. The revised biological assessment conclud es that there will be no adverse affect on federally listed species or critical habitat of these species (Appendix C).



### 4.1.1 Land Use

Potential impacts identified were compared with the impacts identified in the Waste Disposition EA. The additional low-level waste is currently stored on property that is owned by DOE. Most of the land would continue to be used by DOE for storage or other u ndetermined uses. A portion of the waste is stored in DMSAs located in buildings leased to the U.S. Enrichment Corporati on. DOE anticipates that when the material is removed from these DMSAs the areas may be used for other purposes by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation.



### 4.1.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

The Waste Disposition EA (November 2002) estimated a total employment increase of 45 jobs resulting from disposition of 11, 000 m 3 of waste. The disposition of 28,600 m 3 of waste and material is estimated to increase employment by 117 full-time-equivalent jobs per year. This would represent less than a 3% change from 1997 employment in McCracken County, which does not constitute a notable impact.

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address E nvironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” requires agencies to identif y and address disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects that th eir activities may have on minority and low-income populations. For the on-site activities considered in this EA Addendum, populations considered are thoseU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 5 that live within 80 km (50 miles) of the Paducah Site. For transportation alternatives, populations considered are those that live along the highways or rail lines where transport of packaged waste would occur and people using the highways and/or stopping at rest stops. Individual access and use of public highways or rest stops that would be used by trucks shipping waste are not limited or restricted to any particular population group, economical ly disadvantaged or advantaged. Because it is expected that the percentage of minority or low-income households wi thin the potentially exposed population would vary along the highway routes used for the Proposed Action, no disproportionate effects to those minority or low-income households located along the routes can be identified. These groups would be subject to the same negligible impacts as the general population.



### 4.1.3 Transportation Impacts

For purposes of impact evaluation, DOE has establishe d a “worst-case scenario” for the Proposed Action whereas all 28,600 m 3 is considered low-level radioactive waste requiring transportation off-site for treatment or disposal.

4.1.3.1 Highway Transport

Air Quality Impacts from Truck Transport

The Waste Disposition EA identified impacts based on the rate trucks pass through major metropolitan areas. The shipment rate used for the analysis was 762 shipments per year. The Proposed Action would have a higher shipment rate per year. The 17,600 m 3 of additional waste would be transported in shipments of 18.2 m 3 each, or a total of 967 shipments. If the removal of additional waste takes place uniformly over 10 years this would result in a ship ment rate of 97 additional shipments per year. Therefore the annual shipment rate for all waste sh ipments would be 762 shipments originally proposed and 97 additional shipments resulting in 859 shipments per year. (Note that this is a worst-case scenario as the actual shipment rate would be less than 859 shipments per year because of the waste anticipated to be disposed on-site and the conservative rate u sed for analysis in the Waste Disposition EA.)

Analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of the proposed shipments relative to the threshold emission levels in nonattainment areas described by EPA in its air conformity regulations [40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)]. The EPA general conformity rule (58 Federal Register 63214, November 30, 1993) requires federal agencies to prepare a written conf ormity analysis and determination for proposed activities only in those cases where total emissions of an activity exceed the threshold emission levels.

Where it can be demonstrated that emissions from a proposed new activity fall below the thresholds, these

emissions are considered to be de mi nimus and require no formal analysis.

The Waste Disposition EA proposed routes were evaluate d for the road miles proposed to be traveled for each criteria pollutant. Carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) were the criteria pollutants used. The maximum road miles traveled through a nonattainment area would be approximately 150 miles (includes return trip) through the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, area (Atlanta and St. Louis areas are nearly as large). This distance conservatively includes a return truck trip even though the return trip is not part of the Proposed Action (no waste on the truck), and it is likely that commercial vehicles would not return by the same route if they were able to contr act a load for the return trip.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 6 The EPA threshold for carbon monoxide for all nonatt ainment and maintenance areas is 200,000 lb (100 tons)/year for any new proposed activity. The EPA threshold for ozone (measured by its precursor, NO

x for “ozone attainment areas outside an ozone transport region” such as Dallas-Fort Worth) is 200,000 lb (100 tons)/year. The EPA threshold for PM 10 for all moderate nonattainment areas is 200,000 lb (100 tons)/year for any new proposed activity. Emis sion factors for carbon monoxide and ozone for various motor vehicle types have been modeled for the year 1990. Emission factors for PM 10 have been calculated using EPA’s February 1995 model for th at criteria pollutant. Heavy duty diesel-powered vehicles (HDDVs) are defined as any diesel-powered motor vehicle designated primarily for the transportation of property and rated at more than 85 00 lb of gross vehicle weight. For HDDVs, including

the standard commercial semi-tractor vehicles that would be used for pulling waste shipments, the average emission for carbon monoxide is estimated as 11.03 g/mile, while the NO

x (an ozone precursor) emission rate is 22.91 g/mile. Finally, the emission factor for PM 10 is 14.87 g/mile.

Using a maximum of 859 shipments (truck round trips)/year, the carbon monoxide emission rate was

estimated for the maximum distance traveled through a nonattainment area (Dallas-Fort Worth). This emission rate was approximately 3140 lb of carbon monoxide/year. This amount of emissions is below the threshold standard of 100 tons/year and is clear ly a de minimus amount. Therefore, the deduction is made that the Proposed Action of 859 shipments per year would also be de minimus.

Using a maximum of 859 shipments/year (truck round trips), an ozone emission rate was established for

the maximum distance traveled with in a nonattainment area (Dallas-Fort Worth area). This emission rate was approximately 6503 lbs of NO

x /year (NO

x is a precursor to ozone). This amount of emissions is below the threshold standard of 100 tons/year and clearly a de minimus amount. Therefore, the deduction is made that the Proposed Action of 859 shipments per year would also be de minimus.

Finally, using a rate of 859 shipments/year, a PM 10 rule was established for the maximum distance within a nonattainment area (Dallas-Fort Worth). The emission rate was 4225 lb of PM 10 /year. This amount is below the threshold standard of 100 tons/year and is clearly a de minimus amount. Therefore, the deduction is made that the Proposed Action of 859 shipments per year would also be de minimus.

Because the Dallas-Fort Worth area example maximizes road miles traveled through a nonattainment area and also conservatively estimates emission factors, it is assumed that this example “bounds” the impacts within other nonattainment areas for the Proposed Action. Therefore, air emissions within all nonattainment areas along shipment routes are well below the EPA threshold emission levels, and thus require no formal conformity analysis.

Human Risk Associated with Truck Transport

The Waste Disposition EA estimated human risk im pacts from truck transport on the basis of 762 shipments per year. The impacts with the additiona l waste are based on 859 total shipments per year. The impacts would be proportional to the ratio of the increase in shipments or 859 shipments (EA Addendum) / 762 shipments (Waste Disposition EA) = 1.13. Therefore the Waste Disposition EA quantified transportation imp acts were multiplied by 1.13.

The radiological effects of the shipments are estimated by the potential latent cancer fatalities. Table 4.1 lists Waste Disposition EA impacts and the proportional cumulative impacts.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 7 Table 4.1 Worst Case Radiological Impacts for Truck Shipments

Annual Impacts Total for 10-year life cycle

Waste Disposition EA EA Addendum Waste Disposition EA EA Addendum Risk Group

LCF LCF LCF LCF

Crew 2.4 x 10 -3 2.7 x 10 -3 2.4 x 10 -2 2.7 x 10 -2

Population 1.2 x 10 -3 1.4 x 10 -3 1.2 x 10 -2 1.4 x 10 -2

MEI a (rem) 1.7 x 10 -3 1.9 x 10 -3 1.7 x 10 -7 1.9 x 10 -7

a MEI latent cancer fatality represents the pr obability of a latent cancer fatality occurrence LCF = latent cancer fatality MEI = maximally exposed individual

All latent cancer fatalities are less than one, therefore no fatalities would be anticipated.

Cargo-Related Radiological Impacts during a Highway Accident

The probability of a highway accident occurring during waste transportation by truck was evaluated for each of the receiving locations evaluated in the Waste Disposition EA. In addition, the radiological dose resulting from these accidents was calculated and the risk of latent cancer fatalities to the general public

was also calculated. These results are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Cargo-Related Radiological Impact s from Truck Transportation Accident

Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum

Population Dose (person-rem) 4.9 5.5

Latent Cancer Fatalities 2.5 x 10 -3 2.8 x 10 -3

All latent cancer fatalities are less than one, therefore no fatalities would be anticipated.

Vehicle-Related Impacts

Potential vehicle-related impacts, including expected accidents, expected fatalities from accidents, and impacts from vehicle emissions were evaluated. Th e results of the evaluation are summarized in Table

4.3.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 8 Table 4.3 Estimated Fatalities from Truck Emissions and Accidents (Vehicle-Related Impacts)

Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum

Total Accidents 1.89 2.14

Total Fatalities 0.08 0.09

Latent fatalities from emissions 0.43 0.49

All latent fatalities and accident fatalities are less than one, therefore no fatalities would be anticipated.

4.1.3.2 Rail Transport

Potential rail-related impacts, including expected accidents, expected fatalities from accidents, and impacts from vehicle emissions were evaluated. The results of the evaluation are summarized in Table

4.4

Table 4.4 Radiological Impacts from Rail Shipments

Annual Impacts Total for 10-year life cycle

Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum Risk Group

LCF LCF LCF LCF

Crew 1.1 x 10 -3 1.2 x 10 -3 1.1 x 10 -2 1.2 x 10 -2

Population 4.1 x 10 -3 4.6 x 10 -3 4.1 x 10 -2 4.6 x 10 -2

MEI a (rem) 3.7 x 10 -8 4.2 x 10 -8 3.7 x 10 -7 4.2 x 10 -7

a MEI latent cancer fatality represents the pr obability of a latent cancer fatality occurrence LCF = latent cancer fatality MEI = maximally exposed individual

All latent cancer fatalities are less than one, therefore no fatalities would be anticipated.

