EA-1001 Environmental Assessment and (FONSI) for Commercialization of the Mound Plant


                                                                      DOE/EA-1001
               Environmental Assessment for Commercialization of the
                                  Mound Plant
                                 Prepared By:
                        The U.S. Department of Energy
                            Miamisburg Area Office

1. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

   On September 14, 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the Proposed Action to consolidate
certain nonnuclear component manufacturing operations of the Nation's Nuclear
Weapons Complex. The direct consequences of the Proposed Action presented in
the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment (EA) is the close-out of
Nuclear Weapons Complex defense missions at the Mound Plant (Ref 1 and 2). DOE
decided on December 23, 1991 to phase out the Mound Plant and transition the
Plant to the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM),
with the goal of releasing the site for commercial use (Ref 2).
   The DOE Miamisburg Area Office (MB) seeks to fulfill the Secretary's
Economic Development Initiative to commercialize surplus facilities  such as
the Mound Plant.  The goal of the Secretary's Economic Development Initiative
is to make DOE resources available to community partnerships for local
business development that supports the President's broader objective of
stimulated economic growth, (Ref 3 and Ref 4).  This Economic Development
Initiative established clear objectives concerning future use of surplus DOE
Facilities.  DOE/MB's strategy for implementing the Secretary's initiative
identified the following key objectives:
       1) To mitigate the potential adverse impacts resulting from
          displacement of Mound Plant employees and subcontractors.
       2) To minimize the impact of defense downsizing on the local economy.
       3) To transfer technologies that have been developed at the Mound Plant
          to the private sector.
       4) To utilize the plant facilities for constructive purposes to retain
          the value of DOE's investment. 
   To address this situation, the local Miamisburg communities and community
organizations formed the Mound Reuse Committee (MRC), which now includes
representation from all stakeholders, including public, private, and employee
interests.  This organization is the recognized Community Reuse Organization
(CRO) and focuses on defining the common concerns of the members.  An
additional  stakeholder organization represented by a partnership of the City
of Miamisburg, Department of Energy (DOE), and EG&G Mound Applied Technologies
formulated a unified plan of action to address concerns through the
development of the "Mound Plant Future Use Plan," dated December 21, 1993
(Ref. 5).  Both  organizations identified the Miamisburg Mound Community
Improvement Corporation (MMCIC)  as the distinct private entity to coordinate
administrative function for the City of Miamisburg while implementing the
Future Use Plan.  The Plan identifies the challenges, needs, and opportunities
associated with closing out the defense mission at the plant and describes a
comprehensive strategy designed to mitigate the impact of plant closure on the
community.  The Plan allows the facility to preserve the economic viability of
the communities who contributed to the DOE's Nuclear Weapons Program. Mound
has a unique history of accomplishment and diversity that set it apart as a
scientific organization. It was not just a production site, but rather a
research and development site that was integrated with component production
(Ref 6).  The DOE recognizes that the true value of the facility is not
limited to site property and its physical structure, but resides in the
personnel, their technology-based skills and experience, and the quality of
the equipment and products that have been developed at the Mound Plant.
   One objective of the MRC is to redirect the facility's advanced
manufacturing capabilities for defense production to the private sector.  The
broad concept is to transform the Mound Plant into an advanced manufacturing
center with the main focus on commercializing products, process development,
and identifying other firms interested in commercializing products such as
flexible printed circuits, explosive components, ceramic components, and other
technology such as nondestructive evaluation and analysis of materials. (Ref.
5).

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action - Mixed-Use Commercialization of the Mound Plant

   The Proposed Action is to lease  portions of the Mound Plant to commercial
enterprises, excluding land associated with the south property (see Figure 2-1
for location of the south property) since it may be sold rather than leased.
Leasing would be between the DOE and a lessee including, but not limited to,
MMCIC.  MMCIC would, in turn, administer its lease with DOE, and sublet
parcels of the plant to other potential business enterprises for commercial
uses consistent with the "Mound Plant Future Use Plan."   MMCIC would present
any proposals from potential subleases to DOE for approval in accordance with
DOE/OFO Economic Development, OH-5.5.01 prior to any subleases taking effect. 
Key elements of the  Mound Commercialization effort include, but are not
limited to, the following goals:
   -  Maintain core instrumentation and equipment resources during the
      transition period.  The transition would be implemented in several
      phases over a period of five years.  This would allow the Mound Plant to
      continue to contribute to the nation's leadership role in high
      technology in the future.
   -  Attract one or more technology-based anchor tenants to provide immediate
      job opportunities for displaced workers, and to provide additional
      revenue to help support overhead costs associated with the Mound Plant
      transition.
   -  Develop Small Business Incubator tenants to foster the growth of small
      and medium sized entrepreneurial technology-based businesses.
   The Future Use Plan  presents a combination of uses similar to ongoing
activities, processes, and operations new to the plant that would represent a
governmental presence and a vibrant private industry technology partnership,
working in concert to promote energy, environment, manufacturing, science and
technological competitiveness for the commercial marketplace (Ref. 5). 
Proposed uses may also include the continued manufacturing of flexible printed
circuits, explosive components, and ceramic components.  The general design
and manufacturing processes for these product lines would be very similar or
identical to those processes used in the manufacture of existing products. 
Proposed processes and operations may also include operations that are not
currently conducted at Mound Plant, such as environmentally acceptable printed
circuit board fabrication processes.   Proposed processes and operations not
currently conducted at the Mound Plant may be similar to those analyzed in the
Mound Plant Alternative described in Section 3.1.2.1 of the Nonnuclear
Consolidation EA (Ref. 1) and their impacts would be bounded by that analysis. 
In addition to the ongoing activities at Mound Plant, the Mound Plant
Alternative in the Nonnuclear Consolidation EA would have consolidated the
nonnuclear functions at Mound Plant from other DOE sites to include:  1)
nonnuclear electrical/mechanical manufacturing functions would be transferred
from the  Kansas City , Pinellas , and Rocky Flats Plant, 2) lithium ambient
batteries would be transferred from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and
3) special products, such as nuclear grade steels, safe secure trailers,
weapons trainer shop, and metrology capabilities would be transferred from the
Rocky Flats Plant.  Any new construction required by proposed uses (except as
described below) is outside the scope of the Mound Plant Alternative in the
Nonnuclear Consolidation EA and is outside the scope of the Proposed Action in
this EA.  Any new construction at the Mound Plant would be subject to
additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.  Leases or
subleases for any uses not similar to those outlined in the Mound Plant 
Alternative of the Nonnuclear Consolidation EA or similar to past operations 
would be subject to additional NEPA review before DOE's approval of the lease
or sublease. 
Figure 2-1:  Mound Plant Site
   All leases issued as part of the Proposed Action would clearly define the
DOE and tenant responsibilities with respect to compliance with all Federal,
State, and local requirements.  All leases would contain restrictive lease
conditions to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to ensure
that the proposed uses are within the bounds of this EA.  Certain restrictive
conditions imposed by regulatory permits, such as Mound Plant's air emissions,
wastewater, and hazardous waste permits are already identified.  Requirements
for additional restrictive conditions would be evaluated, as needed.  The
existing environmental conditions of the proposed plant lease space would be
certified by DOE prior to leasing to the prospective tenant, (DOE/OH) Economic
Development, OH-5.5.01).  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 requires consultation with and concurrence from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in determining whether the
environmental conditions of DOE property and the terms and conditions of the
lease agreement are consistent with safety and the protection of public health
and the environment prior to entering into a leasing agreement.  Appendix A
provides an example of the generic leasing agreement and a letter from the
USEPA concurring with the use of the general purpose lease agreement. No
adverse impacts are expected from any cleanup required in order to make
building certifications pursuant to the Appendix A of the general lease. The
level of cleanup will vary based on prospective uses and contractual
requirements.
Commercialization at Mound will be implemented in a phased approach following
a process which establishes the roles and responsibilities of the MMCIC, DOE-
OH, DOE-MB and EG&G Mound Applied Technologies. Figure 2-2 is an economic
development flow sheet that outlines the roles of the organizations noted
above.
   During each phase  the MMCIC, would review proposals from commercial
entities that want to utilize the site and would recommend tenants to DOE for
occupancy based on their suitability to site requirements.  The leases would
include legally binding agreements between the lessor and the tenants
regarding issues, such as payment of utilities costs, compliance with
environmental regulations, and security at the facility.   Activities and
processes planned by tentative lessees would require oversight review by the
MMCIC, or its equivalent, to assist DOE in determining the need for additional
NEPA review.  DOE would conduct additional NEPA reviews as necessary. 
   All leasing activities  would be coordinated through the MMCIC. It is
expected that the DOE or its representative would initially maintain common-
use areas such as the utilities, wastewater treatment system, and waste
storage areas.
   Depending on specific tenant requirements, activities associated with
commercialization may include equipment and plant layout rearrangements,
renovation activities, and other routine maintenance activities or
replacements and upgrades consistent with facilitating the conversion of the
Mound Plant buildings identified in Chapter 3 of this EA to the extent
necessary to facilitate commercial use.  These preparation activities would be
consistent with those activities that DOE has determined do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment (10 CFR
1021.410 and Appendices B1.3, B1.4, B1.7, B1.21, B1.22, B2.1-2.5, B4.6, B4.7,
B4.11, B5.1, B6.3-6.6, and B6.8 of 10 CFR 1021). 
   Optionally, DOE might only allow limited scale activities that involve new
manufacturing and new research processes; these processes would be screened
per DOE-OH Economic Development, OH-5.5.01 prior to introduction onto the
Mound Plant site.  The Proposed Action would allow for 
additional employment at the facility of up to 1,500 workers in addition to 
the anticipated 1,100 workers for ongoing operations associated with
environmental restoration and Nuclear Energy (NE) Radioisotopic Thermoelectric
Generator (RTG) missions.
Figure 2-2:  Economic Development Roles & Responsibilities
Figure 2-2:  Economic Development Roles & Responsibilities (Continued)

2.2 Alternative 1 - Commercialization Restricted to Existing Plant Capabilities and Uses

    The primary alternative to the Proposed Action would be leasing portions of
the Mound Plant to commercial enterprises engaged in processes and activities
similar to those processes and activities currently performed at the plant. 
These processes and operations are described in Section 3.2.2 of the
Nonnuclear Consolidation EA, (Ref. 1) and Section 3 of this EA.  This would be
achieved through the lessee arrangement described for the Proposed Action
above.  The lessee would be the MMCIC .  All arrangements for commercial use
of the facilities would be limited strictly to commercial enterprises which
are purely administrative or engage in essentially similar activities in scope
and scale to those currently in existence.  This alternative would not
introduce any new environmental impacts that exceed the operating envelopes
established in the numerous Mound Plant environmental permits.  Such permits
include the plant's air and water permits as discussed in the Mound Site
Environmental Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 1993, August 1994 (Ref 7).
   The primary difference between this alternative and the Proposed Action is
that this alternative would not allow leasing space for operations that differ
substantially from ongoing operations.  This alternative would have the
potential to generate up to 200 jobs at the facility.  This number is
considerably lower than the employment estimate for the Proposed Action
because there is limited demand for commercial activities that consist only of
those currently being conducted at the site.

2.3 No Action Alternative

   In this alternative, no attempts would be made to open up the Mound Plant
for the local business community.  Current research, development, and
manufacturing activities would cease in 1995, and the Mound Plant would be
transferred to the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management (EM) for future administration.  All plant facilities and
equipment would be brought to safe shutdown and/or removed for an undetermined
future use or surplused.  Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) of
contaminated facilities would be a continuing activity which originated in the
DOE Surplus Facilities Management Program.  As chemically and/or
radiologically contaminated facilities are determined to be surplus to the
needs of the DOE, the facilities are placed under a surveillance and
maintenance plan included in the D&D program.  Mound D&D activities are
performed in accordance with the technical, cost, and schedule baselines
maintained for the D&D program and reflected in the Activity Data Sheets
prepared and reviewed annually as part of the DOE budget and planning process
and DOE Order 5820.2A.  As discussed in Section 4.4 of the Nonnuclear
Consolidation EA, additional NEPA review would be performed as the nature of
the specific D&D project activities are identified (Ref. 1).  
   This action would not provide employment opportunities or otherwise
stimulate the local economy.  Ongoing activities at the plant would be limited
to maintenance of buildings and essential utilities, environmental restoration
activities, and security for grounds and buildings.  Personnel requirements
would be limited to 900 workers for environmental restoration and 200 workers
for ongoing Nuclear Energy RTG   missions.  Implementation of this alternative
would have considerable economic impacts to the community.  Long-term
environmental impacts of this alternative would include an overall  decrease
in  emissions from the plant.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed as Unreasonable

   Three additional alternatives were considered but were dismissed as
unreasonable because they fail to meet the four tenets of the Economic
Development Initiative identified in Section 1.0,  Purpose and Need for Agency
Action.  The first of these alternatives would be to sell the plant and all
associated physical structures upon completion of environmental restoration
activities.  The second alternative considered and also deemed unreasonable
would be to demolish the plant and all associated physical structures..  It
has been estimated that the cost associated with cleaning up all Mound Plant
facilities for subsequent sale of the real estate would be 1.1 billion
dollars. The costs associated with completely demolishing the facilities would
cost approximately an additional 300 million dollars. The costs associated
with completing work on the Mound Plant Operable Units (see section 3.1) has
been estimated to cost approximately 300 million dollars. Therefore, the
additional environmental restoration costs associated with the above two
alternatives would result in considerable additional costs above those
identified for the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action
Alternatives These alternatives would also fail to provide sustained
employment opportunities to the community.  The third alternative is to
continue DOE or other government-funded operations (such as Department of
Defense) at the Mound Plant.  This alternative was dismissed as unreasonable
because it is not consistent with DOE's desire to consolidate and streamline
operations as described in the Nonnuclear Consolidation EA (Ref. 1) and does
not support commercialization of facilities.  The above three alternatives
would fail to achieve the Secretary's goals of the Economic Development
Initiative.

