Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Tritium Supply and Recycling

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Chapter 4 describes the affected environment and the environmental impacts associated with
construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling alternatives. The chapter
begins with a brief introduction, followed by an overview of applicable environmental
assessment methodologies. The affected environment and environmental impacts of tritium
supply and recycling facilities are then discussed for each of the following sites: the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, Pantex
Plant, and Savannah River Site. Each discussion begins with a brief site description and
overview of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities being considered for
that site, continues with a description of the affected environment at the site, and
concludes with a description of environmental impacts and potential mitigation of each
alternative. The commercial reactor alternative affected environment and potential
environmental impacts are discussed in a section by itself. Following the sections that
address individual sites are discussions of potential impacts from intersite transporta-
tion, sale of steam, power plant for the Accelerator Production of Tritium, and
multipurpose reactor. Lastly, this section discusses cumulative impacts and several
issues that are common to all sites: unavoidable adverse environmental impacts;
relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity; irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources; facility transition; and environmental justice.
Discussions of the environment that may be affected at each candidate site, and the
associated environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action make up the
core of this chapter. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations (40 CFR 1508.14), the affected environment is "interpreted comprehensively
to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that
environment." The environmental impacts sections provide the analytical basis for the
comparisons of potential impacts of the various tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities and No Action that are presented in chapter 3.
Affected Environment. The descriptions of the affected environment provide a basis for
understanding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and
alternatives. The localities and characteristics of each potentially affected environ-
mental resource are described for each site. The scope of the discussions varies by
resource to ensure that all relevant issues are included.
For land resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, and cultural and paleontological
resources, discussions of each Department of Energy (DOE) site and its surroundings are
included along with descriptions of the representative area within that site that could be
affected by the proposed action. This information provides a basis for understanding both
direct effects and the overall resource base that could be affected by ancillary
activities that may be defined in later stages of program development.
Ambient conditions are described for air, noise, and water resources. Discussions focus on
air and noise conditions at site boundaries and the surface water bodies and groundwater
aquifers that could be affected. This information serves as a basis for analyzing key air
and water quality parameters to obtain results that can then be compared to regulatory
standards.
Socioeconomic conditions are described for the counties and communities that could be
affected by regional population changes associated with the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. The affected environment discussions include
projections of regional growth and related socioeconomic indicators. Each region is large
enough to account for growth related to direct project employment as well as secondary
jobs that may be induced by the project.
In addition to those natural and human environmental resources discussed above, the
affected environment sections include a number of issues related to ongoing DOE activities
at each site. These issues involve facility operations/site infrastructure, intersite
transport of tritium, waste management, and radiological and hazardous chemical impacts
during normal operation and accidents. Where reasonably foreseeable changes to any of
these factors can be predicted, they are discussed.
Environmental Impacts. In accordance with CEQ regulations, the environmental consequences
discussions provide the analytical detail for comparisons of environmental impacts
associated with the various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
Discussions are provided for each DOE site and each environmental resource and relevant
issues that could be affected.
For comparison purposes, environmental concentrations of emissions and other potential
environmental effects are presented with appropriate regulatory standards or guidelines.
However, the compliance with regulatory standards is not necessarily an indication of
the significance or severity of the environmental impact for National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) purposes.
The purpose of the analysis of environmental consequences is to identify the potential
for environmental impacts. The environmental assessment methods used and the factors
considered in assessing environmental impacts are discussed in section 4.1, environ-
mental resource methodologies and in the appropriate appendixes. The potential for impacts
to a given resource or relevant issue is described in the introduction to each section
within the site discussions (sections 4.2 through 4.6) that follow.
The site-specific impacts to site infrastructure, air quality, water resources, biotic
resources, socioeconomics, and waste management of a conceptual dedicated gas-fired
power plant to support the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) is also presented in
sections 4.2 through 4.6.

4.1 Environmental Resource Methodologies
The environmental impact assessment methodologies discussed in this section address the
full range of natural and human resource and issue areas pertinent to the sites considered
for constructing and operating tritium supply and recycling facilities. These resource
areas are: land resources, air quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils,
biotic resources, cultural and paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. Also
included in the discussion are additional issue areas that, although not specifically
resources, are important to consider in assessing the environmental effects of the
alternative tritium facilities. These issue areas are facilities operation/site
infrastructure, intersite transport of tritium, waste management, radiological and
hazardous chemical effects during normal operation and accidents, and cumulative
effects.
As part of the impact assessment process, each analysis provides mitigation measures that
could be used to reduce and minimize potential impacts. Detailed mitigation strategies
that might be needed would be addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.

4.1.1 Land Resources
This section considers land use plans and policies, zoning regulations, specially
protected lands, and existing land use as appropriate for all sites. In addition, the
visual character of each site is described. The potential impacts associated with changes
to land use and visual resources as a result of the alternatives arediscussed.