Cargo-Related Radiological Impacts during a Rail Accident

The probability of a railroad accident occurring during waste transportation was evaluated for each of the receiving locations evaluated in the Waste Dispositi on EA. In addition, the radiological dose resulting

from these accidents was calculated and the risk of latent cancer fatalities to the general public was also

calculated. These results are summarized in Table 4.5.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 9 Table 4.5 Cargo-Related Radiological Impa cts from Rail Transportation Accidents

Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum

Total Population Dose (person-rem) 5.51 6.2

Latent Cancer Fatalities 2.8 x 10 -3 3.2 x 10 -3

All latent cancer fatalities are less than one, therefore no fatalities would be anticipated.

Rail-Related Impacts

Potential rail-related impacts, including expected accidents and expected fatalities from accidents were

evaluated. The results of the eval uation are summarized in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Estimated Fatalities from Accidents (Rail Related Impacts)

Waste Disposition

EA EA

Addendum

Total Accidents 0.08 0.09

Total Fatalities 0.02 0.02

All fatalities are less than one, theref ore no fatalities would be anticipated.



### 4.1.3 Ecological Resources Impacts

Impacts to ecological resources were compared to the analysis in the Waste Disposition EA (DOE/EA1339). The only potential change in impacts iden tified was for threatened and endangered species.

A Biological Assessment of impacts to threatened and endangered species prepared for the original Waste Disposition EA proposed action was revised for the proposed action of this environmental assessment

addendum. The revised assessment is attached in Appendix C. Th e revised biological assessment concluded that the proposed action would be unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or any mussel species of concern because:

• A potential for exposure of the bat and mussel species to waste as a result of an accident during implementation of the revised proposed action would be small and impacts would be negligible or nonexistent;

• Waste disposition activities are currently being performed at the Paducah Site with no known detriment to the local Indiana bat or mussel populations;U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 10 • No bat foraging or roos ting habitat is present where waste handling activities would occur or along any proposed transportation routes. Therefore, no bat foraging or roosting habitat would be affected by routine waste disposition operations;

• The majority of mussel habitat in the area has been identified upstream from the Paducah site; no

mussel habitat exists inside the site fence theref ore no habitats would be affected by the revised proposed action;

• Bat foraging habitat (riparian vege tation along intermittent tributaries) present near the site of the revised proposed action is unlikely to become contaminated;

• Routine waste management operating procedures would provide minimal opportunity for direct exposure of local biota, including Indiana bats and their prey, to wastes. Procedure implementation would also decrease the probability of accidents; and

• No critical bat or mussel habitats are present at the Paducah Site. Therefore, no habitat alteration

or destruction would occur as a resu lt of the revised proposed action.



## 4.2 No Action Impacts

If DOE decides to take no action on the 17,600 m 3 of additional material, then it would remain on-site until disposition during D&D of each area that contains the material. These activities were analyzed as the Proposed Action in the Waste Disposition EA. Sin ce the impacts have not changed it is not analyzed

further.



## 4.3 Enhanced Storage Impacts

Under the Enhanced Storage Alternative, the additional material would remain on-site, be characterized to determine what portion is waste, and the waste would be stored in new or upgraded buildings designed to withstand earthquakes or other disasters. Storage of up to 28,600 m 3 of waste was included in the Enhanced Storage Alternative analysis in the Waste Disposition EA. Since the impacts have not changed it is not analyzed further.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### 11 

## 5.0 Cumulative Impacts

Potential environmental cumulative impacts that coul d result from the proposed disposition of waste were compared with the impacts identifie d in the Waste Disposition EA. The disposition of all of the material as waste was included in the original analysis of cu mulative impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impacts have not changed from those described in the Wast e Disposition EA and are not addressed any further.



## 6.0 References

Final Environmental Assessment of Waste Disposition Activities at the Paducah Site Paducah Kentucky

, DOE/EA-1339, November 2002.

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Department of Energy’s Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, January 1998, 63 Federal Register 3629.

Environmental Assessment for the Construction, Opera tion, and Closure of the Solid Waste Landfill at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky , DOE/EA-1046, March 1995.

The Environmental Assessment on th e Implementation of the Authori zed Limits Process for Waste Acceptance at the C-746-U landfill Paducah Ga seous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky

, DOE/EA-1414, August 2002.

DOE G 435.1-1, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter IV Low-Level Waste Requirements , July 9, 1999.U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

# Appendix A

Persons and Agencies ContactedU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dr. Lee A. Barclay Field Supervisor

Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior

446 Neal Street Cookeville, Tennessee 38501

U.S. Department of Transportation

Camille Mittleholtz

Environmental Team Leader Office of Transportation Policy U.S. Department of Transportation

Room 10309

400 7 th Street, SW Room 10309 Washington DC 20590-0001

Potentially Affected States

Arkansas Tracy L. Copeland Manager, Arkansas State Clearinghouse Office of Intergovernmental Services Department of Finance and Administration

1515 W. 7 th Street, Room 412 Little Rock, AR 72203

Colorado

The Honorable Bill Owens

Governor of Colorado 136 State Capitol Building Denver, CO 80203-1792

Idaho

Kathleen Trever Coordinator-Manager INEEL Oversight Program

1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 83706

Illinois The Honorable Rod Blagojevich

Governor of Illinois 207 State Capitol Building Springfield, IL 62706U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A Kansas

Ronald Hammerschmidt Director, Division of Environment Kansas Department of Health and Environment

1000 Southwest Jackson Street Curtis Building, Suite 400 Topeka, KS 66612-1367

Kentucky

Alex Barber

KY Division for Environmental Protection 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort Office Park Frankfort, KY 40601

Mississippi

Charles Chisolm

Executive Director Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 20305 Jackson, MS 39289-1305

Missouri Tom Lange

NEPA Coordinator Missouri Department of Natural Resources

205 Jefferson Street Jefferson City, MO 65101

Nebraska Jay Ingenberg Deputy Director, Programs Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

Nevada

Heather K. Elliott Clearinghouse Coordinator Department of Administration Nevada State Clearinghouse 209 East Musser Street, Room 200 Carson City, NV 89701-4298

Oregon The Honorable John A. Kitzhaber, M.D. Governor of Oregon 900 Court Street, NE, Room 254 Salem, OR 97310-4047U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A Tennessee

The Honorable Phil Bredesen

Governor of Tennessee Tennessee State Capital Nashville, TN 37243-0001

Texas

Denise S. Francis State Single Point of Contact

Texas Governor's Office of Budget and Planning State Insurance Building 1100 San Jacinto, Room 2.114

P.O. Box 12428 Austin, TX 78711

Utah Carolyn Wright Department of Natural Resources Center for Policy and Planning 1594 West North Temple, Suite 3710

PO Box 145610 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5610

Washington

Barbara Ritchie SEPA Unit Supervisor Washington Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703

Wyoming

Julie Hamilton State Clearinghouse Coordinator, Wyoming Federal Land Policy Office Herschler Building First Floor, West Wing Cheyenne, WY 82002

Paducah Area Public

Bill Paxton Mayor of Paducah

PO Box 2267 Paducah, KY 42002

Danny Orazine McCracken County Judge Executive

301 South 6 th Paducah, KY 42003U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A Wayne L. Davis Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

#1 Game Farm Road Frankfort, KY 40601

Tim Kreher West KY Wildlife Management Area 10535 Ogden Landing Road Kevil, KY 42053

Leon Owens

PACE International Union Local 50550

315 Palisades Circle

Paducah KY 42001

Carl Froede Jr., Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsythe Street Atlanta, GA 30303

Paducah Public Library 555 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42001

Tuss Taylor KY Division for Waste Management 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort Office Park Frankfort, KY 40601



### Ms. Amanda Hawes Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 46 West Broadway, Suite 116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Mr. Scott Schneider Hanford Nuclear Services, Inc. 28 Court Square

West Plains Missouri 65775

Mr. Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. Law Offices of Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.

1225 19 th 

### Street, NW

2 nd 

### Floor Washington D.C. 20036

Mr. Kenneth P. Brooks

7255 State Route 13 Erin, Tennessee 37061U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

### Mr. Andrew Smith

1755 Garland Road

Knoxville Tennessee 37922

Mr. Eric Scott Radiation Health and Toxics Agents Branch

Cabinet for Health Services

MS HS2E-D

275 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40621

Mr. Budd Haemer

Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street Northwest Washington DC 20037

Mr. Daniel Horner

McGraw-Hill Nuclear Publications

1200 G Street Suite 1100 Washington DC 20005

Mr. Jay Coghlan

Director

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico 551 West Cordova Road, Number 808 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-4100

Mr. Douglas S. Huston Oregon Office of Energy 625 Marion Street, Northeast, Suite 1 Salem, Oregon 97301-3742

Ms. Susan K. Krenzien

NNSA/NV Mailstop 505

Post Office Box 98518 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518

Merryman Kemp Paducah Citizens Advisory Board

309 N. 8 th St. Paducah, Kentucky 42001U.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

# Appendix B

Consultation Letters and ResponsesU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339AU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

# Appendix C

Biological Assessment

# Endangered Species Act

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

For Waste Disposition Activities at the Paducah Site McCracken County, Kentucky

August 1, 2003

U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office Oak Ridge, TNi 

### SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) completed an Environmental Assessment for Waste Disposition Activities at th e Paducah Site, Paducah, Kentucky, (DOE 2002) (Waste Disposition EA), including a Biological Assessment for Waste Disposition Activities in Appendix F of the document, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on November 4, 2002. The Waste Disposition EA analyzed dispos ition of approximately 11,000 m 3 

### of various wastes. At the time of issuance of the Waste Dispos ition EA, DOE anticipated that the removal of remaining waste

and materials stored on-site would be condu cted as decontamina tion and decommissioning (D&D) activities under the Co mprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

DOE subsequently decided to proceed with disposition of additional waste and materials in a timelier manner under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, rather than waiting until D&D occurs. To support this decision, DOE has prepared an Environmental Assessment Addendum for Disposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE 2003) (Waste Disposition EA Addendum) to supplement the pr eviously prepared Waste Dis position EA. This Biological Assessment for Waste Disposition Activities at the Paducah Site (Waste Disposition BA) has been prepared to assess impacts to federally li sted species from activities in the EA and EA

addendum.