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

   Resources discussed in this chapter are limited to those which may be
affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives.  The resources listed below
are discussed in brief, but are not analyzed  in detail in this environmental
assessment:
    -  Agricultural and Recreational Areas
    -  Wild and Scenic Rivers
    -  Transportation
    -  Noise
    -  Archaeological
    -  Wetlands and Floodplains
   The region surrounding the Mound plant is predominantly agricultural, used
for growing corn and soybeans.  Prime and unique farmlands are not located at
the Mound Plant. The proposed action and alternatives do not require use of
additional land other than that already encompassed by the current site
boundaries and therefore no impact to adjacent agricultural areas would occur. 
The Mound plant does not contain any recreational resources on its property,
however, across the road is a city owned golf course and an Indian Burial
Mound: Past and present plant operations at the Mound Facility have had and
continue to have minor traffic and noise impacts on these areas. The proposed
action has the potential to result in an increase of employment level up to
historic employment highs at the Mound site, (Approximately 2,600, employees,
1984). Therefore, the proposed action and alternatives would not be expected
to result in any additional impacts to these publicly utilized areas above
those which currently exist, or have existed in the past. There are no wild
and scenic rivers located in the vicinity of the Mound plant, (Letter, Lewis
1992: see Appendix B).  In 1987 Wright State University conducted a field
survey and examination of the Mound facility and it appeared that there were
no significant archaeological remains on the Mound Plant site due to previous
disturbance. No archaeological sites eligible for the National Register will
be affected, (Letter, Kitchen 1992: see Appendix B).  A small portion of the
south property, (see Figure 3-1) falls within the 100 year flood plain of the
Great Miami River. The south property is outside the scope of this
environmental assessment, therefore, the proposed action will not be impacted.
A wetlands investigation was initiated in response to terms set forth in the
Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) with DOE, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA.  The
results of the wetlands assessment indicate that the Mound site does contain
small areas onsite that meet the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA definition of
wetlands, (Ref 8). These areas will not be disturbed by any activities
involved with the proposed action or any of the alternatives. 
   As noted above, it has been estimated that the proposed action discussed in
this Environmental Assessment has the potential to generate up to 1,500 jobs
in addition to the estimated 1,100 employees needed to support proposed future
programs. Total employment at the site is therefore not expected to increase
above the past maximum employment levels. Therefore the impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives discussed in this EA are not expected to
result in any additional traffic and noise impacts above those which currently
exist, or have existed in the past.
Description of the Mound Plant Site
   The Mound Plant is located on 123 hectares (306 acres) in Montgomery
County, Ohio, partially within the Miamisburg city limits (population 17,770)
and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) east of the Great Miami River.  The plant is 16 km (10 mi)
south-southwest of Dayton and 80 km (31 mi) north-northeast of Cincinnati
(Figure 3-1).  Approximately 76,000 people live within an 8-km (5-mi) radius
of the site.
   The Mound Plant lies on high bedrock bluffs overlooking the city of
Miamisburg, the Great Miami River, and the river plain to the west.  The plant
incorporates two high hills divided by a minor northeast-to-southwest-trending
valley that feeds into the Great Miami River.  Most of the buildings on the
plant site occupy the northwest hill crest (Main Hill).  A smaller group of
buildings lies in the valley and on the valley slopes.  Other buildings occupy
the southeastern SM-PP Hill, (Figure 2-1).
   The Mound Plant is owned by the DOE.  It is operated by  EG&G Mound Applied
Technologies as a prime contractor for the DOE.  Mound has been operating
since 1948.  The facility has been part of the nuclear weapons production
administered by the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office.  The plant was
originally built to manufacture nonnuclear components for nuclear weapons
assembled at other DOE  sites.  Production of these devices necessitated the
development of several uniquely specialized areas of competence and supporting
facilities.  These capabilities led to the assignment of other weapons
application products. There are currently 158 buildings and facilities at
Mound. Total floor area at Mound is approximately 1.4 million square feet
(Ref. 9). The workforce at Mound in September 1994 was approximately 1350
employees.  In addition to manufacturing, production development capability is
maintained at the Mound Plant.  Mound's primary historical missions have been:
Operations Scheduled to Continue (estimated to require 1,100 workers)
    -  Design and production of calorimeters 
    -  Stable isotope separation and sales
    -  Isotope heat source piece part fabrication
    -  Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) heat source fabrication and
       qualification
    -  Commercial Tritium sales/inertial confinement fusion target loading.
    -  Tritiated aqueous Waste recovery
    -  Nuclear materials safeguards 
    -  Pollution prevention
    -  Waste management
    -  Storage of nuclear materials
    -  Maintenance of standards and calibration facility
    -  Decontamination and Decommissioning
    -  Environmental Restoration (CERCLA)
Figure 3-1:  Southwestern Ohio and Location of Mound Plant
Operations Scheduled to End   (Ref 10)
    -  Fabrication, assembly, and procurement of:
       -  Detonators, firesets, and pyrotechnic devices.
       -  Flexible circuits
       -  Explosively Actuated timers
    -  Powder and thermite processing
    -  Explosive and reservoir surveillance testing
    -  Savannah River Operations Operational Capability Contingency
    -  Solid storage transfer systems
    -  Performance of surveillance activities to ensure reliability of nuclear  
       stockpile
    -  Maintenance of process capability program
    -  Development of production engineering support
   The majority of the work done at Mound has been done for Defense Programs
(DP). As a result of the November 22, 1993 Department of Energy decision to
phase out the Mound Plant and transition the Plant to the Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) , Mound is currently in
the process of phasing out the DP mission (Ref 2). The site will be
transferred to EM for environmental cleanup under the provisions of a Federal
Facility Agreement (FFA) entered into with the EPA and the sale under section
120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA). A substantial infrastructure will remain to support environmental
cleanup activities conducted by DOE EM.
   Non-DP activities would continue to receive support related to security,
non-destructive testing, waste disposal and management, public relations,
finance, plant engineering and environmental health and safety programs.
Lessees have the option to receive support for maintenance activities.
   The types of hazards identified at the Mound Plant include energy sources,
such as electrical, explosive, kinetic, lasers, and high pressure, non
radioactive hazardous materials, like flammable materials, reactive materials,
acids, toxic materials, cryogenic gases, plating solutions, and radioactive
materials.  Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes, both radioactive and non
radioactive, generated at the site are stringently controlled.  This is
accomplished by a variety of treatment, control, and monitoring systems. 
   The plant buildings and their functions are listed in Table 3-1. Figure 3-2
is a site map showing facilities available for lease.
Figure 3-2:  Site Mound with Facility Locations

                    Table 3-1.  Mound Plant Building Summary 
Building   Function                                           Square Feet
---------  -------------------------------------------------  -----------
A          Administration/quality                             55,582 
B          Inert production                                   27,735 
C          Record Storage                                     13,403 
COS        Development/production                             64,654 
DS         Development/standards/testing                      47,810 
Eb         Analytical services/production/analytical          47,755 
           laboratory 
EG1        Emergency generators                               240 
EG2        Emergency generators                               240 
EG4        Emergency generators                               148 
EG6        Emergency generators                               240 
EG7        Emergency generators                               80 
G          Garage                                             7,518 
GH         Human Resources                                    5,347 
GP44       Record Storage                                     365 
GIS        Guard island entrance                              166 
GP1        Change Rooms/firing range                          7,792 
GW         Bonded stores/receiving inspection                 9,782 
H          Environmental laboratories/laundry/change rooms    17,334 
HH         Isotope separation                                 15,276 
I          Explosives/pyrotechnics production                 25,736 
M          Tooling fabrication/Ceramics                       56,018 
           machining/Electroplating/ electronics 
OSE        Engineering/DOE/cafeteria/auditorium/computer      90,072 
           facility 
OSW        Accounting/management                              54,280 
           information/drafting/central computer facility 
PH         Storage                                            646 
P          Powerhouse - [steam/chilled water/compressed       15,143 
           air/breathing air] 
PS         Paint shop                                         2,288 
R          Nuclear laboratories/offices/library/D&D program   55,003 
SD         D&D program                                        1,593 
SM         D&D program                                        21,700 
SST        Salt storage for road treatment                    590 
SW         Tritium development/surveillance                   43,066 
T          Nuclear operations/tritium                         172,963 
           development/laboratories/health physics 
W          Maintenance                                        32,484 
WD         Radioactive waste treatment                        16,216 
WH1        Well house                                         374 
WH2        Well house                                         374 
WH3        Well house                                         128 
1          Explosives processing                              986 
2          Test fire                                          6,291 
3          Test fire                                          12,391 
5          Magazine                                           314 
6          Magazine                                           90 
7          Magazine                                           387 
8          Magazine                                           66 
10         Magazine                                           66 
11         Magazine                                           372 
13         Firing shed                                        47 
14         Metal melting                                      53 
16         Production storage                                 480 
17         Production storage                                 1,120 
19         Property management/surplus/property disposal      4,480 
20b        Magazine                                           303 
21         D&D program                                        4,069 
22         Development/warehousing                            9,090 
23         Waste material staging area                        3,422 
24         Water treatment (potable)                          840 
25         Weather station                                    430 
26         Maintenance                                        800 
27         Energetic materials production                     5,285 
28         Ceramics production                                11,329 
29         Plastics production                                6,601 
30         Health Physics                                     740 
31         TRU waste staging                                  8,740 
33         D&D operations                                     1,344 
34         Emergency brigade training                         1,110 
35         Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Laboratory           2,500 
36         Support functions for RTG assembly and testing     4,255 
           operations 
37         Organic Materials Development                      2,463 
38         Nuclear programs/D&D program                       44,327 
39         Engineering                                        3,515 
40         Print shop/technical manuals/publications          12,227 
42         Pyrotechnics production                            2,892 
43         Development                                        1,516 
44         Cafeteria                                          2,480 
45         Health Physics                                     9,500 
46         Welding development                                2,439 
47         Security                                           3,611 
48         Surveillance                                       7,950 
49         Timer fabrication                                  14,929 
50         RTG assembly and testing                           14,849 
51         Development                                        3,541 
52         Magazine                                           78 
53         Magazine                                           239 
54         Magazine                                           331 
55         Waste management                                   330 
56         Fire pump and water tank                           613 
57         Sanitary sewage treatment                          510 
58         Filter bank                                        6,110 
59         Neutron radiography                                668 
60         Ceramics                                           3,958 
61         Warehousing/procurement/contracting                45,490 
63         Quality/product tester/design/development          16,461 
64         Magazine                                           72 
65         Production                                         2,400 
66         Development                                        600 
67         Energetic material support                         3,787 
68         D&D staging area                                   1,990 
69         Production/Tritium Surveillance                    1,620 
70         Quality                                            3,366 
71         Flammable liquids storage                          800 
72         Hazardous waste staging                            2,400 
73         Gas cylinder storage                               2,200 
74         Production storage                                 400 
79         Waste Management Support                           1,650 
80         Magazine                                           314 
81         Magazine                                           314 
82         Magazine                                           314 
83         Magazine                                           314 
84         Magazine                                           314 
85         Powder blending/processing                         3,160 
87         Destructive testing                                38,882 
88         Support functions for RTG assembly and testing     7,200 
           operations 
89         Detonator (Long term surveillance)                 4,830 
90         Retort (explosives waste)                          656 
91         Environmental, Safety & Health/training            8,065 
92         Production training                                1,600 
93         Standards                                          2,936 
94         Materials compatibility                            1,240 
95         Utilities operations                               2,000 
96         Disintegrator/storage                              432 
98         Fire Station                                       8,517 
99         Security operations                                11,412 
100        Security                                           6,292 
101        Engineering                                        1,815 
102        Engineering (D&D)                                  10,982 
104        Test Fire maintenance                              1,800 
105        Production machining                               38,027 
106        Production storage                                 180 
112        Sand filters                                       785 
113        Dewatering                                         547 
114        Nitrogen separation                                432 
120        Health Physics storage                             350 
122        Hazardous Waste Storage Facility                   15,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (Taken From the Mound Plant Construction Plan, 1993)
          See Figure 3-2 for Facilities Available for Lease.

3.1 Environmental Restoration

Affected Environment
   In compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) signed by
DOE, USEPA and Ohio EPA,  the Mound Plant has undertaken environmental
restoration (ER) activities to clean up contamination at the site.  The Mound
site had nine operable units (OU's) which have since been consolidated. into
six OU's that are being investigated at the Mound Plant. Figure 3-3 shows the
locations of the six operable units. The following is a brief description of
each OU at the Mound Plant.
Operable Unit 1, Area B
   Addresses possible chemical and radioactive contamination of the portion of
the Buried Valley Aquifer (BVA) which underlies the southwest corner of the
original Mound plant. The main concern in OU 1 is volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) migrating in groundwater. Crushed empty thorium drums and waste from
cleaning filters in Mound's Waste Disposal Building are also included in OU 1.
Operable Unit 2, Main Hill
   Addresses the source and pathways of possible groundwater contaminants on
Mound's  Main Hill. Historical Tritium releases have been tracked since the
1970's; the extent of VOC contamination is uncertain. Off-site groundwater
seeps on Mound's north hillside are also included in OU 2.
Operable Unit 4, Miami Erie Canal
   Addresses contamination of the old Miami-Erie canal bed in Miamisburg
resulting from plant runoff, including an accidental plutonium spill in 1969.
Tritium is also a contaminant of concern in the canal.
Figure 3-3
Operable Unit 5, South Property
   Addresses on-site soil areas in the southern portions of Mound Plant known
or suspected of being contaminated with radionuclides or chemicals. OU 5 will
fully characterize the sources of contamination and migration within its
geographical boundaries. Available data indicate that most of OU 5 is
uncontaminated. However a number of areas within OU 5 are known to be
contaminated with radioactive materials, principally thorium and plutonium.
The areas were contaminated by disposal of contaminated soil or debris.
Operable Unit 6, Verification of Sites Under the Management of the
Decontamination & Decommissioning Program
   Addresses residual contaminants from Mound's ongoing D&D of unusual
radiological facilities on-site. The current D&D program at Mound began in
1978 and presently addresses surplus plutonium facilities and underground
waste pipelines. The D&D program is independent of the CERCLA Program and is
not routinely subjected to EPA oversight. However upon completion of D&D
activities, every site will be evaluated by the CERCLA Program under OU 6.
Operable Unit 9, Site-Wide/Off-Site
   Addresses the total environmental effects of contamination attributed to
Mound plant that may be found in the air, groundwater, soils, surface water
and sediments: includes all ecological concerns. OU 9 encompasses the
cumulative impact of all other Operable Units on-site and in the off-site
environment, including characterization of possible contamination in the
Buried Valley Aquifer and the Plant drainage system. Presently, site-wide
investigations encompass the entire plant and the area within a 20-mile radius
of the plant.
Impacts of the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative
   The Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative would be
consistent with and would not impact ongoing environmental restoration
activities at the Mound Plant.  The environmental restoration activities are
conducted per the FFA and would proceed independently of commercialization
activities under the oversight of the U.S. and State EPA's.