Land Use. Land use changes associated with the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities could occur in both rural and urban settings and could affect both developed
and undeveloped land. The analysis of land use considers impacts that could result from
the modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities on or
adjacent to each site. Changes in land use are expected to occur within the existing
boundaries of most, if not all, DOE sites. However, the use of lands adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the DOE sites (i.e., non-DOE land) could be affected by these changes,
including new or expanded safety zones.
The degree to which the alternatives affect future use or development of land at each DOE
site are considered. Land use impacts are assessed based on the extent and type of land
that would be affected. The land use analysis also considers potential direct impacts
resulting from the conversion of, or the incompatibility of, land use changes with special
status lands such as prime and unique farmlands, and other protected lands such as
Federal- and state-controlled lands (e.g., public land administered by the Bureau of
Land Management or other government agencies).
Visual Resources. Visual resources are defined as natural and human-created features that
give a particular landscape its visually aesthetic qualities. Visual resource
assessments are conducted to identify and evaluate the impacts on the aesthetics of the
landscape from tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. Visual impacts are
assessed based on whether changes in existing facilities or construction of new facilities
would appear uncharacteristic in each site's visual setting and, if so, how noticeable
those changes would be.
The qualitative visual resource analysis, adapted from the Bureau of Land Management's
Visual Contrast Rating System (BLM Manual 8431), is conducted to: identify key viewing
positions, such as public travel routes, nearby residential/commercial areas, and public
uses such as parks, recreation areas, and scenic areas; assess the degree of visibility of
new or modified facilities from these key viewing positions; and assess the compatibility
of such facilities with the existing physical setting. Classification of the physical
settings, existing and modified, for each proposed site was based on the Bureau of Land
Management Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes. Class 1 would apply to wilderness
areas and similar situations; Class 2 would apply to areas with very limited land
development activity resulting in visual contrasts which do not attract attention, such as
solitary small buildings or dirt roads; Class 3 would apply to areas where contrasts
caused by development activity are evident, but the natural landscape still dominates
buildings, utility lines, and secondary roads; Class 4 would apply to areas where
contrasts caused by human activities attract attention and are a dominant feature of the
landscape, such as a small cluster of two-story buildings, primary roads, and limited
clear cutting for utility lines. Class 5 would apply to areas where contrasts caused by
cultural activities are the dominant feature of the landscape, such as large
industrial/office complexes, landfills, and large expanses of clear cutting or ground
disturbance. The analysis provides a qualitative comparison of the characteristics of
the existing landscape with those of the proposed facilities and a determination of the
resulting level of contrast. Facility characteristics examined include buildings, stacks,
access roads, parking areas, facility and perimeter lighting, and steam and emission
plumes. Impacts are assessed based on the sensitivity of the affected environment to
changes in its visual character. Sensitivity is assessed based on the potential for
public concern regarding adverse effects on specific views within the affected
environment. More detailed analysis of visual impacts would be conducted in site-specific
tiered NEPA documents.

4.1.2 Site Infrastructure
Changes to site infrastructure are assessed by overlying the support requirements of the
respective tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities upon the projected site
infrastructure capacities. These assessments focus upon power requirements, road networks,
rail interfaces, and fuel requirements. Projections of electricity availability, site
development plans, and other DOE mid- and long-range planning documents are utilized to
project site infrastructure conditions. Tables are presented that depict the additional
infrastructure requirements to be generated by the alternatives. Mitigation consider-
ations are identified that could reduce impacts due to changes in infrastructure on a
site-by-site basis.
Detailed assessments of the tritium facilities' electrical power requirements in the
2010 time-frame are not considered practical. Electric utilities would not be expected to
reliably project how they would meet the needs of these facilities (i.e., whether by new
power generation, power imports, or demand side management). Therefore, the basis for this
PEIS assessment is the supply and demand projections of the U.S. electric utilities
published annually by the North American Electric Reliability Council.
For purposes of analysis, electricity generation is based on the assumption that
electricity would be supplied by the power pool currently supplying the facility in
question by using a mix of fuels and generating sources representative of those
projected. These data are used to determine whether or not there would be enough reserve
margin within a particular power pool to accommodate electrical requirements, or whether
additional power is required. A detailed quantitative analysis, based on the proportional
contributions from each fuel source, would be conducted in site-specific tiered NEPA
documents.
Two of the technologies in question, specifically the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled
Reactor (MHTGR) and the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR), have the ability to produce
electricity from steam as well as tritium. The environmental effects of this steam
production is included in the analysis of the basic technologies since designs of these
reactors include steam turbines for electrical production. The environmental impacts of
additional power line construction to distribute this electrical production to the grid
are not addressed in detail for each site but are discussed in general in section 4.8.1.