The Waste Disposition BA evaluates potential impacts on federally listed animal species that could result from the implementation of the revised proposed action. The species considered in this Waste Disposition BA are the endangered Indiana bat and the following mussel species: orangefoot pimpleback, pink muck et, ring pink, and fat pocketbook as identified in a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to the DOE, dated June 17, 2003 (FWS 2003).

DOE concludes, for the reasons described in th e main text of this Waste Disposition BA, that the revised proposed action is not likely to affect these species adve rsely. In addition, since no proposed or designated critical habitats are pr esent on, or near, the locations where activities would occur, none would be affected.ii 

### CONTENTS

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ............. i

ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................... .......... iii

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................1

1.1 WASTE STORAGE...........................................................................................................1

1.2 WASTE TREATMENT – ONSITE...................................................................................1

1.3 WASTE TREATMENT – OFFSITE .................................................................................2

1.4 WASTE TRANSPORTATION .........................................................................................2

1.5 WASTE DISPOSAL ..........................................................................................................3

1.6 SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................3

2. STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE LISTED SPECIES..........................................................4

2.1 INDIANA BAT ( MYOTIS SODALIS ) ...............................................................................5

2.2 PINK MUCKET PEARLY MUSSEL ( LAMPSILIS ARBRUPTA SAY-1831;

ALSO CALLED L. ORBICULATA HILDRETH-1828)....................................................6

2.3 ORANGEFOOT PIMPLEBACK ( PLETHOBASUS COOPERIANUS ) (IDNR 2001) ..................................................................................................................................7

2.4 RING PINK ( OBOVARIA RETUSA ) .................................................................................8

2.5 FAT POCKETBOOK ( POTAMILIS CAPAX ) (Earth’s Endangered Creatures 2001, IDNR 2001)..............................................................................................................9

3. ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE.....................................................................10

4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO INDIANA BAT........................................................................11

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MUSSELS................................................................................11

6. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. .....12

7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. ......14iii 

### ACRONYMS

BA Biological Assessment

BJC Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

DMSA DOE Material Storage Area

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

KDFWR Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

KPDES Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

KSNPC Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission

LLW low-level waste

MLLW mixed low-level waste

NFA no further action

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

TRU transuranic

WKWMA West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area1 

### 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Oak Ridge Operations has various waste types located at the Paducah Site that must undergo disposition activities. Disposition activities evaluated in the Waste Disposition EA include waste storage, sampling, characterization, packaging, surv eillance, on-site and/or off- site treatment, transportation, and disposal, as well as other activities perf ormed to support these tasks. Examples of supporting activities include vehicle fueling, f acility maintenance, and storage container inspections.

The Waste Disposition EA Addendum desc ribes and evaluates potential impacts

associated with the revised proposed action. The revise d proposed action description states that DOE proposes to disposition 17,600 m 3 

### of additional waste. This volume is in addition to the 11,000 m 3 

### of various waste types analyzed in the Waste Disposition EA

and results in a total of 28,600 m 3 

### of waste and material. Di sposition activities for the

additional waste and material are identical to the disposition activities defined and analyzed in the Waste Disposition EA and in clude characterization, storage, packaging, handling, and shipping wastes to disposal locations. No new on-site activities are anticipated for the revised proposed action. A ll waste would be transported in the same timeframe, same manner, same representative locations, and same representative routes as described in the Waste Disposition EA.

Most of the additional waste and material described in the revised proposed action is currently stored in approximately 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) at the Paducah Site. DOE anticipates that charact erization of the wast e and material would occur over a 10-year period. Upon completi on of characterizati on, wastes would be dispositioned intermittently throughout the 10 years.

1.1 WASTE STORAGE

Under the revised proposed action, all wast e and material would be stored at the Paducah Site until scheduled for treatment, di sposal, or transport. Existing facilities will be used for waste storage.

1.2 WASTE TREATMENT – ONSITE

On-site treatment applies to approximately 200 m 3 

### (7060 ft 3 

### ) of the total waste volume. Onsite treatment includes up to 120 m 3 

### (4238 ft 3 

### ) of mixed low-level waste (MLLW) solids, 12 m 3 

### (424 ft 2 

### ) of 99 

### Tc-contaminated MLLW, and 10 m 3 

### (353 ft 2 

### ) of TRU waste. On-site treatment technologies are limited by the Paducah Site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA ) Part B permit. RCRA-permitted on-site treatment technologies include sedime ntation, precipitati on, oxidation, reduction, neutralization, cementati on/solidification, carbon adsorp tion, photocatalytic conversion, and lime precipitation. Currently, only neutra lization, stabilizati on, carbon adsorption, and photocatalytic conversion are planned on-site. Thes e are the only technologies discussed in subsequent secti ons because they are the ones applicable to the waste types presented. Building C-752-A has been proposed as the site for processing any on-site2 

### waste that needs to be treated indoors. Building C-746A is the proposed location for light bulb crushing.

Approximately 52 m 3 

### (1836 ft 3 

### )/year of low-level wast e (LLW) wastewater would

also be treated on-site. Wastewater w ould be treated on-site by carbon adsorption, photocatylic conversion, and/or lime precip itation. These treatment activities would be compliant with the applicable Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit(s).

1.3 WASTE TREATMENT – OFFSITE

DOE’s revised proposed action for off-site treatment varies by waste type. The

characteristics of the waste govern where and how each waste type may be treated. The preferred treatment scenario for each type of currently known waste is listed below.

Fifty metric tons of cap acitors containing polychlor inated biphenyls (PCBs) are proposed for shipment to Deer Park, Texas, for treatment and disposal. The capacitors would be shipped in 23 7A, Type A containe rs. Thirteen empty transformers weighing 78 metric tons would be shipped for off-site treatment and disposal as well. These

transformers contain some re sidual PCB contamination.

The 5355 m 3 

### (189,110 ft 3 

### ) of MLLW addressed in the revised proposed action represents a very heterogeneous grouping of wastes; most of this waste will be treated and disposed at off-site, permitted facilities. A small portion contains PCBs, metals, and organics, and it is proposed th at they be treated at the DOE Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 Incinerator in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

1.4 WASTE TRANSPORTATION

The representative truck and rail rout es previously identified in the Waste Disposition EA are applicable to the revi sed proposed action. However, the projected number of waste shipments has changed from the previously analyzed shipment rate of 762 shipments per year. The 17,600 m 3 

### of additional waste and materials would be transported in shipments of 18.2m 3 

### each. Assuming the dispos ition of additional waste takes place over 10 years, which is consistent with the Waste Disposition EA analysis assumptions, a resulting additional shipment ra te of 97 shipments per year is projected. Therefore, the revised annual shipment ra te for waste shipments would include the original 762 shipments analyzed in the Waste Disposition EA, and the 97 additional shipments included in the Waste Dispositi on EA Addendum, resu lting in 859 waste shipments per year for 10 years.

Waste will generally be transported by truck but may also be transported by rail or intermodal carrier when advantageous. DOE currently anticipates that the waste would be disposed primarily at the DOE Nevada Te st Site although dispos ition at the Hanford Site and commercial facilities, such as E nvirocare of Utah, Inc. and Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Texas, are also analyzed as possible locations.3 

### 1.5 WASTE DISPOSAL

DOE’s revised proposed action for waste disposal varies by waste type. The

characteristics of the waste govern where and how each waste type may be disposed. The volume of wastes to be transported from the Paducah Site to each proposed receiving facility represents only a small portion of th e total waste each fac ility receives annually. For example, it has been propos ed that approximately 3750 m 3 

### (132,430 ft 3 

### ) of radiological PCB wastes be shipped to the En virocare facility in Utah over the 10-year evaluation period resulting in an average of 375 m 3 

### (13,243 ft 3 

### ) per year. The Envirocare facility annually receives 9061 m 3 

### (320,000 ft 3 

### ) of waste; therefore, the annual Paducah Site shipment will represent less than 5 pe rcent of the facility’s capacity in any given year. The preferred alternative for each waste type is listed below.

Capacitors containing PCBs are proposed for shipment to Deer Park, Texas, for treatment and disposal. Thirteen empty tran sformers would be shipped for off-site treatment and disposal as well. These tr ansformers contain some residual PCB

contamination.

Approximately 4600 m 3 

### (60,166 yd 3 

### ) of LLW would be disposed, primarily at the Nevada Test Site. Only the LLW wate r waste stream consisting of 52 m 3 

### (1836 ft 3 

### ) of waste would be treated and disposed on-site . The wastewater, which has some uranium contamination, would be treated until the KP DES limits had been met; this waste would then be discharged at a permitted on-site outfa ll. In addition to these wastes, there are 22 T-Hoppers (5-ton containers) of UF4 stored at the site. If it is determined that this material is a waste, it would likely be sh ipped as a LLW to the Nevada Test Site.