3.2 Socioeconomics

Affected Environment
   The discussion of socioeconomics of Mound is based on a Region of Interest
(ROI) where 88% of Mound's employees lived in 1991. The ROI includes Butler
(9%), Montgomery (65%) and Warren (14%) counties in Ohio. Mound is located
within the city limits of the city of Miamisburg where light industry, office
complexes and residential areas are located near the plant. 1990 census data
show the population estimates for the ROI of 979,197. Table E3.6-1b of the
Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment of 1993 shows the regional
growth pattern estimates at the Mound plant from 1970 through 2040, (Ref 1,
Table E3.6-1b)), (see Appendix D). 
   The Mound Plant currently employs over 1,300 employees. The average annual
income with benefits included is approximately $80,000 per year. More than
1,700 indirect (community employees) are needed to support operations and
associated spending from the Mound Plant and its employees. Direct payroll at
Mound was estimated to be more than $48.4 million .(personal communication
with Mr. Thomas Hughes, Manager EG&G Mound Applied Technologies (Ref 11).
   The City of Miamisburg had total tax collections of $7.5 million in 1992 of
which $1.6 million (approximately 21% of the total) was contributed by Mound
employees. Mound employees have consistently played an important role in
community affairs with individuals involved in educational outreach programs
at local schools, and other important community needs.
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   The impacts of the Proposed Action would be the potential for producing up
to 1500 jobs at the Mound Plant within ten years of implementation.  In terms
of socioeconomic impacts, the Proposed Action would achieve the Secretary's
initiative to commercialize Mound Plant facilities and meet the following
objectives of DOE and MRC: 1) create high-caliber job opportunities, 2)
stimulate local economic growth, 3) promote the commercialization of site-
developed technology, and 4) reuse Department facilities compatibly with the
continuing mission (Ref. 6).  The Proposed Action would maximize the DOE's
past investment in the facility, and in its human and technology resources. 
At a minimum, the Proposed Action would preserve the current economic
viability of the employees, local suppliers, and the community that have
served the nation's defense needs for the past 47 years in the Mound Plant
area.  
   The Proposed Action is the alternative that is most consistent with the
MRC's critical requirement that the facility succeed in attracting a major
large high-technology anchor tenant to the site.  In addition to providing
continued job opportunities in the area, it would continue the Mound Plant's
role in fueling the growth of technology and manufacturing firms in the area.
Additionally the educational outreach programs supported by Mound's technical
staff would continue to benefit the local school systems.  The Proposed Action
would result in the least severe adverse economic impact on the community due
to cessation of the Defense Programs mission at the plant.  Depending on the
number of similar high-technology firms attracted to the area by the favorable
commercialization activities at the Mound Plant, the positive socioeconomic
benefits to the community presented by the Proposed Action may actually exceed
the positive impacts resulting from ongoing activities at the plant.  Through
leasing procedures, activities at the Mound Plant would be conducted to ensure
that leasing activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations)
the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to
discrimination under the economic development activities at the Mound Plant
because of their race, color, or national origin. The DOE is committed to the
EPA's policy regarding environmental equity issues. Environmental equity
refers to the distribution of environmental risks across population groups.
The DOE will evaluate, in NEPA documents, the impact of departmental actions
on racial minority and low-income populations to insure that these groups are
not bearing a disproportionate share of environmental risk. The proposed
action and alternatives discussed in this EA will take place within the city
limits of Miamisburg, Ohio. Racial minority and low income families do reside
in the Miamisburg community, however, Miamisburg is not a racial minority or
low income community. The proposed action and alternatives will therefore not
have any unique affects on these groups, (Ref 12).
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impacts from Alternative 1 would be the potential for creating up to
200 jobs at the Mound Plant.  The corresponding benefit to the community would
be valued at  considerably less than that of the proposed action.  
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impacts from the No Action Alternative would be the potential for
retaining approximately 900 jobs at the Mound Plant in support of
environmental restoration program work and Nuclear Energy (NE) Radioisotopic
Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) heat source program work.  The no action
alternative would result in some displacement of households, businesses, and
support contractors.  In addition, it would have the effect of stifling the
potential for the economic growth of the community that would result from
productive use of Mound Plant facilities.

3.3 Air Emissions

3.3.1 Non radiological Air Emissions

Affected Environment
   Mound is located within the Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR).  The region is under the authority of the Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA), which conducts a program to monitor ambient
levels of criteria pollutants.  This AQCR is designated as attainment by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to SOx , NOx , and CO (40
CFR 81.336).  However, several counties within the AQCR, have been classified
as non attainment for Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and ozone (O3). The
Ohio EPA has standards for existing pollutants regulated by National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).   Ambient air quality near
Mound is monitored by the RAPCA monitoring program and that of the
Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution Control Agency. The principal sources of
criteria air pollutants at Mound are the two boilers associated with the steam
plant.  Other sources include fugitive particulates from process emissions,
emissions from laboratory operations, and vehicular emissions. Table 3-2
summarizes the criteria pollutants emissions from the Mound plant for calendar
year 1993. This information in this table was obtained from the Mound Air
Emissions Inventory for Calendar Year 1993

          Table 3-2  Criteria Pollutants Emissions for the Mound Plant for 1993 
           Source                  TSP a      SOx       NOx      VOC's b    CO        Lead
                                  (lbs/yr)  (lbs/yr)  (lbs/yr)  (lbs/yr)  (lbs/yr)  (lbs/yr) 
--------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Internal Combustion Engines       1304      1254      20678     9055      250,000   NA
Gasoline Dispensing Stations      NA        NA        NA        628.6     NA        NA
Energetic Material Disposal       39.5      0.0       0.4       0.0       441       0.0
Paint Spray                       NA        NA        NA        587       NA        NA
Power House                       4111      243       42014     174.7     10,503    NA
Underground Storage Tanks         NA        NA        NA        0.2       NA        NA
Roadways and Parking Lots         17,808    NA        NA        NA        NA        NA
Miscellaneous Particulates        138.2     NA        NA        NA        NA        NA
Miscellaneous VOC's               NA        NA        NA        8529      NA        NA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total of Pollutant (lbs/yr) (a)   22096     243       42,0142   9919      10944     0
Total of Pollutant (tons/yr) (a)  11.0      0.12      21        4.95      5.47      0
Major Emitter Threshold Limit     100       250       100       100       250       0.6
 (tons/yr) (b)
Percent of Threshold Limit        11.0      0.04      21        4.95      2.18      0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a   excluding mobile emission sources contained in internal combustion engine source
    b   Clean Air Act Sec 112, Ohio Administrative Code 3745-77-01 (w)
   As of July 1994, the Ohio EPA has not promulgated standards for the
additional 189 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) specified in the Clean Air Act
(CAA).  However, the Ohio EPA uses the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists  (ACGIH) list of pollutant Threshold Limit Value (TLV). 
The HAPs/toxics described in this section are those currently used at Mound or
those anticipated to be used under the proposed action. Hazardous Air
pollutants (HAPs) are regulated  under NESHAPS. HAP/toxic emissions from Mound
are derived based on detailed documented process knowledge from air permits
and/or applications filed with the Ohio EPA  The emission inventories for
Mound HAPs are presented in Table 3-3.

 Table 3-3  Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP's) for the Mound Plant in 1993 
Chemical (HAP)                        Estimated Emission (lbs/yr)  (a) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetonitrile                                         0.61
Acrylonitrile                                        12.6
Asbestos                                             7.88
Benzene                                             24.98
Carbon Disulfide                                     9.68
Carbon Tetrachloride                                 0.02
Chlorine                                             0.96
Chlorobenzine                                        0.19
Chloroform                                           6.24
Cumene                                               0.58
Dichlorobenzine                                     11.52
Diethanolamine                                       0.05
Dimethyl Formamide                                  25.85
Dioxane                                             28.23
Epichlorohydrin                                     30.10
Ethylene Glycol                                      1.04
Hexane                                             545.88 
Hydrochloric Acid                                  774.58
Hydrofluoric Acid                                   17.42
Methanol                                          2383.17 
Methyl Isobutyl ketone                               38.4
Methylene Chloride                                 13,690
Phosphine                                             0.0
Polychlorinated Biphenyls                              96
Tetrachloroethylene                                  1.92
Toluene                                             37.11
Toluene diisocyanate                                   54
Trichloroethane                                     1,820
Trichloroethylene                                   44.74
Xylene                                             194.08 
Arsenic Compounds                                    8.74
Cadmium Compounds                                    0.19
Chromium Compounds                                   8.98
Cyanide Compounds                                   26.28
Lead Compounds                                       9.30
Mercury Compounds                                    0.58
Nickel Compounds                                   166.82
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total HAPs (lbs/yr) (c)                         20,078.72
Total HAPs Threshold Limit (b)                     50,000
Total HAPs Percent of Threshold (%)                 40.1%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maximum Individual HAP (lbs/yr)                    13,690 
Maximum Individual HAP, Threshold Limit (b)        20,000 
Maximum Individual HAP, Percent of Threshold (%)    68.4%
  a   quantity released is based upon documented process knowledge from air
      permits  and/or applications filed with the Ohio EPA.
  b   The Threshold Limits for regulation as a major source are:
      > 50,000 lbs/yr (25 tons/yr) of combination of HAPs
      > 20,000 lbs/yr (10 tons/yr) of any single HAP
      (Clean Air Act, Sect 112; Ohio Administrative Code 3745-77-01 (w)
  c   excluding radionuclides
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   Tenants will be required to obtain and comply in all respects with
regulatory agency permits, regarding air emissions, during the term of the
lease. Processes that are proposed  would be reviewed by  MMCIC and DOE with
respect to their impacts on air emissions, and DOE would conduct additional
NEPA review, if appropriate. 
   Both the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 may be affected by proposed
regulations, such as National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), 40 CFR Part 83, Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Processes, and Clean
Air Act (CAA), Section 112g, Title V permitting requirements.  Affected
processes would be subject to evaluation to ensure that they meet the new
requirements.
   Potential tenants whose air impact estimates would exceed the baseline
emissions estimates provided for the Mound Plant (Tables 3-2 and 3-3, pages
24, 25 & 26) would either be rejected as tenants or would be required to
undergo additional DOE NEPA analysis prior to being permitted onsite as a
tenant.  Because the emissions from the Mound Plant associated with the
Proposed Action would be within Ohio EPA standards, no adverse human health
effects from the Proposed Action would be anticipated.  It is possible that
emissions due to specific chemicals brought in to support new processes would
be increased beyond  baseline emissions  (Table 3-2 and 3-3) for those
chemicals, but these increases would not be allowed to exceed applicable State
regulatory standards or permitted limits.
Conformity and the Proposed Action
   The CAA requires Federal actions to conform to any SIP approved or
promulgated under Section 110 of the CAA.  Montgomery County is presently
designated as a moderate non attainment area for ozone. Using conservative
assumptions on potential employee commutes and mobile source emission factors,
an emissions estimate  of cumulative direct and indirect VOC emissions
associated with the Proposed Action was determined to be 13.8 tons per year
(TPY). The data and calculations are provided in Appendix E. These emissions
were comprised of 5 TPY of stationary source permitted emissions representing
present baseline conditions (Table 3-2) and 8.8 TPY attributed to cumulative
annual employee commutes to and from the Mound Plant. Based on this estimate,
a formal determination of conformity is not required at this time Pursuant to
the general conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, a formal
determination of conformity may be required at a future date should the
cumulative effects of the Proposed Action change.
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impacts of Alternative 1 present no effects that would differ from the
existing Mound Plant air emissions baseline as provided in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 
Since all processes would be administrative in nature or limited to activities
similar to ongoing processes, air emissions would not differ, in quantity or
characteristics, from current air emissions.  It is anticipated that an
overall reduction in plant air emissions would result from implementation of
this alternative because the type of work being performed would be at a
reduced scale from historical operations (prior to 1993).  Since the total
number of anticipated employees would be less than that associated with the
proposed action, the  cumulative direct and indirect emissions from the
implementation of this alternative would be below those identified in the
Proposed Action.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The D&D and close-out activities associated with the No Action Alternative
are expected to result in an overall long-term reduction in air emissions
generated by the Mound Plant (i.e. below those identified in Tables 3-2 and 3-
3.  Emissions  would be reduced as the processes that involve chemicals are
discontinued.

3.3.2 Radiological Air Emissions

 
Affected Environment
   Normal operations in 1993 resulted in radionuclide emissions to the air 
from  operations at the Mound Plant. These emissions included 664 curies of
tritium, 1.2 x 10-5 curies of plutonium -238, 4.0 x 10-8 curies of plutonium-
239,240, 6.3 x 10-8 curies of uranium-233,234 and 5.7 x 10-8 curies of uranium-
238,(Ref 7). Maximum Committed Effective Dose Equivalents (CEDE) were
calculated for these radiological air emissions. Table 3-4 summarizes the
radiological emissions to the air and the hypothetical consequences of the
releases.

           Table 3-4  Mound Plant Radiological Air Emissions in 1993 
                                               Maximum Committed Effective Dose
                           Activity         Equivalent to a Hypothetical Individual
      Radionuclide         (curies)                  in 1993 (mrem)  (b)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tritium                     664 (a)                       0.005
Plutonium-238             1.2 x 10E-5                     0.13
Plutonium-239,240         4.0 x 10E-8                     0.005
Radon-222                     1.1                          (c)
Uranium-238               5.7 x 10E-8                      (c)
Uranium-233,244           6.3 x 10E-8                      (c)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a)  Tritium in air consists of: tritium oxide, 522 Ci and Elemental
         tritium, 142 Ci
    (b)  Hypothetical individual is assumed to remain at the site boundary
         24 hours per day throughout 1993. This individual was assumed to
         have:
      -  breathed only air containing the highest average radionuclide
         concentrations measured at an onsite air sampling station
      -  drawn all of his/her drinking water from the offsite well with the
         highest average concentration, and 
      -  consumed produce exhibiting the concentrations measured in the
         samples collected from the Miamisburg area.
    (c)  Many tritium, plutonium, and uranium measurements were below their
         respective reagent blanks or environmental levels and, due to the
         extremely low levels, it is standard practice not to include
         measurements at these levels
   Maximum Effective Dose Equivalents (EDE) to individuals in the population
were calculated for radionuclide air releases using the EPA's computer code
CAP-88, (Ref 13). The maximum EDE from airborne releases was 0.04 mrem. The
EPA's annual dose limit for airborne releases is 10 mrem. Therefore Mound's
releases in 1993 represented  0.4% of the EPA dose standard. CAP-88 was also
used to evaluate the population dose from the radiological releases.  The
population within a radius of 80 km of Mound received an estimated 2.1 person
rem from plant operations in 1993.  The average collective dose from
background sources of ionizing radiation within an 80 km radius of the Mound
Plant is approximately one million person rem.  A discussion on the methods
used to calculate offsite radiation dose is presented in both the Appendix and
section 4.7  of the Mound Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1993,
(Ref 7).
   In addition to setting limits on the dose equivalent to any member of the
public from Mound operations, DOE has established Derived Concentration
Guidelines (DCG) for individual radionuclides. The DCG for a radionuclide is
defined as the concentration of that radionuclide in air or water that will
give a 50 year CEDE of 100 mrem if taken into the body by inhalation or
ingestion. The concentrations of radionuclides from Mound found in all
environmental media during 1993 were only small fractions of the DCG's for the
respective radionuclides, (Mound Site Environmental Monitoring Report for
Calendar Year 1993). The DOE DCG values for individual isotopes (in air) of
concern are: DCG Tritium Oxide  (10-12 uCi/mL), DCG plutonium-238 (10-18
uCi/mL), DCG plutonium-239,240 (10-18 uCi/mL), DCG Radon-222 (No DOE DCG for
Radon-222 exists), DCG uranium 238 (2 x 10 -12 uCi/mL), DCG uranium 233, 234
(2 x 10-12 uCi/mL)
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   No net increases in radiological air emissions over existing emissions
(Table 3-4) would be anticipated from the Proposed Action. Radioactive air
emissions would be expected to decrease as the DP mission is phased out,
(there may be slight increases in radionuclide air emissions due to D&D
activities).
   Under the conditions of the lease, tenant effluent discharges would be
limited to the current plant baseline radionuclide emissions to the air,
(Table 3-4) . No new radionuclides will be introduced to the site.  Potential
tenants whose air impact estimates would exceed the baseline emissions
estimates provided for the Mound Plant (Tables 3-4) would either be rejected
as tenants or would be required to undergo additional DOE NEPA analysis prior
to being permitted onsite as a tenant.
Impacts of Alternative 1 
   The impacts from Alternative 1 on radiological air emissions would be
essentially the same as from current Mound Plant emissions (Table 3-4) as
documented in the Mound Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1993, (Ref
7). Operations that result in radiological air emissions would not be changed
significantly from similar ongoing operations. 
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impact of the No Action Alternative would be an overall reduction in
radiological air emissions.  Radiological air emissions would be generated
through  activities associated with the operations scheduled to continue (see
page 11 of this EA) and would not be expected to rise above the baseline
conditions (Table 3-3) .  These emissions would also eventually decrease as
the  operations are completed.