The electricity required for the APT would be provided by the power pool which services
each site or a dedicated power plant. The environmental effects of each option are
included in the analysis. A separate cost analysis of buying this power versus the option
of building a dedicated power plant to provide it is considered in the cost study being
prepared to support the Record of Decision (ROD).

4.1.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Potential effects on the environment associated with air pollutant emissions and noise
from normal operations are evaluated for tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities. The assessment of air quality and acoustic impacts includes identification of
applicable criteria for assessing impacts, the development of emission inventories, and
the estimation of air pollutant concentrations. The assessment of impacts is based on the
estimated concentrations, data on the existing environment, and assessment criteria. Human
health effects due to air pollutant emissions are discussed in a separate section and
include consideration of airborne radioactive chemical releases.
Air Quality. The assessment of potential impacts to air quality is based on the comparison
of proposed project effects with applicable state, local, or national ambient air quality
standards, or the potential exceedance of prevention of significant deterioration incre-
ments for particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers, sulfur
dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide.
Assessment criteria for pollutants include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants and those
established by each state. The more stringent of either the EPA or state standards serve
as the assessment criteria. The assessment criteria for toxic pollutants include
guidelines or standards adopted or proposed by each state.
Ambient air monitoring data are used to determine maximum background concentrations of
pollutants for each DOE site. Baseline concentrations of pollutants from DOE sites are
calculated by modeling site emissions during the baseline year and adding to these
calculated concentrations the maximum background concentration for a given pollutant and
averaging time. The baseline concentration is a conservative estimate of pollutant
concentrations at each DOE site during a period considered representative of recent site
activity.
No Action concentrations of pollutants from DOE site emissions are calculated by modeling
projected site emissions for 2010 and adding to these calculated concentrations the
maximum background concentration for a given pollutant and averaging time. Both the
baseline and No Action concentrations are compared to applicable Federal and state
standards for criteria pollutants and state guidelines and regulations for air toxics to
provide an estimate of the potential effects on air quality.
Pollutant concentrations associated with tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities are added to the NoAction concentration. These pollutant concentrations are
then compared to applicable Federal and state guidelines or standards.
Modeling of site-specific emissions using the EPA-recommended Industrial Source Complex
Short-Term model was performed in accordance with the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality
Models (EPA-450/2-78-027R). The air quality modeling analysis performed for the candidate
sites is a "screening level" analysis incorporating conservative assumptions applied to
each of the sites such that the impacts associated with the respective alternatives could
be compared among the sites. These conservative assumptions will overestimate the
pollutant concentrations at each of the sites.
The assumptions incorporated into the air quality modeling at each site are as follows:
major source criteria pollutant emissions were modeled using actual source locations and
stack parameters to determine environmental baseline and No Action criteria pollutant
concentrations; toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions were modeled from a single source
centrally located within the complex of facilities on each site assuming a 10 meter
stack height, a stack diameter of 1 foot, stack exit temperature equal to ambient
temperature, and a stack exit velocity equal to 0.01 meters per second.
Emissions from the tritium supply and recycling facilities were located at the tritium
supply site (TSS) identified for each site assuming a single stack 10meters in height, a
stack diameter of 1 foot, stack exit temperature equal to ambient temperature, and stack
exit velocity equal to 0.01 meters per second. Onsite and/or representative National
Weather Service meteorological data is used to define the dispersion characteristics of
the site. Actual terrain heights are used for those sites not considered "flat." The
potential effects on air quality are described by comparing expected concentrations to air
quality standards.
Acoustics. Acoustic impacts are assessed on the basis of the potential degree of change in
noise levels at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences near the DOE site boundary) with
respect to ambient conditions. Most nontraffic noise sources associated with the five
candidate site facilities are located at sufficient distances from offsite noise-sensitive
receptors that the contribution to offsite noise levels is expected to be small.
Therefore, a qualitative discussion of construction and operation noise sources and the
potential for onsite and offsite noise impacts is provided. The analysis uses available
information on the potential types of noise sources and the location of proposed
alternative facilities relative to the site boundary and noise-sensitive locations. The
potential for exposure of workers to noise and the measures taken to protect worker
hearing are included. Quantitative analysis of noise impacts is deferred to the
site-specific tiered NEPA documents, including noise impacts associated with traffic.
Uncertainties. The performance of the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model has not
been validated with field data. However, the performance of the Industrial Source Complex
Short-Term model has been evaluated with field data for its point source submodel (EPA
1977a; EPRI 1983a; EPRI 1985a; EPRI 1988a) and for its special features, such as
gravitational settling/dry deposition option (EPA 1981a; EPA 1982a) and building downwash
option (APCA 1986a; EPA 1981a). The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model is an
extended version of the Single Source (CRSTER) model. From the validation studies for
the Single Source (CRSTER) model, based on field data measured at four large power plants,
it was concluded that the model acceptably predicts the upper percentile of the
frequency distributions of 1-hour concentrations and of the corresponding distributions
of 24-hour concentrations. The second-highest 1-hour concentrations were predicted within
a factor of 2 at two-thirds of the field sampling sites for elevated power plant plumes.