Some MLLW would be shipped to E nvirocare for treatment and disposal. Approximately 160 m 3 

### (5650 ft 3 

### ) would be shipped to one or more of the Broad Spectrum Contractors (i.e., Waste Control Specialists LLC, Andrews, Texas; Allied Technology Group, Richland, Washington; Materials and Energy/Waste Control Specialists, Oak Ridge, Tennessee).

Approximately 10 m 3 

### of transuranic (TRU) liquids and solids are proposed for treatment on-site and shipment to the TRU Waste Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for ultimate disposition. Impacts associated with further processing and shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, are addressed in the final environmental impact statement fo r treating TRU and alpha LLW (DOE 2001a)

.

1.6 SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES

The revised proposed action for supporting wast e disposition activities is to perform

these activities in accordance with DOE or ders, federal and st ate regulations, and approved Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC) or BJC subcontractor procedures. These activities are performed mainly during wa ste management and maintenance at the Paducah Site. Applicable procedures are im plemented to ensure that activities are performed in a safe and accountable manner. Examples of supporting activities include, but are not limited to, the following:4 

### • waste staging,

• on-site waste movement,

• packaging/repackaging,

• sorting,

• waste container decontamination,

• inspection,

• marking/labeling,

• characterization, and

• facility modifications or upgrades.

2. STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE LISTED SPECIES

As reported in the Biological Assessment (BA) for the Paducah C-746-U Landfill Implementation of the Authorized Limits Process (DOE 2001), informal consultations regarding the Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) were conducted in May 2001 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Kentucky De partment of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), and the Kentucky St ate Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) to ascertain the potential presence of any listed species . The FWS identified the Indiana bat as a Federally endangered species th at could potentially occur ne ar the site (FWS 2001). The Indiana bat is also listed as an endange red species by the Comm onwealth of Kentucky. The KSNPC reported an occurrence of the Indiana bat in McCracken County (2000), but not at the Paducah site (DOE 2001a). This reported occurrence in McCracken County, a result of mist netting, was made in June 1991 and was on West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area (WKWMA) land in the J oppa Quadrangle near the Shawnee Steam Plant (Hines 2001). More recently, five individuals of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis

, were captured in riparian hardwood habitat of the lower downstream reaches of Bayou Creek in the WKWMA during mist netti ng surveys in 1999 (KDFWR 2000). These

locations were to the north of the Paducah S ite. No mist net surveys have been conducted

within the Paducah Site fence.

The KSNPC also reported the presence of the orange-footed pimpleback ( Plethobasus cooperianus ), pink mucket pearly mussel ( Lampsilis arbrupta) , ring pink ( Obovaria retusa ), fat pocketbook ( Potamilis capax ) in the vicinity of Ohio River miles 945 through 949. Most recent observations of th ese species in the area occurred between 1992 and 1999 (KSNPC 2000).

As a result of these sightings, DOE has prepared this BA considering potential impacts of the revised proposed action to the Indiana bat, orange-footed pimpleback, pink mucket pearly mussel, ring pink, and fat pocketbook.5 

### 2.1 INDIANA BAT (MYOTIS SODALIS)

The general ecology of the Indiana bat is su mmarized as follows. Unless otherwise noted or referenced, general bi ological information on the speci es is derived from Harvey (1992 and 1999) and Webb (2000).

The range of the endangered Indiana bat is the eastern Un ited States from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin east to Vermont and sout h to northwestern Florida. Distribution is associated with major cave regions and areas north of cave regions. The present total population is estimated at ca. 352,000 with more than 85 percent hibernating at only nine locations - two caves and a mine in Missouri, three caves in Indiana, and three caves in Kentucky.

Indiana bats forage in and around tree ca nopies of floodplain, ri parian, and upland forest. In riparian areas, Indiana bats primarily forage around and near riparian and floodplain trees (e.g., sycamore, cottonwood, black walnut, black willow, and oaks), and solitary trees and the forest e dge on the floodplain. Streams, associated floodplain forests, and impounded bodies of water (e.g., ponds, wetla nds, and reservoirs) are the preferred foraging habitat for pregnant and lactating I ndiana bats, some of which may fly up to 1.5 miles from upland roosts. Indiana bats also forage within the canopy of upland forests, over clearings with early successional vegeta tion (e.g., old fields), along the borders of croplands, along wooded fencerows, and over farm ponds in pastures. Indiana bats return nightly to their foraging areas. Indiana bats feed strictly on flying insects and their selection of prey items reflect s the environment in which th ey forage. Both aquatic and terrestrial insects are consumed. Moths, caddisflies, flies, mosquitoes, and midges are major prey items. Other prey include bees, wasps, flying ants, b eetles, leafhoppers, and treehoppers.

Indiana bats hibernate in limestone caves from October to April, depending upon climatic conditions. Indiana bats usually hibernat e in large, dense clusters of up to several

thousand individuals in sections of the hibe rnation cave where temperatures average 38 to

43 ° F and with relative humidities of 66 to 95 percent. Bat clusters may contain 300 to 384 bats per square foot. The bats leave the caves and migrate to summer roosts in midspring.

Summer roosting-habitat criteri a for Indiana bats are frequently revised as more is discovered about this species’ habits. The mo st recent information applicable for the region is available from the FWS Cookeville Office (Component s of Suitable Habitat for the Endangered Indiana Bat). In general, Indiana bats establish summer maternity and sometimes male night roosts or bachelor col onies under the loose bark of large, usually hardwood trees (> 20 cm diameter). Indiana ba ts have been observed to return to the same roosting and foraging habitat year after y ear. Indiana bats forage at night and feed

on insects.

Female Indiana bats depart the caves be fore the males and arrive at summer maternity roosts in mid-May. A single offspr ing, born in June, is raised by the mother under loose tree bark, primarily in wooded streamside habitat. Mothers and babies reside6 

### in maternity colonies that use multiple, pr imary roost trees throughout most of the summer. Secondary roosts are used intermittent ly by some of the bats, particularly during periods of extreme precipitation or extreme temperatures. Thus, there may be more than a dozen roosts used by some Indiana bat colo nies. Kurta et al. ( 1996) found that female Indiana bats may change roosts about every three days, and a group of these bats may use more than 17 different trees in a single maternity season. They depart the summer roosts for hibernation caves in September. The summer roost of the adult males is often near the maternity roost, although a few males do stay in caves over the summer.

In 1974 the first maternity colony was discovered under the loose bark of a dead butternut hickory tree in east-central Indian a. The colony numbered about 50 individuals

and also used an alternate roost under the bark of a living shagbark hickory tree. The total foraging range of the colony consisted of a li near strip along approximately 0.5 miles of creek. Foraging habitat was confined to air space from 6 ft to ca. 95 ft high near the foliage of streamside and floodplain trees. Two additional colonies were discovered during subsequent summers, also in east-central Indiana. These had estimated populations of 100 and 91 respectively, including females and pups. Habitat and foraging areas were similar to the first colony discovered. Eviden ce gathered during r ecent years indicates that, during summer, Indiana bats are widely dispersed in suitable habitat throughout a large portion of their range. A dditional maternity colonies have been discovered using radiotelemetry techniques in more recent year s. Data thus far reinforce the belief that floodplain forest is an important habitat for Indiana bat summer populations. However, colonies have been located in upland a nd in coniferous habitats as well.

A longevity record of 13 year s and 10 months has been r ecorded for the Indiana bat. Hibernating bats leave little evidence of th eir past numbers; thus, it is difficult to

calculate a realistic estimat e of the population decline for this species. However, population estimates at major hibernacula in dicated a 34 percent de cline in the total Indiana bat population from 1983 to 1989.

2.2 PINK MUCKET PEARLY MUSSEL ( LAMPSILIS ARBRUPTA SAY-1831;

ALSO CALLED L. ORBICULATA HILDRETH-1828) (Conservation Management Institute 2001, EPA 2001)

The Federally endangered pink mucket pearly mussel (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976) is a bivalve aquatic mollusk in the Unionidae family with an ellipti cal-shaped shell. The species is generally about 10.2 cm (4 inches ) long, 6.1 cm (2.4 inches) wide, and 7.6 cm (3 inches) high. The valves are heavy and thic k. The species is sexually dimorphic, with both males and females having rounded anterior margins, but males having a pointed posterior margin and females a truncated, expanded posterior to accommodate the gravid condition. Young mussels have a yellow to brow n shell that is smooth and glossy with green rays, while older specimens are dull br own. The nacre color varies from white to pink, with the posterior ma rgin being iridescent.

The early life stage of the mussel, glochidium , is an obligate parasite on the gills or fins of fish, but the required fish host species are unknown. The adult mussels are filter feeders and consume particulate matter th at is suspended in the water column.7 

### Identifiable stomach contents from mussels invariably include mud, desmids, diatoms, protozoa, and zooplankton. Howeve r, studies on the food habits for this species have not been conducted, so its specific food requi rements are not known. The species has no known commercial value. The reproductive cycl e of the pink mucket is presumed to be similar to that of other freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, which is then taken up by the females dur ing siphoning and results in the eggs being fertilized. The embryos develop into the glochidia inside the female and are then released into the water column. The glochidia must then attach to suitable fish hosts for metamorphosis to the free-living juvenile stage. There is no information on the population biology of this species.