3.4 Effluent Discharges

3.4.1 Non radiological Discharges

Affected Environment
   Mound releases waste water to offsite surface waters via three discharge
systems. In 1993 Mound discharged an average of 2.78 million liters of water
per day to the Great Miami River. The average flow rate of the Great Miami
River is  greater than that of Mound's effluents and therefore releases from
Mound can be expected to have a minimal impact on river quality.
   Mound discharges are regulated by a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Mound's permit was renewed in October of
1992; it will remain valid through March of 1997.
   Mound's NPDES permit requires scheduled collection and analysis of plant
effluents at four onsite locations. Additional sampling requirements are
required for one offsite outfall and three Great Miami River locations. 
   During calendar year 1993, Mound collected 1574 samples for analysis of
NPDES parameters. One exceedance did occur. On August 5, 1993, Mound recorded
a chlorine concentration of 0.76 mg/L in the effluent discharged by the sewage
treatment plant; the daily limit for Mound at that location is 0.5 mg/L. The
exceedance was reported and corrective action was taken in the form of
replacing a faulty solenoid valve. The incident did not reoccur, and the Ohio
EPA did not issue a notice of violation or noncompliance.
   The NPDES requirements can be found in Appendix C for calendar year 1993.
Figure 3-4 shows the locations of the outfalls (NPDES sampling locations).
Appendix C also contains a summary table showing the organic compounds
detected in Mound effluents in 1993.  
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   Under the conditions of the lease tenant effluent discharges would be
limited to levels currently permitted under the discharge standards, as
established under by the Mound Plant's NPDES permit. Potential commercial
tenants would be required to demonstrate that  proposed operations involving
effluent discharges would meet the existing Mound Plant discharge standards.   
   Processes that are proposed to be brought on site would be reviewed by  MMCIC
and DOE with respect to their impacts on non radilogical effluent discharges,
and DOE would conduct additional NEPA review, if appropriate. If the processes
proposed to be brought on site are substantially different than ongoing
operations, the current waste water permit may require modification. Impacts
from effluent discharges, however, will be no greater than the impacts stated
in the Nonnuclear Consolidation EA for the Mound Plant Alternative (Ref 1).
These stated impacts are increased storm water runoff of up to 132 million
gallons per year(Ref 1, page 4-198) of additional waste water..  Any
modifications of the NPDES permit must be approved by the Ohio EPA.
Figure 3-4:  NPDES Sampling Locations
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impact of Alternative 1 on non radiological liquid effluents would be
essentially the same as the current Mound Plant effluent, (Appendix C). 
Operations that result in liquid effluents would not be changed significantly
from similar ongoing operations and would be within the parameters of the
current NPDES permit.  Under Alternative 1, administrative activities may be
moved to the plant to replace the industrial activities that are removed as
the DP mission is phased out.  As a result, the ratio of industrial waste
water to sanitary waste water would decrease.  It is expected that this would
result in a decrease in the concentrations of various constituents, such as
metals and toxic organics, in the Mound Plant liquid effluent.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impacts from the No Action Alternative on the liquid effluent released
from the Mound Plant would be an overall long-term decrease in both quantity
and concentration of industrial constituents, such as metals and toxic
organics.  As the industrial operations are removed, the liquid effluent from
the plant would be primarily sanitary waste water.  The quantity of the
sanitary waste water would be anticipated to decrease due to the reduction in
the workforce.

3.4.2 Radiological Liquid Effluents

   
Affected Environment
   Radionuclide concentrations in the Great Miami River are shown in Figures 4-6
through 4-9 of the Mound Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1993.
Total discharges to the Great Miami River during 1993 consisted of 2.5 x 10-4
Ci of plutonium-238, 3.4 Ci of tritium, 3.5 x 10-4 Ci of uranium-233,234 and
8.9 x 10-6 Ci of plutonium-239 (Ref 7). Table 3-5 summarizes the radiological
effluents to the  water and the hypothetical consequences of the releases.
   Averages for 1993 were on the order of one-thousandth of a DCG or less. The
primary use of DCG's for liquid releases is to control exposure received from
drinking water supplies. Since  the Great Miami River is not a source of
drinking water, the DCG's only serve to help put the values in perspective.
The DOE DCG values for individual isotopes (in water) of concern are: DCG
Tritium  (2000 x 10-6 uCi/mL), DCG plutonium-238 (40,000 x 10-12 uCi/mL), DCG
plutonium-239,240 (30,000 x 10-12 uCi/mL), DCG Radon-222 (NO DOE DCG for
radon-222 exists), DCG uranium 238 (6 x 10-7 uCi/mL), DCG uranium 233,234 (5 x
10-7 uCi/mL)
   The Mound Plant's processing of radiological effluents is conducted in
compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 through implementation of the As Low As
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) Program.  The objective of the ALARA Program is
to limit the release of radiological effluents and limit potential worker
exposure to radioactive materials through conservative use of these materials,
containment of radiological materials and equipment, and use of personal
protective equipment.   
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   In the Proposed Action, release levels of radioactive effluents would be
expected to remain at or below the current levels identified in 1993 Mound
Environmental Report and noted above in Table 3-5.  These levels comply with
release standards that were developed by DOE to protect public health and
safety.  Any potential tenant processes that result in release of radiological
liquid 

         Table 3-5  Mound Plant Radiological Effluent in 1993 
                                           Maximum Committed Effective Dose 
                         Activity            Equivalent to a Hypothetical 
Radionuclide             (curies)           Individual in 1993 (mrem) (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tritium                    3.4                         0.04 
Plutonium-238           2.5 x 10E-4                    (b) 
Plutonium-239,240       8.9 x 10E-6                    (b)
Uranium-233,244         3.5 x 10E-4                    (b)
  (a)   Hypothetical individual is assumed to remain at the site boundary 24
        hours per day throughout 1993. This individual was assumed to have:
     -  breathed only air containing the highest average radionuclide
        concentrations measured at an onsite air sampling station
     -  drawn all of his/her drinking water from the offsite well with the
        highest average concentration, and 
     -  consumed produce exhibiting the concentrations measured in the samples
        collected from the Miamisburg area.
  (b)   Many tritium, plutonium, and uranium measurements were below their
        respective reagent blanks or environmental levels and, due to the
        extremely low levels,  it is standard practice not to include
        measurements at these levels
effluents would be subject to the same discharge limits that currently apply
at the Mound Plant. These limits would be specified in the conditions of the
lease agreement.   Processes proposed to be brought on site with the potential
for radiological effluent releases higher than the levels shown in 1993 Mound
Environmental Report, or releasing different radionuclides, may be rejected as
a potential tenant or would be subject to additional NEPA review by DOE.
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impact of Alternative 1 on radiological liquid effluents would be
essentially the same as the current Mound Plant baseline (Table 3-5) and in
the Mound Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1993, (Ref 7). Operations
that result in radiological liquid effluents would not be changed
significantly from similar ongoing operations and would be controlled under
DOE and State of Ohio radiological liquid effluent levels..
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impacts of the No Action Alternative on radiological liquid effluents
released from the Mound Plant would be an eventual decrease in their quantity
and concentration.  This would result from the removal of processes that
generate the radiological liquid effluent.  Initially, D&D activities may
result in a period of increased (still below DOE Guidelines) discharge of
radiological liquid effluent.  Radiological liquid effluent would be generated
through D&D activities associated with cleaning  contaminated building
material and consolidating contaminated equipment . After D&D activities are
completed, the quantity of radioactive liquid effluent would be expected to
approach zero.

3.5 Waste Management Capacity

Affected Environment
   Waste management operations at Mound consist of five broad waste types:
Transuranic (TRU) (> 100 nCi/gram, atomic # > 92 and half life > 20 years),
Low Level Waste (LLW) (< 100 nCi/gram), mixed waste, hazardous/toxic waste,
and non-hazardous waste. In calendar year 1993 there was no TRU waste
generated at the Mound site. Mound has a backlog of TRU waste of 8904 cubic
feet. The waste is currently in storage as no disposal alternative currently
exists. Table 3-6 presents the 1993 waste generation at Mound.
Source: Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and Mound Waste Management
Radioactive Waste Streams and Management.
   LLW consists of paper, wood, building debris, and soil contaminated with
Pu-238, Pu-239, and thorium; and paper, wood, plastic, and scrap equipment
contaminated with tritium. Currently, approximately 70 percent of the LLW
generated at Mound is a result of ongoing D&D activities. The liquid waste at
Mound contaminated with Pu-238 is treated in the Waste Disposal (WD) Facility.
The precipitant Pu-238 forms a sludge which is put in drums for disposal. The
low-level tritium-contaminated liquid waste is solidified with cement in 55-
gal steel drums.  Additional low-level management facilities are described in
Table 3-7.  All solid LLW is transported by commercial carriers in closed vans
to a DOE acceptable site.  Prior to shipment,  LLW is staged in Building 31. 
As of the end of  August 1994, there were approximately 210,000 cubic feet  of
LLW at the plant awaiting shipment.
Mixed Waste.
   Mound's backlog of low-level mixed waste was generated from scintillation
vials, lead residue and bricks, PCBs, and contaminated mercury, (Table 3-8). 
Low-level mixed waste is containerized and stored in Building 23 at Mound
pending completion of waste characterization and identification of  an
acceptable waste treatment/disposal option by DOE. As is the case with all DOE
sites, Mound is finding it difficult to comply with land disposal restrictions
and waste storage time limits for its mixed wastes, since disposal options are
not available.  It is anticipated that Mound's glass melter thermal treatment
unit, with a treatment capacity of 740 cubic feet per year , would be
available in 1997 for treatment of much of  Mound's backlog  waste.   This
unit would be used to process mixed waste and vitrify the bottom ash.  A RCRA
Part B permit application and a Trial Burn Plan for the glass melter have been
submitted for Ohio EPA approval. Mound has no current or planned onsite
disposal facilities for  mixed wastes. Table 3-8 lists the low-level mixed
waste types and quantities in storage.

                        Table 3-6:  1993 Waste Generation at Mound 
                                             Storage          Treatment
Waste Type         Quantity Generated        Capacity         Capacity        Disposal Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLW
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid             (1.5 million gallons        (c)              (c)                (c)
                   alpha waste water)
                   (30,000 gallons of
                  tritium contaminated
                    waste water) (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid                 210,000 ft3          700,000 ft3          (d)            Offsite-DOE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRU                        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid                     0                    0              none               none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid                      0                8950 ft3           none               none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid                  79 gal             25,000 gal          None               None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid                  4.5 ft3             1,600 ft3         None (e)             None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous/Toxic
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid                19,000 gal           13,365 gal          None              Offsite
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid                 2,825 ft3             2,880 ft3          (a)               Offsite
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non hazardous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid              47,400,000 gal            (b)           47.5 MGY       Offsite-NPDES Outfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid                140,130 ft3           21,492 ft3          None              Offsite
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   a   Burn Area has treated an average of 42 ft3/yr of explosive/reactive wastes.
   b   Additional capacity is obtained as required by renting commercial trailers.
   c   The Waste Disposal Plant has four influent tanks having a combined storage
       capacity of 120,000 gallons of alpha waste water.  On the average, 30,000
       gallons per week of alpha waste water are treated and discharged to the
       great Miami River.  Low-Level tritium contaminated liquid wastes (30,000
       gallons per year) are solidified and disposed of as solid LLW.
   d   Sludges produced in the clariflocculator from the above process are held in
       two 1,000-gallon tanks until solidified in 55-gallon drums.
   e   If available , the glass melter thermal treatment unit would have a
       treatment capacity of 740 ft3/yr.

                  Table 3-7  Low_Level Waste Facilities at Mound 
   Facility                         Waste Management                      Facility Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Disposal                 Liquid Alpha Waste (Pu-238),    Equipment for coprecipitation/flocculation of
Solidification (WD Bldg.)      Beta Waste                      waste, solidifiction of sludge, and
                                                               adsorption/filtration of supernatant liquid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staging Area (Bldg. 23)        Mixed Waste                     One-story sheet metal building, 12 ft high x 60
                               non-TRU alpha waste             ft wide x 102 ft long, having a gross area of
                                                               6,100 ft2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Solidifiction Facility   Tritiated Waste                 Tritiated liquid solidification and packaging for
(SE-149)                                                       off-site shipment and burial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent Removal System        Tritiated Waste                 Air detritiation system removes tritium from
(SW)                                                           process effluent streams before they are
                                                               released to the atmosphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compactor (T-Bldg.)            Low Specific Activity (beta)    Hydraulic-ram compactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass Melter (WDA)             (alpha, beta, gamma)            Development refractory chamber containing
                                                               molten glass over which waste is butned, wet
                                                               off-gas treatment system, and high efficiency
                                                               filter used for line-generated wastes (Mound
                                                               expects to permit the unit for use with
                                                               radioactive mixed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compactor (SW Bldg.)           Low Specific Activity (beta)    Hydraulic-ram compactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment at Various           Low-level alpha solid waste     Where practical, compactors are used to reduce
Waste Generating Area                                          waste volume in drums prior to shipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Source: Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and Mound Waste Management
      

         Table 3-8  Mound Plant Low_Level Mixed Waste Types and Quantities in Storage 
          Waste Type                                            Quantity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Scintillation (vials)        189 drums (1,418 ft3) containing closed vials
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Residue and Bricks             One 30-gal drum of residue, two 30-gal drums of bricks; one 55-gal
                                    drum of lead scrap, two 5-gal 37-A cans of bricks and scrap, two 55-gal
                                    drums of RCRA corrosive TRU waste, two plywood boxes (strong,
                                    tight) containing waste batteries, one steel box (U.S. DOT 7A)
                                    containing lead waste; total volume waste lead - 185 ft3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polychlorinated Biphynyls (PCBs)    20 drums of solid, 14 drums of liquid, 1 box of solid (equipment-
                                    machine press); total volume PCBs - 250 ft3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminated Mercury                Four containers totaling less than 3 liters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Source: Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and Mound Waste Management
Hazardous/Toxic Waste Streams and Management.
   Hazardous/toxic wastes are generated in several production and laboratory
facilities at Mound.  The quantity of the wastes can be found in Table 3-6 and
are summarized as follows: 19,000 gallons and 2,825 cubic feet of liquid and
solid hazardous waste; 47,400,000 gallons and 140,130 cubic feet of liquid and
solid non hazardous waste; 30,000 gallons and 210,000 cubic feet of 
radioactive low level waste; 79 gallons and 4.5 cubic feet of liquid and solid
mixed waste; and 8904 cubic feet of TRU waste. The disposal methods for each
are summarized in Table 3-6 and the current storage/treatment facilities at
Mound are listed in Table 3-10.  Mound has submitted a revised RCRA Part A and
B permit application which is currently being processed by the State. There
are no active onsite disposal facilities for hazardous wastes at Mound. 
Wastes currently treated onsite are explosives and pyrotechnics. 
Approximately three hundred pounds of these materials are treated annually by
open burning on a hearth inside a facility and by use of a retort (a vessel or
chamber in which substances are distilled or decomposed by heat in a
controlled manner).  All other hazardous wastes (Table 3-6) are treated and
disposed of offsite by RCRA-permitted commercial contractors.  Prior to
offsite shipment, all hazardous/toxic waste is packaged in DOT-approved
containers, mostly 55-gal drums, manifested and shipped under contract with
DOT-registered transporters to RCRA- or TSCA-permitted facilities for
treatment or disposal  depending on the waste form. Approximately 2,000 pounds
per year of lead-acid batteries are also sent offsite for recycle or reuse. 
Mound has a program to monitor the offsite management of its hazardous wastes
by commercial facilities on a regular basis.  Records and manifests are
maintained for all hazardous wastes picked up from Mound generators that are
shipped offsite for treatment or disposal.