The second-highest 24-hour concentration tended to be underpredicted by the model, with
the ratio of predicted concentration to measured concentration ranging from about 0.2 to
2.7 at about 90 percent of the sampling sites (EPA 1977a:F-31).
In other validation studies for the point source model, the CRSTER model predicted peak
short-term (1-,3-,and 24-hour) concentration values within 30to 70 percent at a plain site
(EPRI 1983a:7-1). The CRSTER model predicted peak 1-hour concentrations within 2 percent
and underpredicted peak 3-hour concentrations by about 30 percent at a moderately
complex terrain site (EPRI 1985a:7-1). The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model
overpredicted 1-hour concentrations by about 60 percent with better predictions for
longer time periods at an urban site (EPRI 1988a:5-2). Uses of gravitational settling/dry
deposition and building downwash options were found to improve the model performance
significantly over that of the model without such features (APCA 1986a; EPA 1981a; EPA
1982a).
The concentrations presented in this document are the highest concentrations predicted by
the model in order to present conservative estimates of pollutant concentrations.

4.1.4 Water Resources
The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources are described using
available data. Potential effects on surface water and groundwater availability and
quality are assessed.
Surface Water. Local surface water resources in the project region, flow characteristics
and relationships, and stream classifications are used to describe current conditions.
Data used for impact assessments include rates of water consumption and wastewater
discharge for both construction and operation phases. Changes in the annual low flows of
surface water resulting from proposed withdrawals and discharges are determined. In cases
where low flow data are unavailable, average flow data are used. The existing water supply
is evaluated to determine if sufficient quantities are available to support an increased
demand by comparing projected increases with the capacity of the supplier and existing
water rights, agreements, or allocations.
The water quality of potentially affected receiving waters is determined by reviewing
current monitoring data for nonradiological parameters. Potential impacts from
radiological parameters are discussed in the radiological and hazardous chemical impacts
during normal operation and accidents section. Focus is given to parameters that exceed
applicable water quality criteria, as determined by the individual states. Monitoring
reports for discharges permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program are examined for compliance with permit limits and requirements. The
performance of each candidate DOE site in complying with the permit requirements is
presented. In most cases, current design data do not include information on the
constituents present or the rate of discharge. The assessment of water quality impacts
from wastewater (sanitary and process) and stormwater runoff qualitatively addresses
potential impacts to the receiving waters' minimum or average flow, as available and
appropriate. Suitable mitigation measures for potential impacts such as stream channel
erosion and sedimentation, stream bank flooding, and thermal impacts are identified. Water
quality management practices are also reviewed. If effluent constituent data are
available, parameters with the potential to further degrade existing receiving water
quality along with parameters exceeding existing NPDES permit limits are identified.
Floodplains are identified to determine whether any of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities are located within a floodplain. Where possible, the
proposed location is compared with the 500-year floodplain. Where these data are
unavailable, potential impacts associated with the 500-year floodplain are addressed in
terms of design and siting mitigation measures. Specific facility locations will be
addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.
Groundwater. Groundwater resources are analyzed for effects on aquifers, groundwater
usage, and groundwater quality within the regions. Groundwater resources are defined as
the aquifers underlying the site and their extensions down the hydraulic gradients to, and
including, discharge points and/or the first major users. The affected environment dis-
cussion includes a description of the potentially affected groundwater basins. The local
aquifers are described in terms of the extent, thicknesses, character of rock formations,
and quality of the groundwater. Recharge areas are also noted. Total baseline groundwater
use at the facility is compiled using the best available data. Groundwater usage is
described and projections of future usage are made based on changing patterns of usage and
anticipated growth patterns, whenever site-specific groundwater availability issues are
identified.
Drawdown estimates are made both onsite and offsite. Short- and long-term impacts
associated with construction withdrawals and dewatering are estimated. Both proposed
facilities and existing facilities are considered in determining cumulative impacts.
Available data on existing groundwater quality conditions are compared to Federal and
state groundwater quality standards, effluent limitations, and safe drinking water
standards. Additionally, Federal and state permitting requirements for groundwater with-
drawal and discharge are identified. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on existing
contaminant plumes because of construction and facility operation are assessed to
determine the potential for changes in their rates of migration and the effects of any
changes in the plumes on groundwater users. Impacts are assessed by the degree to which
groundwater quality, drawdown of groundwaterlevels, and groundwater availability to
otherusers would be affected. Impacts on groundwater quality are presented when effluent
constituent data are available.