The pink mucket is found in medium to large rivers. It seems to prefer larger rivers with moderate- to fast-flowing water, at depths from 0.5 to 8.0 m (1.6 to 26.2 ft). The species has been found in substr ates including gravel , cobble, sand, or bo ulders. Silt clogs the species’ siphon, so silty subs trates and water columns are not conducive to the species being present. Habitat of the glochidia is initia lly within the gills of the female, then in the water column, and finally attached to a suita ble fish host. Habitat requirements for the juvenile stage are unknown. Any alteration of th e life-stage-specific habitats during the pink mucket’s lifecycle would likely affect the long-term success of a population. In addition, impoundments and surface water contaminants are known to adversely affect this species and contribute to its decline in numbers.

Currently, the pink mucket is known in 16 ri vers and tributaries from seven states, with the greatest concentrations in the Te nnessee (Tennessee, Alabama) and Cumberland (Tennessee, Kentucky) rivers and in the Osag e and Meramec rivers in Missouri. Smaller populations have been found in the Clinch Ri ver (Tennessee); Green River (Kentucky); Ohio River (Illinois); Kwanawha River (Wes t Virginia); Big Black, Little Black, and Gasconde rivers (Missour i); and Current and Spri ng rivers (Arkansas).

2.3 ORANGEFOOT PIMPLEBACK ( PLETHOBASUS COOPERIANUS ) (IDNR 2001)

The Federally endangered orangefoot pimp leback mussel (a.k.a orangefoot pearly mussel) is a bivalve aquatic mussel in the Un ionidae family with a round-shaped shell. The shell is thick, moderately inflated to compressed, and contains pustules on the posterior three-fourths of the shell. The ante rior end of the shell is rounded whereas the posterior end is rounded to bluntly pointed. Th e mussel is light brown in color in small specimens, becoming chestnut or dark brown in color in larger individuals. The beak cavity is very deep. The nacre is white, usua lly with pink or salmon tinge near the beak cavity. Length ranges up to 4 inches (10.2 cm). The foot of living spec imens is orange in

color.

Specific reproductive or other life history information for this species was not found in the literature. However, th e reproductive cycle is presumed to be similar to that of other freshwater Unionidae mussels, as previ ously described for the pink mucket pearly

mussel.8 

### The orangefoot pimpleback mussel prefers large rivers with gravel or mixed sand and gravel substrates. This species does not tolerate silty conditions.

Information on this species’ historical range was not found in the literature by searching the Internet using th e keywords “orangefoot pimpleback.” Current range of this species includes the Ohio River in reaches adjacent to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky.

2.4 RING PINK (OBOVARIA RETUSA)

The ring pink mussel was listed as an e ndangered species without critical habitat on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40109). The FWS (FWS 1991) formerly referred to this mussel as the golf stick pearly mussel. Th e ring pink mussel is one of the most endangered mussels because all of the know n populations are apparently too old to reproduce. The ring pink has a medium to larg e shell that is ovat e to subquadrate in outline. The exterior of the shell lacks rays and is yellow-green to brown in color, while older specimens are usually darker brown or black. The nacre of the shell is usually salmon to deep purple in colo r surrounded by a white border.

The food habits of this sp ecies are unknown, but it likely feeds on de tritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton. These food it ems are common for most freshwater mussels (FWS 1991).

The reproductive biology for the ring pink is essentially unknown, but it likely reproduces similarly to other freshwater Un ionidae mussels as described above for the pink mucket pearly mussel. The fish host(s) fo r the ring pink and habitat utilized by the juvenile mussels are unknown.

This mussel is characterized as a larg e-river species (FWS 1991). The mussel inhabits the sandy and gravelly but silt-free bottoms of large rivers and prefers rather shallow water depths (2 ft deep).

Historically, this mussel was widely distributed and found in several major tributaries of the Ohio River, including th ose that stretched in to Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsyl vania, and West Virginia. Ho wever, the species was last taken in Pennsylvania in 1908, and in Ohio in 1938 (FWS 1991). Acco rding to records, this species has not been coll ected in Indiana in decades, a nd has not been collected from Illinois in over 30 years (F WS 1991). Most of the historically known ring pink mussel populations were apparently lost due to convers ion of many sections of the large rivers to a series of large impoundments. The ring pink mussel does not survive in impounded

water habitats.

The ring pink mussel is presently known from only five river reaches, including two in Kentucky, two in Tennessee, and one in West Virginia . In Kentucky, the ring pink mussel in recent years has only been taken from the Tennessee River in McCracken, Livingston, and Marshall Counties, and from the Green River in Hart and Edmonson Counties. Only two live specimens have been collected from the Tennessee River9 

### population in recent years; one in 1985 and one in 1986. The last live specimen from the

Green River was collected in the mid-1960s. Tw o fresh-dead specimens were collected in the Green River (one in 1987, the other in 1989) in the reach between Munfordville and

Mammoth Cave National Park.

According to the Recovery Plan for Ring Pink Mussel (FWS 1991), total recovery of this species is considered unlikely because none of the five extant populations are known to be reproducing. Therefore, unless repr oducing populations can be found or methods can be developed to maintain or create new populations, the species will be lost in the

foreseeable future.

2.5 FAT POCKETB OOK ( POTAMILIS CAPAX ) (Earth’s Endangered Creatures 2001, IDNR 2001)

The fat pocketbook mussel was listed as a Fe derally endangered species in 1976 (41 FR 24064). Green first described the mussel in 1832 under the name Unio capax . The genus was changed to Lampsilis by Smith (1899), then moved to the genus Proptera Ortman (1914). In 1969, Morrison noted that Rafinesque (1818) has named this genus

Potamilus . Since 1988, the genus name for this species has been Potamilus

.

The fat pocketbook mussel has a quite rounded and inflated shell that is thin to moderately thick. The shell is shiny and smooth, yellow to br own in color, and lacks any distinctive markings. It has an S-shaped hi nge line that distinguishes it from similar species. The beak cavity is very deep. The nacre is white, sometimes tinged with pink or salmon color. Shell length is up to 5 inches (12.7 cm).

The reproductive biology for the fat pocke tbook is essentially unknown, but it is likely similar to that of other members of the Unionidae as described above for the pink mucket pearly mussel. The fat pocketbook mussel is probably a long-term breeder and is reported gravid in June, July, August, and Oc tober (FWS 1989). The fish host species are not known but are likely large river species. Fi sh hosts known for other mussels of this genus include freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens ), white crappie ( Pomoxis

annularis ), and blackstripe topminnow ( Fundulus notatus ).

The fat pocketbook mussel inhabits rivers and streams with sand, mud, or gravel substrates. It prefers slow-flo wing water where depths range from a few inches to 8 ft. The mussel buries itself in these substrates with only the edge of its shell and its feeding siphons exposed.

There are few published records on the historic al distribution of this species for the period prior to 1970. Museum records indicat ed that most fat pocketbook occurrences were from three areas; th e upper Mississippi Ri ver (above St. Louis, Missouri), the Wabash River in Indiana, and the St. Francis River in Arkansas. There are a few historic records of this species occurring in the Illinoi s River, but is has not been found in recent years (FWS 1989).10 

### Currently, the fat pocketbook in the mid-we st is found only in the lower Wabash River in Indiana, the Ohio River adjacent to Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, and in the lower Cumberland River in Kentucky. Farther south, this species is known to exist in the St. Francis floodway (west of the flood contro l levee) from the c onfluence with the St. Francis River upstream to the confluence of Iron Mines Creek, and numerous drainage

ditches associated with these st reams in Arkansas (FWS 1989).

3. ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The Paducah Site consists of existing i ndustrialized ar eas of the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant and is near the WKWMA on the site’s western side. The majority of the fenced site has been cleared and, where vege tative cover is present, is maintained by mowing. Vegetation on the site consists of grasses and other herbaceous ground cover, which provides no foraging or roosting habitat for the Indiana bat.

The Paducah Site is located in the west ern part of the Ohio River Basin. The

confluence of the Ohio and Te nnessee rivers is approximately 16 km (10 miles) upstream

of the site. The confluence of the Ohio River with the Mississippi River is approximately 32 km (20 miles) downstream of the site. All mussel species listed in the FWS letter are present in the Ohio River, upstream of the Paducah Site.

The Paducah Site is located on a local draina ge divide; surface flow is to the east and northeast toward Little Bayou Creek and to the west and northwest toward Bayou Creek. The confluence of the creeks is approximately 5 km (3 miles) north of the site. Little Bayou Creek originates in the WKWMA and fl ows north toward the Ohio River along a 10.5-km (6.5-mile) course through the easte rn portion of the DOE reservation. These tributaries are partially bordered by a thin ripa rian zone of plants. Trees, when present in close proximity to the site, mainly occur along the two tributaries, and are generally less than 20 cm in diameter at breast height an d do not have loose ba rk as required by roosting Indiana bats. The riparian area c ould provide foraging ha bitat but no roosting

habitat for the Indiana bat. No mussel species of concern have been identified in the

tributaries.

Although the site has no hibernating, roosti ng, or foraging habitat as described above, the creeks within an expanded area around the site do provide Indiana bat summer foraging habitat. No maternity roosts have been located on the WK WMA, but five individuals, including three juveniles, were captured in the WKWMA during mist netting surveys in 1999 (KDFWS 2000) and a si ngle specimen was reported in 1991 (KSNPC 2000).