                    Table 3-9  Mound Plant Hazardous/Toxic Waste Nature and Handling Procedures 
  Waste Stream and            Nature of Waste                    Handling of Waste
      Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Solvents            Flammable Liquids             Picked up weekly, consolidated at staging area, and
(approximately 80- 55                                     Stored in steel drums in Bldg. 72 prior to offsite disposal
gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Oils                  Flammable or                  Consolidated in 55-gal drums at operating area, and
(approximately 36- 55       combustible liquids           stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discarded Excess Paints     Flammable or                  Consolidated in 55-gal drums at operating area, and
and                         combustible liquids           stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
Thinners (approximately
25- 55 gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Corrosive             Mostly caustic and acid       Consolidated in 55-gal drums or other size drums at operating
Solution (approximately     solutions                     area, and stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
53- 55 gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spent Plating-Bath          Toxic liquid containing       Consolidated in 55-gal drums or other size drums at operating
Solution (approximately     heavy metals                  area, and stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
75- 55 gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste                       Toxic liquid                  Stored in marked cans or drums labeled and placed in
PCBs(approximately 107-                                   Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
55 gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicity Characteristic     Various liquid and solid      Consolidated in 55-gal or other size drums at operating
Waste (approximately 8-     wastes                        areas, and stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
55 gallon drums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo-Processing            Waste containing              Picked up weekly, consolidated into polyethylene-lined
Waste (approximately 14-    precious metals, caustic      55-gal drums and stored in Bldg. 72 for offsite disposal
55 gallon drums)            solution, and acetic acid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory                  Solvents; flammable,          Packed in steel containers with vermiculite for
Wastes (approximately       reactive, toxic liquids in    incineration of Land-filling
122- 55 gallon drums)       small quantities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source:  Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and Mound Waste Management

               Table 3-10  Mound Plant Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Facilities 
       Facility                           Use                                 Approximate Dimensions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Waste Storage     Principle hazardous waste storage       40 ft x 60 ft; 10 ft high
Facility (Bldg. 72)         area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosive Waste Storage     Explosive waste storage bunker          10 ft x 15.5 ft; 10 ft high
Magazine 53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyro Shed Storage           Storage area for pyrotechnic            9 ft x 15 ft; 7 ft high
                            materials
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Treatment of        Drum unit for burning explosives-       55 gallon drum in 10 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft
Explosive Waste             contaminated materials                  structure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open burning of explosive   Apparatus for burning solid             Located in same structure with drum
Waste                       explosives-contaminated                 unit (above)
                            materials/scrap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retort                      Unit for burning fabricated             3 ft diameter, 10 ft long
                            components/assemblies containing
                            explosives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyro Waste Conversion Unit  Apparatus for treatment of              1 ft diameter, 2 ft high cylinder in a 30
                            pyrotechnic cleanup solutions           in x 30 in x 6 in tray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source:  Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and Mound Waste Management
      
Non hazardous Waste Streams and Management.
   Non hazardous wastes are generated routinely and include general plant
refuse such as paper, cardboard, glass, wood, plastics, scrap, metal
containers, etc.  Non hazardous wastes are segregated and recycled whenever
possible.  Metallic and wood waste, stored in a salvage area, is sold
periodically by lot sale as surplus.  Trash is accumulated onsite and taken to
the local sanitary landfill on a regular basis. For calendar year 1993 Mound
generated approximately 59,500 cubic yards of uncompacted non-hazardous waste.
Impacts of the Proposed Action For Waste Management
   Commercial enterprises that lease space at the Mound Plant would be bound
through lease agreements to conduct their waste management operations
independent of Mound's hazardous waste operations permit. Mound's treatment,
storage and facilities would not be available to tenants.  Any individual
permits would be obtained by tenants prior to operations as required by Part
I, 8A of the General Lease (Appendix A).
   Emphasis would be placed on attracting operations to the plant that have
already shown success with replacing hazardous process materials with non
hazardous materials.  An effort will be made to bring in processes with waste
streams that are safe and compatible with Mound operations. It is expected
that the Proposed Action would result in a slight change in specific types of
hazardous wastes, for example, manufacture of plastics may result in plastic
resin wastes.  Tenant operations that would exceed the total volumes show in
Table 3.6  would not be considered as potential tenants or would be subject to
further DOE NEPA review.  Although tenants would not be expected to have waste
volumes in excess above those listed in Table 3-6, the volumes will not go
above those for the Mound Plant Alternative of the Nonnuclear Consolidation
EA, (Ref 6), (Appendix D).
   Volumes of radioactive wastes are expected to  remain similar to those
produced by current activities  (30,000 gallons per week and 210,000 cubic
feet  of liquid and solid Low Level Waste), (Table 3-6).on page 35. 
Additional procedures and rules would be developed that apply to the specific
waste types being generated.  The subleases with prospective tenants would
ensure adherence to these rules.  All waste handling activities would be
conducted in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements.
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impacts from Alternative 1 on generation of solid, hazardous, and
radioactive wastes would be essentially the same as the current Mound Plant
baseline shown in Table 3-6, (page 35).  Waste reduction would be conducted as
a continuation of ongoing waste minimization activities and would include, as
appropriate, use of replacement materials for hazardous chemicals.  If
administrative activities replace current industrial operations, the volume of
hazardous and radioactive wastes would be reduced in proportion to the
contribution of the industrial operations that are removed. All waste handling
activities would be conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local requirements.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impacts from the No Action Alternative would be a gradual decrease in
the volume of solid, hazardous, and radioactive wastes.  After D&D activities
are completed, the volume of production-related hazardous and radioactive
wastes would be reduced to near zero.  The volume of solid wastes would be
reduced to those nominal levels necessary to support maintenance, security,
and ER activities.

3.6 Waters

3.6.1 Water Demand

  
Affected Environment
   Three deep wells which extend into a Buried Valley Aquifer supply the plant
with all water needs. . During 1993, the Mound Plant utilized approximately
231 million gallons of water (State of Ohio Water Withdrawal Facility
Registration Annual Report Form, facility registration # 01572 EG&G Mound
Applied Technologies).
Impacts of the Proposed Action
   The impacts of the Proposed Action on water usage are not expected to be
substantially different than those associated with operations currently being
conducted at the Mound Plant.  Lease agreements would be written so that new
plant tenants would be financially responsible for a proportional share of the
water utility charges, (Appendix A).  With the tenants' water usage costs
directly proportioned to water utilization, it is expected that tenants would
conserve water in order to be more cost effective.  The  MMCIC would be
responsible for determining the share of water costs that are applicable to
each tenant.  The overall impact of the Proposed Action on Mound Plant water
utilization would be to maintain, or slightly decrease, the current
consumption rate.
Impacts of Alternative 1
   The impacts from Alternative 1 on water usage would be essentially the same
as the current Mound Plant consumption rate (i.e., the recent maximum water
demand represented by the 231 million gallons used in 1993). 
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
   The impact from the No Action Alternative on water usage would be a gradual
reduction of water utilization.  D&D activities may require an initial period
of increased water usage.  After D&D activities are completed, water
requirements would be limited to those associated with maintenance, security,
and ER activities.

3.6.2 Groundwater

   Municipal and industrial water supplies in the vicinity of the site depend
upon high capacity wells drilled into unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers.
The principal aquifer in the area, the Buried Valley Aquifer, is composed of
Pleistocene sand, gravel, and fine grained till. The Buried Valley Aquifer is
located immediately west of the Mound facility, and does underlie the
southwestern portion of the property. The maximum known thickness of the
aquifer within the site boundary is approximately 70 ft. The aquifer thickens
towards the Great Miami River and reaches a maximum thickness of approximately
150 ft near the river channel. Recharge to the Buried Valley Aquifer is
available from direct infiltration from the great Miami River, leakage along
the valley walls at the bedrock-outwash contact, precipitation  and induced
infiltration caused by hydraulic sinks due to pumping.  
Water samples are periodically collected from community supplies in the
surrounding area, private wells, and Mound's onsite wells.  The wells onsite
at Mound are analyzed for plutonium-238, uranium-233/234,-238, and tritium. 
Analyses show that plutonium concentration levels in all cases are well below
DOE and EPA limits.  Samples from some locations have been analyzed for
uranium; concentrations and isotopic ratios are typical of naturally occurring
background levels in the shales and other rocks of the area.  Tritium levels
are within EPA maximum contaminant levels. Table 3-11 summarizes the
radionuclide concentrations found in the onsite production wells in 1993, (Ref
7).
   Non radioactive pollutant levels are also within water quality criteria.
The non radioactive (VOC) contaminant concentrations in onsite production
wells are summarized in Table 3-12, (Ref 7).

             Table 3-11  Radionuclide Concentrations in Mound Productions Wells, 1993
                                No. of             Max                Average          Average as % of
  Radionuclide     Well ID     Samples        Concentration        Concentration        EPA Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tritium             0071          40           3.2nCi/L               1.4nCi/L              7.0
                    0271          39           2.1nCi/L               1.6nCi/L              8.0
                    0076          46           1.7nCi/L               1.1nCi/L              5.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plutonium-238       0071          11        3.28 x 10E-12 uCi/L  0.88 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.06
                    0271          10        4.03 x 10E-12 uCi/L  0.46 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.03
                    0076          12        3.0 x 10E-12 uCi/L   0.47 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plutonium-239,240   0071          11        2.45 x 10E-12 uCi/L  0.82 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.07        
                    0271          10        3.35 x 10E-12 uCi/L  0.60 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.05
                    0076          12        1.15 x 10E-12 uCi/L  0.20 x 10E-12 uCi/L       0.02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium-233,234     0071          11        0.26 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.22 x 10E-9 uCi/L         1.1        
                    0271          10        0.23 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.19 x 10E-9 uCi/L         1.0
                    0076          12        0.27 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.23 x 10E-9 uCi/L         1.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium-238         0071          11        0.22 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.19 x 10E-9 uCi/L         0.8        
                    0271          10        0.20 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.16 x 10E-9 uCi/L         0.7
                    0076          12        0.24 x 10E-9 uCi/L   0.20 x 10E-9 uCi/L         0.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 3-12  VOC Concentration in Mound Production Wells, 1993
                                                               Maximum
                                                No. of      concentration     MCL (a)
  Well I.D                 Compound             Samples         (ug/L)        (ug/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   0071             1,1,1 - Trichloroethane       7              1.4            200
                  cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethane      7               17             70
                       Trichloroethene            7              5.2              5
                      Tetrachloroethene           7              0.7              5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   0271                   Freon 113               7              3.0            (b)
                    1,1,1 - Trichloroethane       7              1.2            200
                  cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethane      7              7.2             70
                       Trichloroethene            7              1.8              5
                      Tetrachloroethene           7              0.5              5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   0076                   Freon 113               7              2.0            (b)
                    1,1,1 - Trichloroethane       7              0.6            200
                  cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethane      7              3.0             70
                       Trichloroethene            7              2.0              5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   a   MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level (based on EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards),(40
             CFR 141-143).
   b   there is no MCL for Freon 113
Impacts of the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative
     The plant currently has a drainage control system which is capable of
  isolating and containing spills which may occur onsite. Therefore the
  Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative are not
  expected to have any impact on groundwater at the Mound Plant. Only
  environmental restoration activities, which are consistent through
  implementation of all three alternatives, would have any effect on
  groundwater systems, (a positive impact by removal or reduction of low
  level VOC contamination).  The impact, therefore, of all three alternatives
  on site groundwater would be the same and would be negligible.

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

   According to the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Letter, Kroonmeyer 1991; see Appendix B), the Mound Plant lies
within the range of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), a federally listed
endangered species.  The bat has not been seen on-site.  Shagbark hickories
(common to southwest Ohio) and other live or dead trees with exfoliating bark
may host the bat from May 1 through August 31.  However, according to the
Dayton Museum of Natural History, a field survey in April 1991 did not locate
any shagbark hickories on-site (Letter, Hissong 1991; see Appendix B).  During
the time from May 1 through August 31, preconstruction site inspections are
conducted to assess whether any potential host trees are present. 
   During ecological assessment activities conducted under the CERCLA program
at the Mound Plant, a single specimen of Inland Rush (Juncas interior weig)
was discovered growing on the Mound south property (Ref 14).  The Inland Rush
has been designated a state "endangered species" by the Ohio Division of
Natural Areas and Preserves. Since the specimen is located on the south
property which is outside the scope of this EA it has not been further
considered.  
   According to existing records, no other rare or endangered species have
been found at the proposed site or any alternative site (Letters, Hillmer 1992
and Kroonmeyer 1992; see Appendix B).
Impacts of the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative
   The Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative  would
not be expected to have any effect on threatened or endangered species in the
area of the Mound Plant.  Such species (other than the single specimen of
Inland Rush, (Juncas interior weig) are not observed on the plant site, nor
are they likely to be dependent on the site for food and habitat due to the
commercial and residential development surrounding the plant.

3.8 Accident Analysis

  Three accident scenarios have been analyzed which adequately characterize
the risks associated with likely economic development business proposals. The
proposals involve three different types of operations, with different hazards
for each operations. The accident scenarios analyzed provide a spectrum of
accidents in terms of the probability and consequence found in  DOE Order
5481.1B Safety Analysis and Review System. The accidents analyzed include: 1)
inadvertent ignition of 10 pounds of High Explosive during operations in
Building 27,.2) inadvertent ignition of thermite powder during machining
operations in Building 43 and 3) a spill of laboratory quantities of acid in
the environmental analysis laboratory of E-Building.  Greater detail on each
of these scenarios is provided in sections 3.8.1, 3.8.2 and 3.8.3 of this EA.
   One additional accident scenario involving the potential release of
plutonium-238 Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fuel was examined
for the NE operations which are scheduled to continue at the Mound Facility.
The RTG plutonium-238 fuel is encapsulated in clads which have been designed
to survive space shuttle launch and reentry accidents, (Ref 15). A safety
analysis of the fuel clads concluded that the probability associated with
breaching the cladding and subsequently exposing the fuel is less than 1 x 10-
6 events/year; as a result of this extremely low probability of occurrence,
the consequences of the accident were not further evaluated for the purposes
of this EA.. The facility in which the NE operations take place is a nuclear
facility equipped to handle radioactive materials and operational accidents
involving these materials. The conclusions of the safety analysis indicate
that these NE operations can be conducted safely without considerable risk to
the workers, public and environment. These operations are not expected to have
any impacts on the proposed action described in this EA, nor is it anticipated
that the proposed action would impact the NE operations. 
   Many types of hazards exist at the Mound Plant, (chemical, radiological,
electrical, etc.) and management of these hazards, through the use of
administrative and engineering controls, helps ensure that the risk associated
with these hazards is low. In the event that the Mound Plant does experience
an emergency condition, in compliance with DOE 5500.1B, Emergency Management
System, and 5500.3A, Planning and Preparedness for Operational Emergencies,
the Mound Plant has prepared a Site Emergency Plan. The emergency plan
describes the site emergency management program, defines the plants emergency
response capabilities, and integrates the response plans for specific types of
accidents. 
   The Department of Energy and/or its representative will not provide safety
oversight for tenant operations. Tenants will be required to comply with all
applicable safety criteria as implemented through  Occupational Safety and
Health Agency (OSHA) regulations.