4.1.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. Impacts to the geological environment considers destruction of or damage to
unique geological features, subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal, and landslides
or shifting caused by loading or removal of supporting rock or soil. The local geology
that could affect the alternatives including geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural
attitude of rocks, faults and seismicity, general foundation, and boring conditions are
described as appropriate for each candidate site. The locations of capable faults are
identified and an overview of the seismicity of the site areas, including the history and
significance of earthquakes, along with their intensity and ground acceleration, is
presented. Areas of potentially unstable slopes and impacts to the stability of slopes by
the removal or addition of large volumes of earth in construction are characterized.
Soils. Soil types at the proposed project sites are described and the capability of
supporting construction of the proposed facilities assessed. Shrinking or swelling of
ground as a result of landscaping, irrigation, or construction dewatering and soil
erosion susceptibility associated with construction is also addressed.

4.1.6 Biotic Resources
Potential impacts to biotic resources are addressed for the following categories:
terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species.
During construction, impacts may result from land-clearing activities, erosion and
sedimentation, human disturbance and noise, and dewatering of foundations. Operation may
affect biotic resources as a result of changes in land use, emission of salt drift
(residual salts left behind as a result of the evaporation of cooling tower water) or
radionuclides, water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and human disturbance and noise.
In general, the potential impacts are assessed based on the degree to which various
habitats or species could be affected by the project. Where appropriate, impacts are
evaluated with respect to Federal and state protection regulations and standards.
Terrestrial Resources. Potential impacts to terrestrial resources include loss and
disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitats as well as exposure of flora and fauna to
emissions of salt drift. Two considerations in assessing the impact of habitat loss are
the presence and regional importance of affected habitats, and size of habitat area to be
temporarily disturbed by construction activities and permanently disturbed during the
operational phase. The loss of important or sensitive habitats is considered more
important than the loss of a regionally abundant type. Impacts to wildlife are based to a
large extent on plant community loss, which is closely associated with animal habitat.
Also evaluated is the disturbance, displacement, or loss of wildlife in accordance with
wildlife protection laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. Cooling tower deposition rates are not calculated; however, potential
effects of salt drift are addressed in a qualitative manner.
Very small concentrations of radionuclides would be released into the atmosphere during
operation of the proposed tritium supply and recycling facilities. These releases, when
added to those associated with other site activities, would be well below natural
background levels and would also be within regulatory limits established to protect
workers and the public. Since humans have been shown to be the most sensitive organism to
radiation, these levels should also be protective of biota (AEC 1968a:220; NAS 1972a:34).
Studies conducted at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) have detected sublethal
effects in individual animals at contaminated areas; however, no population or
community-level impacts resulting from radionuclides have been identified. Monitoring of
radionuclide levels outside the boundaries of various INEL facilities and off the INEL
site has detected radionuclide concentrations above background levels in individual
plants and animals, but the data suggest that the exposed populations are not at risk (DOE
1995v: 4.9-6,4.9-7). Thus, based on expected releases and the results of past studies,
impacts of radionuclides on site biota were not evaluated.
Impacts to biota from hazardous chemicals during normal operations are unlikely since all
hazardous and toxic materials will be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in
accordance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Thus, since biota are unlikely to be exposed to hazardous chemicals, impacts are not
discussed.
Wetlands. Most construction impacts on wetlands are related to displacement of wetlands by
filling, draining, or clearing activities. Other impacts could potentially occur from
construction activities conducted outside of wetland areas. Operational impacts to
wetlands may occur from effluents, surface or groundwater withdrawals, or creation of new
wetlands. Wetlands on each candidate site are identified using best available published
information such as Federal and state wetland reports, National Wetland Inventory maps,
aerial photographs, and topographic maps.
The direct loss of wetlands resulting from construction and operation is addressed in a
similar fashion as for terrestrial plant communities, by comparing data on site wetlands
to proposed land requirements. Sedimentation impacts are evaluated based on the nearness
of wetlands to project areas and with the knowledge that standard construction erosion and
sedimentation control measures would be implemented. Impacts resulting from increased
flows are evaluated based on a comparison of expected discharge rates with present stream
flow rates. Impacts resulting from the introduction of thermal and chemical pollution into
a wetland system are evaluated recognizing that effluents will be required to meet Federal
and state standards.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic resources could be impacted as a result of sedimentation,
increased flows, effluent discharge, impingement, and entrainment. Impacts to aquatic
resources, such as loss of spawning habitat resulting from sedimentation, increased flows,
and the introduction of waste heat and chemicals, are evaluated as described for wetlands.
Impingement and entrainment impacts are evaluated based on a comparison of stream flow and
intake volumes, recognizing that when intake volumes represent a large percentage of
stream flow, the possibility of impingement and entrainment impacts exists. Compliance
with protective measures, such as the Anadromous Fish Protection Act, are addressed.