The nearby WKWMA consists primarily of stands of bottomland hardwoods interspersed with upland hardwoods and old fields . Potential summer roosting and foraging habitats for the Indi ana bat are present in the WKWMA, although most trees are less than 20 cm in diameter (see repor ted identifications be low). The Bayou Creek (formerly known as Big Bayou Creek) is the n earest blue-line stream in the area; the

nearest of its tributaries to the site are on the western side of the WKWMA.11 

### 4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO INDIANA BAT

The revised proposed action would not en tail alteration or loss of bat habitat because it would take place at an existing site using existing buildings . Opportunities for bats to come into contact with the waste, either directly or indirectly, are virtually

nonexistent since the wastes are contained within storage facilities. During waste disposition activities that would occur outside, su ch as transport, waste handling procedures

would be followed and the wast e would be properly packaged and covered; thus, not providing access to bats or insect s on which the bats may feed.

The only scenario that could result in exposure of bats to the wastes would be an

accidental release of wastes into the environmen t. Risks to terrestrial biota resulting from site accidents are addressed in the Waste Disposition EA and are summarized as follows.

The scenario for chronic radionuclide expos ure as a result of the modeled worst-case spill indicated that the sum of chronic te rrestrial exposures would be about 7 × 10 -10 

### of the tolerable daily radiation dose as in dicated by no-further- action (NFA) levels; therefore, in even this worst-case accident scenario, long-term radiation effects to soil biota would be negligible.

Two organics (PCB and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzen e) and two inorgani cs (cadmium and chromium) have modeled concentrations that exceed the NFA benchmarks. This indicates that these constituents would likely pose adverse impacts to soil biota if the worst-case spill accident occurred. However, an y insects that the bats may eat could only ingest or come into contact with the waste if they were present on the exact location where the accident occurred. These insects would then need to be available as prey for the bats, or as prey for other insects that the bats forage on, in order for radioactivity from waste to be ingested by an Indiana bat.

With the increase in traffic associated with the revised proposed action there is an increase in the potential risk of bat exposur e to emissions and vehicle accidents resulting in animal fatalities. However, thes e potential impacts are estimated to be de minimus given that bat foraging habita t (around tree canopies of riparian and upland forest) and roosting-habitat (under the loose bark of large hardwood trees) occu r in wooded areas not likely to be present near pr oposed transportation routes.

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MUSSELS

Potential impacts of the revi sed proposed action were ev aluated for the orangefoot pearly mussel, as well as for aquatic biota, and presented in the Waste Disposition EA. The Waste Disposition EA concluded that none of the seven radionuclide or nine chemical contaminants exceeded radiological or toxicological benchmarks for aquatic biota as a result of any waste storage, wa ter treatment, waste di sposal, or supporting activities associated with the revised propos ed action. The Waste Disposition EA stated that during a worst-case accident scenario ( earthquake), sufficient PCBs potentially could reach the Ohio River and slightly exceed the toxicological benchmark for aquatic biota.12 

### However, the modeled PCB concentration for the earthquake accident scenario was very conservative because it assumed that all of the PCB released during the accident made its way from the Paducah site into the Ohio Rive r, which is nearly 5 miles downstream along Bayou Creek. In addition, the contaminants woul d be diluted and represent a negligible addition to those already in the Ohio River. The Waste Disposition EA concluded that the

addition of contaminants from the worst- case accident would result in sediment concentrations within the measured variability reported for Ohio River sediments. As a result, the Waste Disposition EA concluded that the contaminants reaching the Ohio River from the Revised proposed action and the worst-case accident scenario would cause negligible adverse impacts to the orangefoot pearly mussel as well as other aquatic biota.

Additional evidence indicates that the four endangered mussels addressed in this BA are at a negligible risk of adverse impact from the revised proposed action. None of the four endangered mussels are known to occu r on the Paducah Site where the revised proposed action activities would take place. In addition, none of the endangered mussels occur in Bayou Creek or Little Bayou Creek because these creeks are too small to provide the necessary habitat requirements for the mussels. The only water body that potentially could harbor the four endangered mussels and potentially be impacted from the revised proposed action is the Ohio Ri ver. As previously stated, the Waste Disposition EA (DOE 2002) i ndicated that potentia l adverse impacts to the orangefoot pearly mussel in the Ohio River downstream of the confluence of Bayou Creek should be negligible to non-existent. Thus, the simila rity of the known life history and habitat requirements for the four Uni onidae endangered mussels makes it reasonable to conclude that the pink mucket, ring pink, and fat pocketbo ok mussels are also not at risk of adverse impacts from the revised proposed action.

The revised proposed action may raise the pot ential risk of musse l exposure to waste resulting from increased vehi cle traffic and a corresp onding potential increase in vehicular accidents. This potential increase in accidents could result in a release of the waste volume being transported on the truck. However, when compared to the potential impacts evaluated in the worse case accident scenario, in which the release was based on the entire volume of wastes stored on the site, these impacts are deemed negligible.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The revised proposed action would be unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or any mussel species of concern because:

• A potential for exposure of the bat and musse l species to waste as a result of an accident during implementation of the revised proposed action would be small and impacts would be negligible or nonexistent;

• Waste disposition activities are currently being performed at the Paducah Site with

no known detriment to the local I ndiana bat or mussel populations;

• No bat foraging or roosting habitat is present where waste handling activities would occur or along any proposed transportation routes. Therefore, no bat foraging or roosting habitat would be affected by routine waste disposition operations;13 

### • The majority of mussel habitat in the area has been identified upstream from the Paducah site; no mussel habitat exists inside the site fence therefore no habitats would be affected by the revised proposed action;

• Bat foraging habitat (riparian vegetation al ong intermittent tributar ies) present near

the site of the revised proposed action is unlikely to become contaminated;

• Routine waste management operating procedures would provide minimal opportunity for direct exposure of local biota, in cluding Indiana bats and their prey, to wastes. Procedure implementation woul d also decrease th e probability of accidents; and

• No critical bat or mussel habitats are pres ent at the Paducah Site. Therefore, no habitat alteration or destruction would occur as a result of the revised proposed

action.14 

### 7. REFERENCES

Conservation Manage ment Institute 2001. http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e404009.htm

DOE 2001. Environmental Assessment on the Implem entation of the Authorized limits Process for Waste Acceptance at the C- 746-U Landfill, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky , March.

DOE 2002. Environmental Assessment for Waste Di sposition Activities at the Paducah Site Paducah, Kentucky , DOE/EA-1339, Office of Envi ronmental Management, Oak Ridge, TN.

DOE 2003. Environmental Assessment Addendum for Disposition of Additional Wastes at the Paducah Site Paducah, Kentucky , DOE/EA-1339-A, Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge, TN.

Earth’s Endangered Creatures 2001. wysiwyg://65/http://www.geocites.com/ endangeredsp/NAmericaFSO10.html

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. http://www/epa/gov/espp/arkansas/seviert.htm

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1989. Recovery Plan for the Fat Pocketbook Pearly Mussel Pink Mussel (Potamilus capax) (Green 1832) , Atlanta, GA, 22 pp.

FWS 1991. Ring Pink Mussel Recovery Plan , Atlanta, GA, 24 pp.

FWS 2003. Letter from Dr. Lee A. Barclay, FW S, to Dr. James L. Elmore, DOE, June

17.

Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best 1999. Bats of the United States , Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 64 pp.

Harvey, Michael J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States . Arkansas Game and Fish

Commission and U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, 46 pp, February.

Hines, Sarah 2001. Personal communicati on regarding a reported sighting of Myotis

sodalis between Sarah Hines, Data Specialis t, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission and Anne Dickie, Scientist, Tetra Tech, Inc., July 9.

IDNR (Illinois Depart ment of Natural Resources) 2001. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page54_5.html15 

### KDFWR (Kentucky Department of Fish a nd Wildlife Resources) 2000. James S. Lane, Jr., Author. Mist Net Surveys for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) at West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area Paducah, Kentucky , February.

KSNPC (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission) 2000. Monitored Species of McCracken County Kentucky . Online reports at http:/ /www.kynaturepreserves.org accessed June 25, 2001.

KSNPC 2000, Kentucky State Na ture Preserves Commission. Re sponse to Data Services Request from SAIC. Request number 01-078. November, 14, 2000.

Kurta et al. 1996. Ecological, Behavioral, and Thermal Observations of a Peripheral Population of Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) . Pages 102-117 in R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, editors, Bats and Forests Symposium , Research Branc h, Ministry of Forests, Province of British Colu mbia, Victoria, British Columbia.

Webb, Warren 2000. Biological Assessment NABIR Projec t, Selection and Operation of the Proposed Field Research Cent er on the Oak Ridge ReservationU.S. Department of Energy Paducah Site