3.8.1 Inadvertent Ignition of 10 lbs of High Explosive in Building 27

   Explosive operations conducted in Building 27 are conducted in individual
bays. Operations include re-crystallization and wet blending of high
explosives and oven or freeze drying of explosives. The explosive limits for
these bays are administratively controlled at a maximum of 10 pounds of High
Explosive. Additionally, no other personnel are permitted in the facility
except those working directly in the operating bay and only one operation is
allowed to be performed in the building at any given time. The inadvertent
ignition of 10 pounds of high explosive is the maximum credible event for
Building 27. The inadvertent ignition of 10 pounds of high explosive is
considered an extremely unlikely event with resulting high consequences. The
consequences of this event would result in considerable structural damage to
the bay, over pressures sufficient to cause death to any workers in the bay at
the time of ignition, and fragments being thrown from the facility as a result
of perforation of the exterior structural walls. A fragment arc analysis shows
that none of the fragments thrown from the facility would impact adjacent
facilities (Ref 16).

3.8.2 Inadvertent Ignition of Thermite Powder During Machining Operations

 
   Operations in Building 43 include the machining of consolidated metal-like
thermites.  Machining operations may involve removal of burrs, flashing or
drilling holes into the consolidated thermite. Operators performing the
machining use a lathe or mill, both of which are protected within interlocked
barriers. The inadvertent ignition of thermite during machining operations has
been determined to be approximately 1 x 10-4 ignitions / operation with
approximately 200 thermite machining operations / year, for a final annual
frequency of inadvertent ignition of 0.02 ignitions / year.  Assuming the
interlock fails (highly unlikely) the consequences from an inadvertent
ignition have been approximated at a 0.5 probability of severe injury or death
to the operator. Occupants in the room farther than 3 meters away would most
likely be safe (Ref 17). This accident would not have any effects on adjacent
facilities or personnel outside of the thermite machining facility.

3.8.3 Spill Lab Quantity (1 gallon) of Concentrated Acid in the Environmental Analysis Lab

 
   Lab quantities of chemicals are routinely handled in the environmental
analysis laboratory located in E-Building. For this accident scenario, a
technician is assumed to spill a 1 gallon container of concentrated acid onto
the lab floor. This type of accident would be considered a high probability,
low consequence event. The accident would be expected to potentially cause
chemical burns to the technicians skin, and potential inhalation of toxic
vapors. These consequences are mitigated by standard lab practices including
protective clothing, safety glasses, safety showers and eye wash stations. The
spill would initiate a response from Industrial Hygiene and would be cleaned
up using standard lab hazardous material response techniques. This accident
would not impact any adjacent facilities and would most likely involve only
temporary evacuation of the lab in which the spill occurred.

4. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted

 
   The Federal, State, and local agencies and other private organizations that
were contacted during the preparation of this EA, or documents referenced in
this EA, are listed below:
    -  City of Miamisburg, Richard Church, Mayor
    -  City of Miamisburg, Micheal Grauwelman, Manager of Mound Transition
    -  City of Miamisburg, Community Development Department
    -  Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
    -  United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
       Reynoldsburg Ohio Field Office, Mr. Kent Kroonemeyer, Field Supervisor
    -  Dayton Museum of Natural History, Mr. Thomas Hissong, Curator of
       Education.
    -  Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ms. Jennifer Hillmer, Ecological
       Analyst, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
    -  Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Stuart Lewis, Administrator,
       Ohio Scenic Rivers program, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
    -  Ohio Historical Society, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ms. Judith
       Kitchen, Department Head Technical Review Services.
    -  U.S Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
       Discussions on Delineation of Wetlands.

5.0 References

1.  DOE/EA-0792, Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment, Volumes
    I and II, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Defense Programs, June
    1993.
2.  Letter from Richard Claytor, (Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs),
    to Bruce Twinning, (Manager Albuquerque Field Office), regarding the
    Nonnuclear Consolidation Implementation Plan (Discussed the closing
    of the Mound, Pinellas and Rock Flats Plants), December 23, 1991
3.  Memorandum for Headquarters and Field Elements of November 30, 1993,
    Subject: Future of the Task Force on Worker and Community Transition,
    From:  Hazael R. O'Leary, The Secretary of Energy.
4.  1994 and 1995 National Defense Authorization Acts: Authorizes Federal
    Funding for Economic development Activities
5.  Mound Plant Future Use Plan, EG&G Mound Applied Technologies, 12/21/93
6.  Capabilities at Mound, Technology for the Future of this Country: EG&G
    Mound Applied Technologies, July 1993
7.  Mound Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1993, August 1994.
8.  Operable Unit 9, Hydrogeologic Investigation: Wetlands Determination
    Report, Mound Plant, U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque
    Operations Office, 1/94.
9.  MLM-ML-93-0002, Mound Plant Construction Plan: EG&G Mound Applied
    Technologies, March 1993
10. Workforce Restructuring Plan, (3161 Plan), Dayton Area Office, May 2,
    1994.
11. Personal communication with Mr. Thomas Hughes, Manager, EG&G Mound
    Applied Technologies, 9/94.
12. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Federal Actions To
    Address Environmental Justice  in Minority Populations and Low-Income
    Populations, Title 3 - The President.
13. 402-B-92-001, Users Guide for CAP88-PC, Version 1.1, U.S
    Environmental Protection Agency, March 1992.
14. Operable Unit 9, Ecological Characterization Report, U.S. Department
    of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, 3/94
15. Summary of General Purpose Heat Source Safety Tests, Letter from R.W.
    Zocher, (Los Alamos National Laboratory), to Mr. James
    Lombardo,(DOE), March 11, 1986.
16. MLM-ML-94-42-0001, Structural and Operational Evaluation of Building 27,
    EG&G Mound Applied Technologies, Feb, 1994.
17. MLM-ML-93-47-0001, Safety Assessment of Building 43, EG&G Mound
    Applied Technologies, July, 1993.
18. Mound Plant Environmental Monitoring Plan, EG&G Mound Applied
    Technologies, July 18, 1994

6.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

         ACGIH    American conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
         ALARA    As Low As Reasonably Achievable
         ARAC     Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability
         A AQCR   Air Quality Control Region
         BOD      Biochemical Oxygen Demand
         BVA      Buried Valley Aquifer
         CAA      Clean Air Act
         CEDE     Committed Effective Dose Equivalents
         CERCLA   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
         CFR      Code of Federal Regulations
         Ci       Curie
         CO       Carbon Monoxide
         CRO      Community Reuse Organization
         DCG      Derived Concentration Guidelines
         D&D      Decontamination and Decommissioning
         DOE      Department of Energy
         DOT      Department of Transportation
         DP       Defense Programs
         EA       Environmental Assessment
         EDE      Effective Dose Equivalent
         EIS      Environmental Impact Statement
         EM       Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
         EOC      Emergency Operations Center
         EPA      Environmental Protection Agency
         ER       Environmental Restoration
         FBI      Federal Bureau of Investigations
         FEIS     Final Environmental Impact Statement
         FFA      Federal Facilities Agreement
         FONSI    Finding of No Significant Impact
         FY       Fiscal Year
         HAP      Hazardous Air Pollutants
         LANL     Los Alamos National Laboratory
         LLW      Low Level Waste
         MB       Miamisburg Area Office
         MCL      Maximum Contaminant Level
         MEDE     Maximum Effective Dose Equivalent
         MMCIC    Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
         MRC      Mound Reuse Committee
         NAAQS    National Ambient Air Quality Standards
         NE       Office of Nuclear Energy
         NEPA     National Environmental Policy Act
         NESHAP   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources
         NOx      Nitric oxides
         NPDES    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
         OSHA     Occupational Safety and Health Act
         OU       Operable Unit
         PCB      Polychlorinated Biphenols
         RAPCA    Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
         RCRA     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
         ROI      Region of Interest
         RTG      Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator
         SOx      Sulfur dioxide
         SIP      State Implementation Plan
         TPY      Tons Per Year
         TRU      Transuranic
         TSCA     Toxic Substances Control Act 
         TSP      Total Suspended Particulate
         TLV      Threshold Limit Value
         USEPA    United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
         VOC      Volatile Organic Compound
         WD       Waste Disposal