Although aquatic species could be exposed to radionuclides from cooling tower blowdown
at wet sites, previous studies of a proposed tritium reactor at the Savannah River Site
(SRS) that was larger than the proposed current design have shown that calculated doses
were well below limits established by DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public
and the Environment for the protection of aquatic organisms (DOE 1992e:5-220). Although
impacts to aquatic life are unlikely based on the conservative nature of the calculations
and the size difference between the previous and current reactor designs, further
assessments may be required in site-specific NEPA documentation.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Impacts to threatened and endangered species of
wildlife and plants, including critical habitat, state-listed species, and species
proposed for listing, are determined. A list of species potentially present on each site
is developed using information obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
National Marine Fisheries Service, and appropriate state agencies. This list, along with
site environmental and engineering data, is used to evaluate whether the various tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities would impact any plant or animal (or its
habitat). Impacts are determined in a manner similar to that described for terrestrial and
aquatic resources since the sources of potential impacts are similar.
Uncertainties. Due to the nature of this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS), a number of factors which may impact biotic resources are not known with
certainty. These include site location, placement and performance of wet cooling towers,
routing of rights-of-way, and wastewater discharge characteristics and location. Each of
these factors introduced uncertainties in the analysis of impacts to biotic resources. For
example, not knowing the exact location of the proposed tritium supply site (TSS) prevents
an exact analysis of impacts on terrestrial habitat and wetlands, as well as threatened
and endangered species. When more information becomes available as this PEIS project
planning progresses, analyses presented in tiered NEPA documentation at a selected site
will not be so limited by uncertainties.

4.1.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Included in these sections are evaluations of the impacts of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities on prehistoric, historic, Native American, and
paleontological resources. The effects considered include those resulting directly from
land disturbance during construction, visual intrusion to the settings or environmental
context of historic structures, visual and audio intrusions on Native American sacred
sites, reduced access to Native American traditional use areas, unauthorized artifact
collecting, and vandalism.
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human
activities that predate written records. They are generally identified as either
isolated artifacts or sites. Sites may contain concentrations of artifacts (e.g., stone
tools and ceramic sherds), features (e.g., campfires and houses), and plant and animal
remains. Depending on their age, complexity, integrity, and relationship to one another,
sites may be important for and capable of yielding information about past populations and
adaptive strategies. The affected environment section for prehistoric resources includes a
brief overview of the number and types of prehistoric sites in the project areas, if
known, and their status on both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and
appropriate state registers. The overview consists of a summary of existing information
about prehistoric resources in the region and a discussion of types of sites that are
likely to occur.
Impact assessments for prehistoric resources focus mainly on those properties likely to be
eligible for the NRHP. Impacts are assessed by considering whether the proposed action
could substantially add to existing disturbance of resources in the project areas,
adversely affect NRHP-eligible resources, or cause loss of or destruction to important
prehistoric resources.
Historic Resources. Historic resources consist of physical properties that postdate the
existence of written records. Historic resources include architectural structures (e.g.,
buildings, dams, and bridges) and archaeological features (e.g., foundations, trails, and
trash dumps). Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic for
analytical purposes, but exceptions can be made for younger properties if they are of
exceptional importance; i.e., structures associated with World War II, the Manhattan
Project, or Cold War themes (36CFR60.4). The affected environment section for historic
resources includes a brief overview, the number and types of historic sites in the project
areas, if known, and their status on both the NRHP and appropriate state registers. The
overview consists of a summary of existing information about historic resources in the
region and a discussion of the types of sites that likely exist.
Impact assessments for historic resources focus mainly on those properties likely to be
eligible for the NRHP. Impacts are assessed by considering whether the proposed action
could substantially add to existing disturbance of resources in the project areas, could
adversely affect NRHP-eligible resources, or could cause loss of or destruction to
important historic resources.
Native American Resources. Native American resources are sites, areas, and materials
important to Native Americans for religious or heritage reasons. In addition, cultural
values are placed on natural resources such as plants, which have multiple purposes within
various Native American groups. Of primary concern are concepts of sacred space that
create the potential for land use conflicts. Native American concerns would be identified
through direct consultation with tribal representatives and field visits with tribal
religious specialists during site-specific tiered NEPA documents. Contacts will be
identified by reference to the ethnographic literature, by state and national pantribal
organizations, and by agency and academic anthropologists.
The individual resource type, the proximity of impact areas to the resources, and the
likely duration of impacts are considered in the analysis of Native American resources.
Specific concerns include the relative importance of the resource in the Native American
physical universe or belief system; the distance at which activities in the vicinity of a
sacred area constitute a disturbance; the extent to which affected resources may be
restored; and the extent to which alternative sources for raw materials are available
and/or suitable. Impacts to Native American resources are assessed by considering whether
the proposed action has the potential to affect sites important for their position in the
Native American physical universe or belief system, or the possibility of reducing access
to traditional use areas or sacred sites.
Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are the physical remains,
impressions, or traces of plants or animals from a former geological age. They include
casts, molds, and trace fossils such as burrows or tracks. Fossil localities typically
include surface outcrops, areas where subsurface deposits are exposed by ground
disturbance, and special environments favoring preservation, such as caves, peat bogs, and
tar pits. Paleontological resources are important mainly for their potential to provide
scientific information on paleoenvironments and the evolutionary history of plants and
animals. The affected environment section for paleontological resources includes a
description of known paleontological localities and geological formations in the project
areas that may be fossil bearing.
Impact assessments for paleontological resources are based on the numbers and kinds of
resources that could be affected as well as the quality of fossil preservation in a
given deposit, particularly in deposits with high research potential. Such deposits
include poorly known fossil forms; well-preserved terrestrial vertebrates; unusual
depositional contexts; assemblages containing a variety of fossil forms, particularly
associations of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants; or deposits recovered from poorly
studied regions or in unusual concentrations.

4.1.8 Socioeconomics
Potential impacts are assessed for local and regional socioeconomic conditions and factors
including population, employment, economy, housing, public finance, and transportation.
This PEIS assesses the socioeconomic impacts of both the gains and losses of missions at
each site. Geographically, the potential for socioeconomic effects is greatest in those
local jurisdictions immediately adjacent to each site and those that are the residential
locations of the majority of DOE site employees. A region of influence (ROI), comprised of
those local jurisdictions likely to experience the greatest socioeconomic impacts, is
defined for each site. The ROI is defined as those areas where approximately 90 percent of
the current DOE and contractor employees reside. The evaluation of impacts is based on the
degree to which changes in employment and population affect the local economy, housing
market, public finance, and transportation. The changes to these factors are projected to
2030 because it is assumed that after 2030 the impacts associated with the alternatives
are negligibly different from the 2030 conditions. The following sections discuss each of
the socioeconomic conditions and factors considered.
Employment. The construction and operation of tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities could affect employment at DOE sites. Changes in site employment would, in
turn, directly affect local and regional populations, economies, housing, public finance,
and transportation. Current employment at each site is described as well as projected
employment associated with other planned DOE initiatives. Socioeconomic trends and the
relationship of site employment to these trends are examined for each potentially affected
socioeconomic region. Emphasis is placed on evaluating total direct and indirect
employment changes and impacts associated with potential mission relocations.
Economy. The regional economies surrounding each site are characterized. Emphasis is
placed on the measurement of the relative contribution and importance of each site's
employment payroll and purchases to the economy. Changes to local economic conditions are
evaluated based on each site's relative contribution and changes to employment. Emphasis
is placed on the economic effects of mission changes associated with the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities.
Population. The demographic changes in the regions surrounding each site are described and
assessed. Demographic characteristics are presented for the site's ROI to support the
assessment of socioeconomic impacts. Trends are identified and used to project
demographic changes over the environmental baseline period. Cumulative population impacts
include the population impacts of other DOE actions under consideration, including planned
environmental restoration activities.
Housing. Changes in employment at each site would affect the demand and supply of housing
units, including the need for temporary housing (e.g., rental units) to support
in-migrating construction workers. Trends in the housing availability within each site's
socioeconomic ROI are characterized and evaluated. Numbers of in-migrating and
out-migrating site employees associated with each of the tritium facility alternatives are
then used to evaluate housing impacts.
Public Finance. Each site is located on land owned by the Federal government; this exempts
these lands from state and local taxation. However, all employee income, property, and
purchases are subject to applicable Federal, state, and local taxation requirements.
Changes in community finances as a result of the alternatives could affect the community's
need and ability to provide community infrastructure and services that include utility,
water, and sewage facilities, as well as education, health care, and police and fire
protection. The fiscal impacts of the alternatives on the counties, cities, and school
districts within the site's ROI are assessed.
Local Transportation. The transportation systems in the region surrounding each site,
including roads and highways, rail systems, and airports, are characterized. Major
planned improvements to regional transportation systems are identified as part of the
environmental baseline characterization. Changes in site employment associated with the
alternatives are used to identify potential impacts to the existing traffic conditions at
each site.

4.1.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
Nuclear facilities use a broad variety of processes involving both radioactive and
chemical materials that can be hazardous to people who may be exposed to them. The degree
of hazard is directly related to the type and quantity of the particular radioactive or
chemical material to which the person may be exposed. The health effects are determined
for tritium supply and recycling facilities by identifying the types and quantities of
material to which one is exposed, estimating doses, and then calculating the resultant
health effects.
The impacts on human health for workers and the public during normal operation and
postulated accidents from the various alternatives are assessed. Models are used to
project the impacts on the health of workers and the public due to normal operation and
postulated accidents. These models include: GENII and Melcor Accident Consequence Code
System (MACCS) for airborne and liquid radioactive releases; CHEM-PLUS for fire and
explosions; and ISCST for hazardous chemical releases. Atmospheric dispersion modeling
performed for the air quality section is also utilized in the evaluation of impacts to
workers from radiological and hazardous chemicals.