DOE/EA-1339A 

# Appendix D

Draft EA Comments Received and ResponsesStakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 1 of 1CommentNo.Page/SectionComment DOE ResponseRobert A. Carson, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency1.General The Department of Energy should contact the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safetyat least five working days prior to initiating any radioactive waste shipping campaignthat will involve transport through the State of Illinois. This notification shouldinclude waste description, container type, vehicle type, route and expected dates ofshipment. The notification should be provided to:Gary N Wright, DirectorIllinois Department of Nuclear Safety1035 Outer Park DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62704217-785-9868Illinois DNS requests this information so that their duty officers and potentialresponders will have essential information in the case of a shipment problem.DOE will provide the notification.2.The Waste Disposition EA identified one of the roads to be utilized for wastetransport through Illinois as I-65. This should be corrected to “I-64”.Transportation documents will be revised to reflectthis correction. This notation was not used in theWaste Disposition EA Addendum, therefore thisdocument was not modified.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 2 of 2Ruby English, Neighbor and ACT Chairman (Active Citizens for Truth)3.General With the decision to proceed with disposition of additional low-level waste nowrather than waiting until D&D occurs, I would like to know more about the 17,600m3 of low-level waste and the 11,000 m3of various waste types in the WasteDisposition DOE/EA-1339.The 17,600 m3 of material is primarily stored inDOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) throughoutthe site. This material consists of process and nonprocess equipment (e.g., converters, scrap metal,discarded furniture, and assorted rubble); mixed,polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and low-levelradioactive waste (LLW); and other miscellaneousitems.The text of the Environmental Assessment (EA)Addendum will be revised to clarify that the 17,600m3 of additional materials is not all low-levelradioactive waste. These materials will becharacterized and dispositioned appropriately. Nolow-level radioactive waste will be disposed in theC-746-U Landfill.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 3 of 34.General When you talk about on-site disposal, I am concerned about the C-746-U Landfill forthe additional 7,900 m3 to be put in this landfill. As a neighbor, what guarantee do Ihave that no hazardous waste of any kind will go in this landfill. The contaminationfrom previous dumping has not been cleaned up and this only makes me think thatthe Paducah Gaseous Plant will only become a dumping ground for more locations inthe near future.The process for waste acceptance at the C-746-ULandfill, as well as the environmental effects ofdisposal, are evaluated in two environmentalassessments –Environmental Assessment for theConstruction, Operation, and Closure of the SolidWaste Landfill at the Paducah Gaseous DiffusionPlant, Paducah, Kentucky(DOE/EA-1046) issuedin March 1995 andThe Environmental Assessmenton the Implementation of the Authorized LimitsProcess for Waste Acceptance at the C-746-ULandfill Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,Paducah, Kentucky(DOE/EA-1414) issued inAugust 2002. Materials designated for disposal inthe C-746-U Landfill will meet the conditionsdiscussed in these EAs as well as the requirementsof the landfill permit and the landfill wasteacceptance criteria, with the Kentucky Division ofWaste Management (KDWM) having primaryoversight responsibilities. No RCRA, low-levelradioactive, or mixed wastes will be disposed inthis landfill.5.General Would you furnish more information as to the types of waste the 45% (7,900 m3)would be put into the C-746-U Landfill. Since, this is a Subtitle D Landfill and not aSubtitle C Landfill, I am concerned about what the 45% waste would consist of thatwould be stored in this landfill.As the materials are characterized the appropriatedisposition will be determined. Waste that meetslandfill permit and waste acceptance criteria will bedisposed in the C-746-U Landfill. No RCRA, lowlevel radioactive, or mixed wastes will be disposedin this landfill.6.General In reference to the 7,900 m3 going into the C-746-U Landfill I am really concernedthat more hazardous waste will be put inthis landfill. Two cells already containhazardous waste, supposedly put there by error. Notice of Violations issued toBechtel Jacobs for this hazardous waste being put there has not remedied theproblem I have with more waste going to this landfill by mistake. Maybe, peoplewho do not reside in this area of the plant think that everything is okay and there isno harm to the neighbors or community, but, I disagree with these assumptions thatare put out to the public.See response to Comment 4.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 4 of 47.General This additional waste should be figuredin and included in the original scope insteadof being overlooked. Since, the Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1339) hasalready been finalized, there should not be an addendum to this assessment. Let the17,600 m3 stay where it is until the D&D is started.DOE recently funded an accelerated cleanup planaffecting the Paducah Site. Disposition of DMSAmaterials is part of that plan. This EA Addendumanalyzes the environmental effects of proposedactivities involving these materials.8.General In the Final Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1414, (Waste Acceptance at the C746-U Landfill) of July, 2002, it states that the determination of whether to placeCERCLA-derived materials in the landfill is beyond the scope of the proposedaction, potential impacts associated with the potential disposition of CERCLAderived materials are properly considered within the scope of this cumulativeimpacts analysis since such disposition may infact occur. My opinion is that noCERCLA-derived materials should be allowed in the C-746-U Landfill. Will thisSubtitle D Landfill permit be adhered to orwill this addendum open the way for suchmaterials to be put in this landfill?The EA Addendum does not address CERCLAderived wastes. DOE will adhere to all landfillpermit and waste acceptance criteria for waste tobe disposed in the C-746-U Landfill.9.General Thank you for taking the time to readthese comments and questions. I do expect acopy of the final assessment DOE/EA-1339-A when it is completed.Comment noted. Your name will be placed on thedistribution list for the final EA Addendum.Charles Jurka and Vicki Jurka10.GeneralThis document, the Draft EnvironmentalAssessment Addendum (for) Disposition ofAdditional Waste at the Paducah Site, May 2003 (DOE/EA-1339-A) clearly statesDOE’s intention to dispose low-level waste on-site in the C-746-U landfill. TheFinal Environmental Assessment for Waste Disposition Activities at the PaducahSite Paducah, Kentucky November 2002 (DOE/EA-1339-Final), which thisaddendum amends, clearly states (pg. 15) that “... on-site disposal of all wastes ...was not considered reasonable.” Even though the draft version contained the samelanguage regarding on-site disposal, we requested as part of the public commentprocess, that “particular attention ... be given the future impact of long-term on-sitedisposal (i.e. landfills).” The response inthe Final EA stated “no on-site disposal isconsidered within the proposed action of this document.” (K,pg. 10-#1)However, this addendum (pg 2-1.2) says even though 45% (4,900 m3) of theadditional waste may be sent to the C-746-U landfill for disposal, now the onlyissuea reviewer can consider is the “potential transportation of all 28,600 m3 of low-levelwaste offsite for disposal” because on-site disposal is considered elsewhere and “notwithin the scope of this EA Addendum”.The Final EA (pg. 15) clearly showstransportation was not the onlyissue causing the DOE to find on-site disposal anunreasonable alternative. “The need fornew landfill cells” as well as opposition “byDOE completed DOE/EA-1414 and DOE/EA-1046to evaluate what wastewould be appropriate fordisposal in the C-746-U Landfill. The EAAddendum (DOE/EA-1339A) states that onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in thatlandfill will be placed there. RCRA and low-levelwaste do not meet the criteria. Text of the EAAddendum will be revised for clarification.DOE recently funded an accelerated cleanup planaffecting the Paducah Site. Disposition of DMSAmaterials is part of that plan. This EA Addendumanalyzes the environmental effects of proposedactivities involving these materials. Theenvironmental impacts of placing waste in the C746-U Landfill were evaluated in DOE/EA-1414and DOE/EA-1046, and are not within the scope ofthe EA Addendum.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 5 of 5local residents” were important components of DOE’s decision not to furtherevaluate on-site disposal.(EA Final, Pg. 12-2.1.7) Under the proposed action 20,000 m3 of DOE MaterialStorage Area (DMSA) waste requiredNuclear Criticality Safety (NCS)characterization. “DOE’s proposed action includes (d) this type of characterization”(NCS) but did not include the environmental impact of the additional 20,000 m3 ofDMSA waste. Now, approximately six months later, this addendum attempts toincorporate 17,600 m3 of the 20,000 m3 of DMSA waste even though the NCScharacterization is still incomplete (EA Addendum pg.2-1.2: “until characterizationof the waste is complete”). In the final EA the figures used to determine risk shouldbe adjusted upward by approximately 200% because only approximately 1/3 of thewaste identified as “disposition waste” was included in all types of analysis.Additionally it is our concern that much of the waste will ultimately be improperlycharacterized; as happened with past shipments of waste to NTS and Envirocare.The 17,600 m3 is a revised estimate for the 20,000m3 reported in DOE/EA-1339.Your concerns regarding improper characterizationand shipment of wastes to off-site facilities arenoted. Additional actions have been takenincluding the modification of site procedures toimprove the characterization process as an attemptto prevent improper waste disposal.11.It is our opinion that in the Final EADOE misleads stakeholders as to the actualdisposition of large quantities of LLW and MLLW. This is demonstrated in table 1.1(pg. 1) where under the proposed disposal option LLW and MLLW are cited X(LLW) and X(MLLW) for on-site disposal and X (LLW) and X (MLLW) for offsite disposal; leaving only the reader to discern what Xsignifies as that symbol is nototherwise in the table. Stakeholders are also mislead (EA Final pg. 9-2.1.1) whenunder the proposed action they are assured“DMSA wastes that are not characterizedas RCRA/TSCA waste would remain in storage until analyzed during D & DCERCLA actions.” Then, approximately six months later DOE decides (EAAddendum, pg.1-last para.) “to proceedwith disposition of additional low-levelwaste in a timelier manner under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, rather thanwaiting until D & D occurs.” It is our opinion that at the time of issuance of theFinal EA, DOE knew the Atomic Energy Act allowed them to dispose DMSA waste,generally characterized as RCRA waste contaminated with low-level material in theC-746-U Landfill as well as send it to other approved sites. Lengthy and contentiouslitigation between DOE and the State of Kentucky had established what DOE couldand could not do in that regard (United States v Kentucky-NO.00-5247, 6thCir., June5, 2001). Yet, DOE chose to misrepresenton-site disposal and disposition of DMSAThe character Xis an editorial symbol for strikeout. The character should have been deleted fromthe document but was inadvertently left in place.However, the table correctly shows that LLW andMLLW are to be disposed off-site.At this time, 58% of the total volume of materialsin DMSAs has been characterized. Of that total,less than 0.1% has been determined to be RCRAhazardous. No RCRA, low-level radioactive, ormixed wastes will be disposed in the C-746-Ulandfill.