7.0 GLOSSARY

Administrative Controls:  Procedures and standards that promote the safe
operation of equipment or the safe performance of an operation.
Air Quality Control Region:  An interstate area designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the attainment and maintenance of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Air Quality Standards:  The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that
may not be exceeded during a specified time in a defined area.
Ambient Air:  The surrounding atmosphere, as it exists around people, plants,
and structures.
Aquatic Biota:  The sum total of living organisms within any designated
aquatic area.
Aquifer:  A saturated geologic unit through which significant quantities of
water can migrate under natural hydraulic gradients.
Archaeological sites (resources):  Any location where humans have pre
historically or historically altered terrain or discarded artifacts.
Atmospheric dispersion:  The process of air emissions being dispersed in the
atmosphere.  This occurs by the wind that carriers the pollutants away from
their source and by turbulent air motion that results from solar heating of
the earth's surface and air movement over rough terrain and surfaces.
Attainment Area:  An area considered to have air quality as good as, or better
than, the national ambient air quality standards as defined in the Clean Air
Act (CAA).  An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non
attainment area for others.
Baseline:  A quantitative expression of conditions, costs, schedule, or
technical progress to serve as a base or standard for measurement during the
performance of an effort; the established plan against which the status of
resources and the progress of a project can be measured.  The environmental
baseline is the site environmental conditions as they are projected to occur
in a special time period.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical
oxidation of organic matter.  
Carbon Monoxide (CO):  A colorless, odorless gas that is toxic if inhaled in
high concentration over a period of time.
Categorical Discharge Standard: A list of limits for a particular constituent
in waste water that is associated with a specific type (category) of
industrial process or activity.  The EPA defines these limits.  The limits are
associated with compliance with 40 CFR Part 403, General Pre treatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.   
Clean Air Act:  Federal law mandating and enforcing air pollutant emissions
standards for stationary sources and motor vehicles.
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990:  Expands the EPA enforcement powers
and adds restrictions on air toxics, ozone depleting chemicals, stationary and
mobile emissions sources, and emissions implicated in rain and global warming.
Clean Water Act (CWA):  This law makes it illegal to discharge pollutants and
dredged and fill material from a point source into navigable water of the U.S.
except in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Standard (NPDES).
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):  All Federal regulations in force are
published in codified form in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Committed Dose Equivalent (CDE):  The predicted total dose equivalent to a
tissue or organ over a 50-year period after intake of radionuclide into the
body.  I does not include external dose contributions. Committed dose
equivalent is expressed in units of rem or (Sv).
Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE):  The sum of the committed dose
equivalents to various tissues in the body, each multiplied by the appropriate
weighing factor.  Committed effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of
rem or (Sv).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA
or Superfund):  A statutory framework for remediation of past contamination
from hazardous waste.
Criteria Pollutants:  Six air pollutants for which national ambient air
quality standards are established by EPA:  sulfur dioxide, nitric oxides,
carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (smaller than 10 microns in
diameter), and lead.
Cumulative Impacts:  An impact on the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what organization or
person undertakes such other actions.  Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time.
Curie:  The official unit of radioactivity, defined as exactly 3.70 x 1010
disintegrating atoms per second.  This decay rate is nearly equivalent to that
exhibited by one gram of radium in equilibrium with its disintegration
products.
Decommissioning:  Removing facilities contaminated with radiation, such as
processing plants, waste tanks, and burial grounds, from service and reducing
or stabilizing radioactive contamination.  Decommissioning includes the
following concepts:  1) decontamination, dismantling, and return of an area to
its original condition without restrictions on use or occupancy, and 2)
partial decontamination, isolation of remaining residues, and continued
surveillance and restrictions on use or occupancy.
Decontamination:  The removal of radioactive or chemical contamination from
facilities, equipment, or soils by washing, heating, chemical or
electrochemical action, mechanical cleaning, or other techniques.
Derived Concentration Guide:  The concentration of a radionuclide in air or
water which, under conditions of continuous exposure by one exposure mode
(i.e. , ingestion of water or submersion or inhalation of air), for one year,
a "Reference man" would receive the most restrictive of 1) and effective dose
equivalent or 100 mrem (1mSv), or 2) a dose equivalent of 5 mrem (50 mSv) to
any tissues, including skin and lens of the eye.
Direct Economic Effects:  The initial increases in output from different
sectors of the economy resulting from some new activity within a predefined
geographic region.
Dose Equivalent:  The product of absorbed dose in rad (or Gy) in tissue
(quality factor). Dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem (or Sv, where 1
rem = 0.01 Sv)The dose equivalent to an organ, tissue, or the whole body will
be that received from the direct exposure plus the 50-year committed dose
equivalent received from the radionuclides taken into the body during the
year.
Drinking Water Standards:  The prescribed level of constituents or
characteristics in a drinking water supply that cannot be exceeded legally.
Effective Dose equivalent (EDE):  The summation of the products of the dose
equivalent received by specified tissues of the body and a tissue-specific
weighting factor. This sum is a risk-equivalent value and can be used to
estimate the health effects risk of the exposed individual. The tissue-
specific weighting factor represents the fraction of the total health risk
resulting from uniform whole-body irradiation that would be contributed by
that particular tissue. The EDE includes the CEDE from the internal deposition
of radionuclides, and the EDE due to penetrating radiation from sources
external to the body. EDE is expressed in units of rem (or Sv)
Effluent:  A gas or fluid discharged into the environment.
Emission Standards:  Legally enforceable limits on the quantities and/or kinds
of air contaminants that can be emitted into the atmosphere.
Energetic Materials:  high explosives, pyrotechnics, and propellants.
Engineering Controls: Designed systems or modifications that are made to
equipment, utilities, or ergonomic features within a workplace that promote
the safe use of such equipment or reduce the possibility that an accident will
occur involving the equipment.   
Endangered Species Act:  Established in 1973, this act requires Federal
Agencies, with the consultation and assistance of the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce, to insure that their actions will not likely jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species of adversely
affect the habitat of such species.
Endangered Species:  Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms
threatened with extinction by man-made changes in their environment.
Requirements for declaring endangered species are contained in the Endangered
Species Act.
Environmental Assessment (EA):  A written environmental analysis which is
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine
whether a proposed Federal action may significantly affect the environment and
thus require preparation of a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).  If the proposed action would not significantly affect the environment,
then a FONSI is prepared.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):  A document required of Federal agencies
by NEPA for major proposals or legislation significantly affecting the
environment.  A tool for decision making, it describes the positive and
negative effects of the undertaking and alternative of actions.
Exceedance:  Violation of environmental protection standards by exceeding
allowable limits or concentration levels.
Finding of No Significant Impact:  A document by a Federal agency briefly
presenting the reasons why a proposed action, not otherwise excluded, would
not have a significant effect on the human environment and would not require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Floodplain:  The lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively
flat areas including at a minimum that area inundated by a 1 percent chance or
greater chance of flood in any given year. The base floodplain is defined as
the 100 year (1 percent) floodplain. The critical floodplain is defined as the
500 year (0.2 percent) floodpalin. "Critical Action" means any activity for
which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great. Such actions may
include the storage of highly volatile, toxic, or water reactive materials.
General Public:  Individuals who are normally at and beyond the DOE facility
boundary; includes individuals who are on DOE facility open-access way (roads,
rivers, creeks, railways, etc.)
Glass Melter:  A development refractory chamber containing molten glass over
which the waste is burned.
Groundwater:  The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface,
usually in aquifers, which is often used for supplying wells.
Guideline Level:  A suggested, desired level of concentration. it is not a
regulatory value, but is a value offered as desirable by an agency to protect
human health or the environment.
Hazardous Material:  A substance or material, including a hazardous substance,
which poses a risk to health, safety, and property when transported or
handled.
Hazardous/toxic waste:  Any solid waste (can also be semisolid or liquid, or
contain gaseous material) having the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, toxicity, or reactivity, defined by the RCRA and identified or
listed in 40 CFR 261 or by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Historic Resources:  Archaeological sites, architectural structures, and
objects produced after the advent of written history dating to the time of the
first Euro-American contact i the area.
Low Level Waste (LLW):  Waste that contains radioactivity, but is not
classified as high-level waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or
"11e(2) by-product material" as defined by DOE 5820.2.  Test specimens of
fissionable material irradiated for research and development only, and not for
the production of power or plutonium, may be classified as low-level waste,
provided the concentration of transuranic waste is less than 100 nCi/g.  Some
LLW is considered classified because of the nature of the generating process
and/or constituents, as the waste would tell too much about the process.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL):  The maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water delivered to any user of a public water system.  MCLs are
enforceable standards.
Millirem: A unit used to represent the radiation dose for biological
absorption.  It is one-millionth of a rem (see rem in this glossary).
Mixed Wastes:  Waste that contains both hazardous and radioactive waste
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969):  The basic national charter
for the protection of the environment. Its main purpose is to provide
environmental information to federal decision makers so that their actions are
based on an understanding of the potential environmental consequences of a
proposed action and its reasonable alternatives.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):  Air quality standards
established by the Clean Air Act.  The primary NAAQS are intended to protect
the public health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary NAAQS
are intended to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects of a pollutant.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:  A set of national
emission standards for listed hazardous pollutants emitted from specific
classes or categories of new and existing sources.  These were introduced in
the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1977.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):  Federal permitting
system required for hazardous effluents regulated through the Clean Water Act.
Nonattainment Area:  An air quality control region, or portion thereof, in
which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that ambient air
concentrations exceeded national ambient air quality standards for one or more
criteria pollutants.
Nuclear Production:  production operations for components of nuclear weapons
that are not fabricated from plutonium, uranium, or other special materials.
Raw material stock may include tritium.
NOx:  Refers to the oxides of nitrogen, primarily NO and NO2.  These are
produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and can constitute an air pollution
problem.
Outfall:  The discharge point of a drain, sewer, or pipe as it empties into a
body of water.
Ozone (O3)  The triatomic form of oxygen; in the stratosphere, ozone protects
the earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays, but in lower levels of the
atmosphere, ozone is considered an air pollutant.
pH:  A measure of the hydrogen ion  activity in an aqueous solution;
specifically, the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. 
Acidic solutions have a pH from 0 to 7; basic solutions have a pH greater than
7.
picocuries (pCi):  One picocurie is equal to 1 x 10-12 curies.
Plume:  The elongated pattern of contaminated air or water originating at a
point-source, such as a smokestack or a hazardous waste disposal site.
Plutonium:  A heavy, radioactive, metallic element with the atomic number 94. 
It is produced artificially in a reactor by bombardment of uranium and is used
in the production of nuclear weapons.
Pyrotechnic:  physical mixture of finely divided fuels and oxidizer powders
which produce a rapid exothermic reaction when ignited
Radioisotopic Thermoelectirc Generators (RTG):  An electric generator using a
thermocouple with the decaying heat of encapsulated plutonium-238 as its heat
source.
Radioactive Waste:  Materials from nuclear operations that are radioactive or
are contaminated with radioactive materials, for which use, reuse, or recovery
are impractical.
Radiological/Radionuclide:  A radioactive element characterized according to
its atomic mass and atomic number which can be man-made or naturally
occurring.  Radioisotopes can have a long life as soil or water pollutants,
and are believed to have potentially mutagenic effects on the human body.
Rem:  The unit of radiation dose for biological absorption:  equal to the
product of the absorbed dose in rads, a quality factor, and a distribution
factor.
Resource Conservation Recovery Act:  A "cradle to grave" regulatory program
for hazardous waste which established, among other things, a system for
managing hazardous waste from its generation to its ultimate disposal.
Retort:  A container in which substances are distilled or decomposed by heat.
Risk:  A term used to identify the combination of the likelihood (probability)
and the consequence (severity) of an accident.  Risk is typically quantified
into the categories of low, medium, and high.
Sanitary Wastes:  Any waste, liquid or solid (includes sludge), which is
neither a RCRA regulated wasted, a TSCA regulated waste, nor radioactive.
Scientific Notation:  A form of numerical notation used to describe extremely
high or extremely low values in a systematic manner.  Scientific notation is
written as the product of a factorial of ten and a base numerical value.  For
example, 5,000 is written as 5 x 104, while 0.005 is written as 5 x 10-3.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2):  A heavy, pungent, colorless gas (formed in the
combustion of coal), which is considered a major air pollutant.
Surplus:  Any equipment, facility, building, or site that has no identified or
planned programmatic use as determined by the program secretarial office
currently administering the program.
Threshold limit values (TLV):  The recommended concentration of airborne
contaminants workers may be exposed to according to the American Council of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Tritium:  A radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen with two neurons and
one proton.  Common symbols for the isotope are H3 and T.
Transuranic (TRU) Waste:  Waste contaminated with alpha-emitting radionuclides
with half-lives greater than 20 years and concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries/gram at a time of assay.  It is not a mixed waste.
Uranium:  A heavy (atomic mass = 238.03) silvery-white metal with 14
radioactive isotopes.  Uranium-235 is most commonly used as a fuel for nuclear
fission.  Another isotope, uranium-238, is transformed into fissionable
plutonium-239 following its capture of a neutron in a nuclear reactor.
Water Quality Standard and Criteria:  Concentration limit of constituents or
characteristics allowed in water; often based on water use classifications
(e.g. , drinking water, recreation use, propagation of fish and aquatic life,
and agricultural and industrial use).
Wetland:  Wetlands are defined by the Corps of Engineers and EPA as:
"Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas' (40 CFR 230.3 and 33 CFR 328.3)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC):  A broad range of organic compounds, often
halogenated, that vaporize at ambient or relatively low temperatures, such as
benzene, chloroform, and methyl alcohol.

Appendix A
Lease Exhibit and Ohio EPA Concurrence Letter

Figure (Page app-1)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE PART I
Figure (Page app-2)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE PART I
Figure (Page app-3)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE PART I
Figure (Page app-4)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE PART I
Figure (Page app-1)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-2)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-3)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-4)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-5)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-6)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-7)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-8)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-9)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page app-10)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GENERAL PURPOSE LEASE GENERAL PROVISION PART II
Figure (Page appa-1)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 LETTER
Figure (Page appa-2)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 LETTER

Appendix B
Letters of Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies

Figure (Page appb-1)
OHIO Department of Natural Resources Letter
Figure (Page appb-1)
Dayton Museum of Natural History Letter
Figure (Page appb-1)
Unites States Department of the Interio Fish and Wildlife Service Letter
Figure (Page appb-2)
Unites States Department of the Interio Fish and Wildlife Service Letter
Figure (Page appb-1)
OHIO Historic Preservation Office Letter
Figure (Page appb-1)
Unites States Department of the Interio Fish and Wildlife Service Letter
Figure (Page appb-1)
OHIO Department of Natural Resources Letter

Appendix C
NPDES Permit Requirements for the Mound Plant (1993)

     Appendix C National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Data (1993)
                                                       NPDES     NPDES     NPDES 
                                            Maximum    Daily     Weekly    Monthly 
                       No. of     Annual    Monthly   Average   Average   Average 
                      Samples    Average    Average    Permit    Permit    Permit 
                                   (e)       Limit     Limit     Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5601            (a)
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate, MGD           198       0.08      0.10        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH, S.U.                 101        7.7       7.9    6.5-9.0       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine: total (b),     102       0.12      0.16       0.50       n/a       n/a 
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suspended solids,         26        1.9       4.5        n/a        30        15 
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fecal colliform (b),       6         25        83        n/a      2000      1000 
n/100mL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escherichia coli(b),      25       48.5       270        n/a       n/a       n/a 
n/100mL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, mg/L as N       102       0.10      0.17        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD (c), mg/L              4        1.7       2.6        n/a        15        10 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Grease (d),       12       1.31      5.23        n/a       n/a       n/a 
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium, yg/L             12        <10       <10        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium, yg/L            12        <50       <50        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper, yg/L              12       49.8       132        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel, yg/L              12        <50       <50        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead, yg/L                12       13.6        57        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc, yg/L                12       60.7       115        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury(e), yg/L          12       <0.2      ,0.2        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5602
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate, MGD           (a)       0.19      0.36        n/a       n/a        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH, S.U.                  51        8.2       8.4    6.5-9.0       n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspended solids (f),     51        6.9      12.8         45       n/a        30
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COD(g), mg/L              51       95.2       182        n/a       n/a       n/n
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and grease, mg/L      12       0.75       7.6         10       n/a       n/n
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5603
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate, MGD           (a)       4769      4769        n/a       n/a       n/n 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH, S.U.                  24        7.9       8.1    6.5-9.0       n/a       n/n 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide, mg/L             26       <0.1      ,0.1        1.0       n/a      0.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium, yg/L             24        <10       ,10        100       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium, yg/L            24        <50       ,50        500       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper, yg/L              24        229       320        500       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel, yg/L              24        <50       <50        500       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc, yg/L                24        <50       <50        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total toxic                4      <0.05     <0.05       2.13       n/a       n/a
organics(d), mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5002                                                     
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate, MGD           (a)       0.48      0.70        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH, S.U.                  51        8.3       8.6    6.5-9.0       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspended solids,         51       13.5      19.6         45       n/a        30 
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5001
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate, MGD           (a)       0.25      0.42        n/a       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH, S.U.                  27        8.1       8.4    6.5-9.0       n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual chlorine(b),     26       0.04      0.06   0.038(h)       n/a       n/a 
mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide, mg/L             12      <0.01     ,0.01     0.083        n/a     0.023 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol,        12         <4        <4       n/a        n/a       n/a 
yg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)         12         26       232       n/a        n/a
 phthalate, yg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium, yg/L             51        1.9       ,10        43        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium, yg/L            51        <50       ,50       878        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper, yg/L              51       44.5        93       120        n/a       546 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel, yg/L              51        <50       ,50      1261        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead, yg/L                51        <50        79       305        n/a       760 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc, yg/L                51        <50        76       n/a        n/a       191 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiodaphnia dubia                                                            n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      acute TU(i)          8        0.6       1.7       n/a        n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      chronic TU           4        1.3       1.3       n/a        n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pimephales promelas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      acute TU(i)          8       <0.1       0.4       n/a        n/a       n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      chronic TU           4          0         0       n/a        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5801
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% affected:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiodaphnia dubia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 hour acute TU(i)       12        2.9        10       n/a        n/a       n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pimephales promelas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96 hour acute TU(i)       12        2.5      17.5       n/a        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5901
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% affected:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiodaphnia dubia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 hour acute TU(i)       12       19.2      1000       n/a        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pimephales promelas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96 hour acute TU(i)       12        2.9        30       n/a        n/a       n/a 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outfall 5902
Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% affected:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiodaphnia dubia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 day chronic TU           4        5.0        10       n/a        n/a       n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pimephales promelas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 day chronic TU           4        9.4      22.5       n/a        n/a       n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a   continuous
b   summer months only (May 1 through October 31)
c   BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
d   Quarterly samples collected in March, June, August, and December
e   biannual samples collected in June and December
f   limits n/a when 0.25 inches of rain occur three days during the week
g   COD - Chemical oxygen demand
h   Limit not imposed until October 1, 1995
i   TU = Toxicity unit
n/a = not applicable
         Summary of Organic Compounds Detected in Mound Effluent in 1993 
                            Concentration, yg/L 
Outfall         Parameter              1st       2nd       3rd       4th     MDL (a)
                                     Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5601           chloroform             ND(b)      2.2       ND        ND        1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               bis(2-                  ND        ND        ND        5c        4 
               ethylhexyl)phthalate 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Napthalene              ND        ND        39        ND        4 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Trichloroethene         ND        ND        ND        1.6       1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5602           Bromoform               2.1       1.0       ND        ND        1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Dibromochloromethane    1.9       ND        ND        ND        1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               bis(2-                  ND        7.0       ND        ND        4 
               ethylhexyl)phthalate 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5603           Tetrachloroethene       ND        ND        ND        2.7       1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Bromoform               5.0       2.0       5.8       1.3       1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Dibromochloromethane    5.1       2.3       3.6       1.7       1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               bis(2-                  ND        ND        ND        9.0       4 
               ethylhexyl)phthalate 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Bromodichloromethane    2.1       1.0       ND        ND        1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               trichloroethene         ND        ND        ND        5.9       1 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5002           bis(2-                  5.0       ND        13        ND        4
               ethylhexyl)phthalate 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a   MDL = Method Detection Limit
b   ND = None Detected
c   This compound was present in the extraction blank at a concentration of 5 yg/L

Appendix D
Reference Tables from the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment

                   Indicators of Regional Growth at Mound Plant, 1970 - 2040
Local Region of Influence (ROI)    1970         1980         1990         2000         2020         2040 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian Labor Force             380,253      427,787      481,700      521,680      523,780      502,189 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate (%)                5.1          7.9          5.3          5.6          5.6          5.9 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Income (thousand $)   3,802,566    9,141,306   16,594,092   22,344,200   27,930,592   33,139,543 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Capita Income ($/person)      I4,132        9,821       16,947       22,146       25,772       30,048 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three County Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butler County, OH                226,207      258,787      291,479      296,762      322,832      329,934 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Middletown                     48,767       43,719       46,022       46,856       50,972       52,094 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County, OH            606,148      571,697      573,809      595,964      635,941      645,480 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Centerville                    10,333       18,886       21,082       21,896       23,365       23,715 
   Dayton                        242,917      203,741      182,044      189,073      201,756      204,782 
   Germantown                      4,088        5,015        4,916        5,106        5,448        5,530 
   Kettering                      71,864       61,186       60,596       62,908       67,127       68,134 
   Miamisburg                     14,797       15,304       17,834       18,523       19,765       20,062 
   West Carrolton                 10,748       13,148       14,404       14,959       15,963       16,202 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren County, OH                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Carlisle                        3,821        4,276        4,872        4,970        5,345        5,452 
   Franklin                       10,075       10,711       11,026       11,249       12,097       12,339 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROI (County Total)               917,280      929,760      979,197    1,008,937    1,083,742    1,102,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total employment includes only civilian employment. Personal Income and Per Capita Income are in 
current $ for 1970-1990 and are in constant 1992 $ for 2000-2040.
See Ref 1 for Sources
           Mound Plant Alternative:  Waste Management of Additional Hazardous/Toxic Waste
       Waste Stream                                    Disposal Method        Volume (ft3/year) (a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Liquid Bulk                                   incineration/recovery                420 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alkaline                                           incineration/recovery                970 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil/Coolants                                       incineration                        1810 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halogenated and Non-Halogenated solvent            incineration                        1550 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resin, Paint, Curing Agent, Adhesive and Rubber    incineration                          70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toluene Diisocyannate                              incineration                          40 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide, Liquid                                    cyanide destruction                   10 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Contaminated Debris                        landfilled                            20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F006, F009 Sludge                                  landfilled                          4200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batteries (others)                                 recovery/landfilled                  100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classified Hazardous                               declassified/landfilled               10 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Chromate Contaminated Debris                  incineration                         160 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide Alkaline Contaminated Debris               incineration                         100 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous lab reagent/Off Spec. Product        incineration/landfilled               70 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Empty Aerosol Cans                             incineration                         590 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent/Oil Contaminated Debris and                incineration                        6960 
Miscellaneous
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressed Gas Cylinders                           destruction/incineration              30 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                18,620
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a   projected for 1995 workload

Appendix E
Conformity Analysis Supporting Data and Calculations

             Mobile Source Emission Factors and Estimate of Mobile Source Emissions From
                                 Implementation of Proposed Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from passenger vehicles emission Factors                      0.41 grams/mile
from USEPA AP-42,, Fourth Edition Volume II,
Appendix A VOC's (grams/mile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Maximum Mound Plant Commuting                              Continuing Operations:
Vehicle Population Accounting for Maximum                                     1,100
Potential Jobs Generated from Implementation of
the Proposed Action                                           Additional Employees Due to Proposed
                                                                              1,500
                                                          Total Commuting Commuting Vehicle Population:
                                                                              2,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Average Commute to the Mound Facility                           30 miles/day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Mound Plant Commute (days/year) for                                  250
Full Commuting Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Mobile Source (indirect) Emissions (tons/year):
(2,600 vehicles) x (30 miles/day) x (250 commutes/year) x (0.41 grams VOC's /mile) = 8.8 tons/year

Finding of No Significant Impact
Commercialization of The Mound Plant Miamisburg, Ohio

Proposed Action:   On November 22, 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy decided
to phase out operations at the Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio, with the goal
of releasing the site for commercial use.  The goal of the Secretary of
Energy's Economic Development Initiative is to make Departmental resources
available to community partnerships for local business development that
supports the President's broader objective of stimulating economic growth.  To
facilitate implementation of the Secretary's Economic Development Initiative,
the Mound Reuse Committee (MRC) was formed.  The MRC is the recognized
Community Reuse Organization (CRO), and represents a broad cross-section of
Mound Plant stakeholders, including the general public, local citizens action
groups, State environmental regulatory personnel, local industries, the City
of Miamisburg and Mound Plant employees.  One objective of the MRC is to
redirect the Mound Plant's advanced manufacturing capabilities for defense
production to the private sector.  The broad concept is to transform the plant
into an advanced manufacturing center with the main focus on commercializing
products, process development, and identifying other firms interested in
commercializing products and other technology.
The Department proposes, therefore, to lease portions of the Mound Plant to
commercial enterprises, excluding land associated with the south property. 
Leasing would be between the Department and a lessee including, but not
limited to, Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC) as the
distinct private entity to coordinate administrative function for the City of
Miamisburg.  The MMCIC would, in turn, administer its lease with the
Department and sublet parcels of the Plant to other potential business
enterprises for commercial uses consistent with the "Mound Plant Future Use
Plan" and the environmental assessment for the proposed action.  Although the
MMCIC is a private entity which would act on behalf of the City of Miamisburg,
it would operate within the confines of MRC recommendations.  The MMCIC would
also present any proposals from potential sublessees to the Department for
approval before any subleases would take effect.
The Future Use Plan presents a combination of uses similar to ongoing
activities, processes, and operations new to the Plant that would represent a
governmental presence and a private industry technology partnership to enable
the Plant to become a high technology, self-sustaining manufacturing mall with
one or more anchor tenants that would attract other tenants to the facility. 
Potential operations could be similar to those analyzed in the Mound Plant
Alternative described in the June 1993 Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental
Assessment, DOE/EA-0792.  In addition to the ongoing activities at the Mound
Plant, that alternative considered consolidation of the nonnuclear functions
at the Plant from other Departmental sites to include:  1) nonnuclear
electrical/mechanical manufacturing functions from the Kansas City, Pinellas,
and Rocky Flats Plants, 2) lithium ambient batteries from Los Alamos National
Laboratory, and 3) special products, such as nuclear grade steels, safe secure
trailers, weapons trainer shop, and metrology capabilities from the Rocky
Flats Plant.  Leases or subleases for any uses not similar to those outlined
above are outside the scope of the proposed action and would be subject to
additional National Environmental Policy Act review before the Department's
approval of the lease or sublease.  Any new construction at the Plant (except
for equipment and plant layout rearrangements, renovation activities, and
other routine maintenance activities or replacements and upgrades consistent
with facilitating the conversion to commercial use) would also be outside the
scope of the proposed action and subject to additional National Environmental
Policy Act review. 
The Department has prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-1001) that
compares impacts of the proposed action with those of  1) not leasing the
Plant to commercial enterprises (the "no action" alternative) and 2) limiting
leasing activities strictly to non-DOE enterprises that are purely
administrative or engage in essentially similar activities in scope and scale
to those currently in existence at the Plant.  The Department considered, but
dismissed as unreasonable, the alternatives of 1) selling the Plant and all
associated structures upon completion of environmental restoration activities,
2) demolishing the Plant and all associated structures upon completion of
environmental restoration activities, and  3) continuing Departmental or other
government-funded operations at the Plant.  The first two alternatives were
considered unreasonable because they would fail to provide sustained
employment opportunities to the community and would result in restoration
costs above those identified for the proposed action; the third alternative
was considered unreasonable because it would not be consistent with the
Department's decision to consolidate and streamline operations as described in
the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment and would not support
commercialization of the Mound Plant.  
Environmental Impacts:    The proposed action would not impact the small
wetland areas that are found on the facility grounds and would not impact the
groundwater in terms of usage or potential contamination.  A small portion of
the south property falls within the 100 year flood plain of the Great Miami
River, however, the south property is outside the scope of the environmental
assessment.  Therefore, no impact on the floodplain would result from the
proposed action.  The Mound Plant site does not contain any prime or unique
farmlands, and no archaeological sites eligible for the National Register
would be affected by the proposed action.  Based on the analysis in the
environmental assessment, the proposed action would not result in any
substantive change in level of service for transportation links or in noise
levels in the area of the Plant.  Racial minority and low income families do
reside in the Miamisburg community, however, Miamisburg is not a racial
minority or low income community.  The proposed action and alternatives will,
therefore, not have any unique affects on these groups.
Cumulative air impacts from tenant emissions would not exceed the Threshold
Limit Values (TLV) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), both in combination or
for any single pollutant, as defined in the Clean Air Act, Section 112 and the
Ohio Administrative Code 3745-77-01(w).  Emissions of specific chemicals used
in new processes may increase current emission levels for those chemicals, but
increases would not be allowed to exceed applicable State regulatory standards
or permitted limits through lease conditions.  No net increases in
radiological air emissions over existing emissions would be anticipated from
the proposed action.  Total radiological air emissions from the Plant in 1993
included 664 curies of tritium, 1.2 x 10-5 curies of plutonium-238, 
4.0 x 10-8 curies of plutonium-239, 6.3 x 10-8 curies of uranium-233,234 and 
5.7 x 10-8 curies of uranium-238.  The Maximum Effective Dose Equivalent (EDE)
to individuals in the population was 0.04 mrem for radioactive airborne
releases.  Therefore, Mound's radiological air emissions in 1993 represented
0.4% of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dose standard of 10 mrem.
All leases and subleases would contain restrictive lease conditions to ensure
no new radionuclides would be introduced to the site and that potential 
tenants' air impacts would not exceed the baseline estimates provided in the
environmental assessment. 
Under conditions of the lease, nonradiological effluent discharges from the
proposed action would be limited to levels currently permitted under the
discharge standards, as established by the Mound Plant's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.  If the proposed processes are
substantially different than ongoing operations, the current wastewater permit
may require modification.  However, impacts would be not greater than
increased stormwater runoff of up to 132 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater as stated in the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental
Assessment.  Release levels of radiological liquid effluents would remain at
or below current levels (2.5 x 10-4 curies of plutonium-238, 3.4 curies of
tritium, 3.5 x 10-4 curies of uranium-233,234 and 8.9 x 10-6 curies of
plutonium-239 in 1993).  All leases and subleases would contain restrictive
lease conditions to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to
ensure that the proposed uses are within the bounds of the environmental
assessment.
Commercial enterprises that lease space at the Plant would be bound through
lease agreements to conduct their waste management operations independent of
Mound's Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, however, an effort would be made to
bring in processes with wastestreams that are compatible with the current
permit.  Regardless, tenant operations would not exceed the total volumes of
waste generated at Mound shown in Table 3-6 of the environmental assessment. 
The proposed action would allow for employment at the facility of up to 1,500
workers in addition to the anticipated 1,100 workers for ongoing operations
associated with environmental restoration and Nuclear Energy Radioisotopic
Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) missions.  
Environmental impacts from the no action alternative would be limited to those
from ongoing environmental restoration activities and Nuclear Energy RTG
missions.  The no action alternative would retain 900 workers for
environmental restoration and 200 workers for ongoing RTG missions at the
Plant.  
The alternative of limiting leasing activities strictly to non-DOE enterprises
which are purely administrative or engage in essentially similar activities in
scope and scale to those currently in existence at the Plant would not
introduce any new environmental impacts from the established Mound Plant
baseline.  This alternative would generate an additional 200 workers at the
Plant.
For further information contact:  For further information on the proposed
action (including a copy of the environmental assessment) or the National
Environmental Policy Act  review program concerning proposals at the Mound
Plant, please contact:
      Sue Smiley, NEPA Compliance Officer
      Ohio Field Office
      U.S. Department of Energy
      P.O. Box 3020
      Miamisburg, Ohio 45343-3020
      (513) 865-3987
For general information on the Department's National Environmental Policy Act
process, please contact:
      Carol M. Borgstrom, Director
      Office of NEPA Oversight, EH-25
      U.S. Department of Energy
      1000 Independence Avenue, SW
      Washington, DC 20585
      (202)586-4600 or (800)472-2756
Finding:  Based on the analysis of impacts in the environmental assessment,
the proposed action to lease all or portions of the Mound Plant to commercial
enterprises for sublease to other potential business enterprises for
commercial uses consistent with the "Mound Plant Future Use Plan" and the
environmental assessment for the proposed action would not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.  Therefore, the Department
is issuing this finding of no significant impact and an environmental impact
statement is not required.
Signed in Miamisburg, Ohio this  27th  day of  October, 1994.
                                    J. Phil Hamric
                                    Manager, Ohio Field Office
                                 CONCURRENCE
                                      on
                       FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
                     COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE MOUND PLANT
                               MIAMISBURG, OHIO
      ________________________________________________      _____________
      Sue Smiley, NEPA Compliance Officer                   Date
      ________________________________________________      _____________
      Nat Brown, Assistant Manager, Compliance Support            Date
      ________________________________________________      _____________
      John Alan Jones, Counsel                                    Date

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

EA-1001; Environmental Assessment and (FONSI) for Commercialization of the Mound Plant

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

EA-1001; Environmental Assessment and (FONSI) for Commercialization of the Mound Plant

1. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action - Mixed-Use Commercialization of the Mound Plant

2.2 Alternative 1 - Commercialization Restricted to Existing Plant Capabilities and Uses

2.3 No Action Alternative

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed as Unreasonable

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

3.1 Environmental Restoration

3.2 Socioeconomics

3.3 Air Emissions

3.3.1 Non radiological Air Emissions

3.3.2 Radiological Air Emissions

3.4 Effluent Discharges

3.4.1 Non radiological Discharges

3.4.2 Radiological Liquid Effluents

3.5 Waste Management Capacity

3.6 Waters

3.6.1 Water Demand

3.6.2 Groundwater

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.8 Accident Analysis

3.8.1 Inadvertent Ignition of 10 lbs of High Explosive in Building 27

3.8.2 Inadvertent Ignition of Thermite Powder During Machining Operations

3.8.3 Spill Lab Quantity (1 gallon) of Concentrated Acid in the Environmental Analysis Lab

4. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted

5.0 References

6.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

7.0 GLOSSARY

Appendix A
Lease Exhibit and Ohio EPA Concurrence Letter

Appendix B
Letters of Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies

Appendix C
NPDES Permit Requirements for the Mound Plant (1993)

Appendix D
Reference Tables from the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment

Appendix E
Conformity Analysis Supporting Data and Calculations

Finding of No Significant Impact
Commercialization of The Mound Plant Miamisburg, Ohio

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

EA-1001; Environmental Assessment and (FONSI) for Commercialization of the Mound Plant

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

EA-1001; Environmental Assessment and (FONSI) for Commercialization of the Mound Plant

1. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action - Mixed-Use Commercialization of the Mound Plant

2.2 Alternative 1 - Commercialization Restricted to Existing Plant Capabilities and Uses

2.3 No Action Alternative

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed as Unreasonable

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

3.1 Environmental Restoration

3.2 Socioeconomics

3.3 Air Emissions

3.3.1 Non radiological Air Emissions

3.3.2 Radiological Air Emissions

3.4 Effluent Discharges

3.4.1 Non radiological Discharges

3.4.2 Radiological Liquid Effluents

3.5 Waste Management Capacity

3.6 Waters

3.6.1 Water Demand

3.6.2 Groundwater

3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.8 Accident Analysis

3.8.1 Inadvertent Ignition of 10 lbs of High Explosive in Building 27

3.8.2 Inadvertent Ignition of Thermite Powder During Machining Operations

3.8.3 Spill Lab Quantity (1 gallon) of Concentrated Acid in the Environmental Analysis Lab

4. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted

5.0 References

6.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

7.0 GLOSSARY

Appendix ALease Exhibit and Ohio EPA Concurrence Letter

Appendix BLetters of Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies

Appendix CNPDES Permit Requirements for the Mound Plant (1993)

Appendix DReference Tables from the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment

Appendix EConformity Analysis Supporting Data and Calculations

Finding of No Significant ImpactCommercialization of The Mound Plant Miamisburg, Ohio

Appendix A
Lease Exhibit and Ohio EPA Concurrence Letter

Appendix B
Letters of Correspondence with Federal, State and Local Agencies

Appendix C
NPDES Permit Requirements for the Mound Plant (1993)

Appendix D
Reference Tables from the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment

Appendix E
Conformity Analysis Supporting Data and Calculations

Finding of No Significant Impact
Commercialization of The Mound Plant Miamisburg, Ohio