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 6 of 6waste in the EA Final where the proposed action and alternatives were considered inthe total scheme rather that under the single issue of transportation as in the EAAddendum.12.(EA Final, Pg. 5-Aquatic Biota) Further, the determination that “long-term impactsto aquatic biota would be beneficial after implementation of the proposed action,because much of the on-site waste would beremoved reducing the amount stored onsite” becomes a very false premise when (EA Addendum, pg.5-4.1.3.1, 1st para.) “alarge portion of the additional (DMSA) waste may be disposed on site.” To movestored and monitored waste to a leaky landfill in a wet environment would haveanegative rather than positive affect. Additionally it is a false premise (EAAddendum, pg. 1-1.1, last para.) that DOE would “experience cost savings throughreduction of surveillance and maintenance costs” if the waste is dispositioned to theon-site C-746-U landfill. The expense wouldstill be Paducah Site expense shifted toleachate control, landfill monitoring and surveillance, etc.It is also false that (EAFinal, pg.49-4.1.1.1, WD) “no (land use) impacts are anticipated at the Paducah site“because all of the wastes are proposed to be disposed off-site...”(EA Addendum, Pg. 1-1.0) “DOE must comply with ..NEPA by considering ....potential environmental impacts.” It is obviously the intent of Kentucky regulatorsto limit the amount of radioactively contaminated waste entering the C-746-Ulandfill as a means of protecting public health and the environment. By deferring tothe AEA and not attempting to endorse or include more stringent environmental andhealth protective measures, DOE demonstrates a callous disregard for the protectivemeasures provided under NEPA. Further,if DOE was indeed concerned about the“risk of spread of contamination to the environment” they would not transportapproximately 7,900 m3 of low-level waste to the on-site C-746-U Landfill where,within the 10 year timeframe for waste disposition activities, that risk will become areality. And finally, (EA final, pg. 30-3.9.2, 2nd. Para.) “because any adverse healthor environmental impacts are likely to fall most heavily on the individuals nearest thePaducah facility” we oppose the proposed action and tentatively support the 2.2Enhanced Storage Alternative for the 17,600 m3 of lo-level waste added todisposition activities via this addendum.DOE checked the statement on page 1.1 of the EAAddendum, that “DOE would experience a costsavings through reduction of surveillance andmaintenance costs” and verified that it is anaccurate statement.Section 4.1.1 of the EA Addendum considers landuse impacts from the proposed action andalternatives.Comment noted regarding your support of theEnhanced Storage Alternative.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 7 of 713.4.1.1 “Land use may change from analysis.”Please clarify what is meant by this sentence. Text has been revised to clarify that land use maychange from that analyzedin DOE/EA-1339 in thatsome of the DMSAs would likely be turned over tothe U.S. Enrichment Corporation upon removal ofmaterials from the DMSAs.14.1.2 (pg.2) Paragraph one states 17,600 m3 is low-level waste and 11,000 m3 is various types ofwaste. Paragraph two states all of the 28,600 m3 of waste is low-level.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material being characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste.15.General Because the addendum introduces theshipment of low-level waste the EA shouldinclude a “definition” of what constitutes low-level waste. This definition shouldinclude a limit for alpha-emitters.Low-level waste is defined in Section 2.0 ProposedAction, paragraph 2.16.General How was the risk of low-level beta-gamma activity incorporated into the handling,packing, and shipping of low-level waste?All radiological exposure impacts were analyzed inSection 4.1.3.17.General The on-site C-746-U landfill is in a humid region in a wet location. It should not beconsidered an acceptable site for low-level waste disposal.The EA Addendum (DOE/EA-1339A) states thatonly waste that meets the criteria for disposal in theC-746-U Landfill will beplaced there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.18.General If the 17,600 m3 of DMSA waste isno longer classified or considered CERCLAregulated waste does DOE order 5820.2A still apply to that waste?DOE Order 5820.2A was replaced. DOE Order435.1 applies to the portion of material determinedto be radioactive waste.19.General The manifesting of all waste shipments should include data on “waste physical andchemical characteristics, quantity of each major radionuclide present, weight of thewaste, volume of the waste, other data for compliance with waste acceptancecriteria.” (DOE order 5820.2A)Waste shipments will be properly manifested inaccordance with U.S. Department ofTransportation regulations and DOE Order 435.1.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 8 of 820.GeneralWe did not receive a copy of the Final EA until May 28, 2003 even though wesubmitted written comments on the Draft version. Beginning in November 2002,Ruby English of Active Citizens for Truth (ACT) made numerous attempts to obtaincopies of this document for review by ACT members and other local residents. OnMay 15, 2003 during a brief presentation on the EA Addendum at the Site SpecificAdvisory Board meeting, Vicki Jurka requested a copy of the final EA. Twelve dayslater, on May 27, Ruby English and Vicki Jurka visited the DOE Information Centerand the SSAB office still seeking a copy of the Final EA (as well as other documentspreviously requested). On the evening of May 27, 2003, two copies of the Final EAwere delivered to the English home allowing us one week to read the document andprepare comments.Comment noted.21.General The date and time of the public hearing for the EA Addendum was held exactly onthe date and time of a previously announced community health seminar cosponsoredby ACT and the University of Kentucky as well as on the same date and time of thelocal Audubon meeting. Consequently, community members who were involved inthe Draft EA process and environmentalist who are interested in protecting theenvironment were unable to attend the public hearing.Comment noted. For this reason, DOE also held abriefing on the EA Addendum at the CitizensAdvisory Board meeting that you attended.22.General Copies of the Addendum did not include the date the comment period closed or theaddress for submittal of comments.The stakeholder letter accompanying the EAAddendum clearly states that comments were to besubmitted to David Allen (address provided) priorto June 4, 2003.23.General Review of several C-746-U landfill documents already show more waste slated fordisposal there than the permitted capacity of the landfill.DOE and Kentucky Oversight Regulators willmonitor permitted capacity to insure permitcompliance.Michael V. Welch, Manager Hazardous Waste Branch,Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection24.General The Division strongly opposes use of the C-746-U Landfill for the disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 9 of 925.General DOE’s primary exposure scenario envisions a rural resident drilling a groundwaterwell at the DOE property boundary near the landfill and subsequently being exposedto contaminated groundwater sourced from the landfill. DOE should also considerthe possibility that a resident might construct a home and drinking water welldirectly on top of the landfill. While perhaps a remote possibility, the likelihood ofthis occurring at sometime in the future is not out of the question, especially whenone considers the geologic timeframes associated with the decay of U-238 and otherradionuclides of concern. What provisionswill DOE make to insure that the landfillis not compromised in this way?Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.26.General DOE’s addendum is deficient in that it fails to incorporate any land use controllanguage. It would appear that DOE ispreparing to place low-level radioactivewaste into the C-746-U Landfill without firstspelling out the controls that will insurethat the landfill remains protective of human health and the environment.With regards to potential direct exposure tothese wastes in the future, how does theDOE intend to insure that such exposures do not occur? At present the DOE has notcommitted to long-term stewardship of this facility. DOE must implement andmaintain controls to insure that direct contact exposure is prevented.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.27.General If low-level waste is eventually deposited in the landfill, the typical thirty (30) yearpostclosure groundwater-monitoring period required for a solid waste facility is nolonger appropriate. In order to insure that the landfill remains protective of humanhealth and the environment, monitoring should continue until such time as theradioactive materials stored in the landfill no longer pose a significant threat ifreleased into the groundwater. Given the nature of these contaminants, groundwatermonitoring may be required in perpetuity.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.28.General The document is confusing in regardsto the term “low-level waste”. The documentproposes that an additional 17,600 m3 oflow-level waste be disposed in the C-746-ULandfill. However in Section 2.3.1 the following statement is made: “Based on theRecord of Decision for the Department of Energy’s Waste management program:Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Waste, (January 1998, 63Federal Register 3629), DOE has determined that low-level waste should be disposedat the Nevada Test Site or the Hanford Siterather than constructing new landfills orlandfill cells.” DOE should clearly differentiate between the low-level wasteproposed for disposition in the C-746-ULandfill and the low-level wastes proposedfor disposition at the Nevada Test Site or the Hanford Site.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.The EA Addendum analyzes the impacts oftransportation of low-level waste to the HanfordSite, Nevada Test Site, and commercial facilities.Stakeholder Comments and DOEResponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment AddendumDisposition of Additional Waste at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339-A)Page 10 of 1029.General Finally, the long term stewardship costs associated with the disposition of low-levelwastes in the C-746-U Landfill have notbeen assessed. Additionally, DOE did notconsider the alternative of dispositioning all low level wastes in existing low-levelrepositories at Hanford and the Nevada Test Site. The long-term stewardship costsand the alternative of off-site disposition of low-level wastes need to be rigorouslyevaluated within an Environmental ImpactStatement and should include full publicparticipation. The Environmental Impact Statement should also clearly differentiatebetween the low-level waste proposed for disposition in the C-746-U Landfill andthe low-level wastes proposed for dispositionat the Nevada Test Site or the HanfordSite.Text has been revised to indicate that the 17,600m3 is material to be characterized anddispositioned and is not all low-level waste. Onlywaste that meets the criteria for disposal in the C746-U Landfill will be placed there. RCRA andlow-level waste do not meet the criteria. Text ofthe EA Addendum will be revised for clarification.Mark Donham, Verbal Comments Received at Citizens Advisory Board meeting28. General When you’re determining whether or not an action is significant, the CEQregulations guide you to the ten significance criteria in 1508.27, one of those iscumulative impacts. There has never been a sitewide EIS looking at the cumulativeimpacts involved with cleanup activities at one time, done for the Paducah Site.The cumulative impacts of DOE/EA-1339 are stillvalid for the EA Addendum. DOE’s position is thatthe impacts analysis is in compliance with NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.29. General I don’t believe this EA looks at the impacts on the environment of waste disposalitself and the transportation.The EA Addendum Sections 4.0 and 5.0 addressthe impacts associatedwith the proposed actionand alternatives.