Health Impacts on Plant Workers During Normal Operation. Because radiation workers are
individually monitored, experience from past and current operation that are similar to
future operation are used to estimate the radiological health impacts to workers. Health
impacts from chemicals are discussed qualitatively. There are no individual exposure data
on workers for chemicals; therefore, models are used to estimate the worker's chemical
exposure dose.
General Health Impacts on the Public During Normal Operation. Public health impacts could
result from exposure to radioactive or hazardous chemical materials released during
operation. The effect is the sum of internal exposure resulting from breathing air, eating
food, and drinking water. External exposure could be from standing on contaminated
ground, being exposed to the air, and being submerged in water.
Modeling is used to estimate the type and amount of material released and the associated
radiological and chemical doses. These doses are converted to health effects using
appropriate health risk estimators.
Epidemiological Studies. In March 1990, the Secretary of Energy announced that DOE would
turn over responsibility to the Department of Health and Human Services for analytical
epidemiologic research on long-term health effects on workers at DOE facilities and the
public in surrounding communities. Further, DOE directed that this worker and public
health and exposure data be released. A Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of
Health and Human Services was signed in January 1991. The Department of Health and Human
Services is now conducting the ongoing health effects research program. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also initiated a study in 1994 but does not
expect the results before 1997.
Emergency Preparedness. Emergency preparedness and planning has the effect of mitigating
the consequences of facility accidents. Emergency preparedness plans exist for all sites
and are summarized for each site.
Accident Analysis for Postulated Accident Scenarios. The relative consequences of
postulated accidents in the evaluation of each alternative are considered. In evaluating
the magnitude and consequences of each alternative, a suitable accident analysis is
performed to produce results for decisionmaking purposes. Although the concepts used are
analogous to a formal Probabilistic Risk Assessment, which would be appropriate for a
project-level analysis, the accident analysis involves considerably less detail and only
addresses a representative spectrum of beyond design-basis accidents (high consequence,
low probability) and a representative spectrum of possible operational accidents (low con-
sequence but high probability of occurrence). The technical approach for the selection of
accidents is consistent with the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight Recommendations for the
Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements guidance
which recommends consideration of two major categories of accidents: within design-basis
accidents and beyond design-basis accidents.
For the purpose of this assessment, risk is defined as the mathematical product of the
probability and consequences of an accident. Both probability and consequences are
presented in this PEIS. The risk-contributing scenarios consider both design-basis and
severe accidents. The specific accidents consider the types of facilities. Examples of
accidents include those resulting from operator errors, spills, criticality, fire,
explosions, airplane crash, common-cause failures, collocated facilities, severe weather,
earthquakes, and transportation. Information on potential accidents includes those that
have been postulated and analyzed for similar facilities. The risks of the various tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities are evaluated in terms of the incremental
increase in risk and the cumulative effect of that risk with respect to normal day-to-day
risks to which the general population is exposed.
Accident risk to collocated workers was calculated for a hypothetical worker at 1,000
meters and 2,000meters from the facility. The estimated number of collocated workers that
may be similarly exposed is also provided. Risk to workers from radiological accidents
would be addressed in greater detail in site-specific tiered NEPA documents when more
detailed information is available.
Uncertainties. The sequence of analyses performed to generate the radiological impact
estimates from normal operation and facility accidents include: (1)selection of normal
operational modes and accident sequences, (2) estimation of source terms, (3) estimation
of environmental transport and uptake of radionuclides, (4) calculation of radiation doses
to exposed individuals, and (5) estimation of health effects. There are uncertainties
associated with each of these steps. Uncertainties exist in the way the physical systems
being analyzed are represented by the computational models and in the data required to
exercise the models (due to measurement errors, sampling errors, or natural variability).
In principle, one can estimate the uncertainty associated with each source and predict
the remaining uncertainty in the results of each set of calculations. Thus, one can
propagate the uncertainties from one set of calculations to the next and estimate the
uncertainty in the final results. However, conducting such a full-scale quantitative
uncertainty analysis is neither practical nor a standard practice for a study of this
type. Instead, the analysis is designed to ensure-through judicious selection of release
scenarios, models, and parameters-that the results represent the potential risks. This
is accomplished by making conservative assumptions in the calculations at each step. The
models, parameters, and release scenarios used in the calculations are selected in such a
way that most intermediate results and consequently, the final estimates of impacts are
greater than what would be expected. As a result, even though the range of uncertainty in
a quantity might be large, the value calculated for the quantity is close to one of the
extremes in the range of possible values, so that the chance of the actual quantity being
greater than the calculated value is low (or the chance of the quantity being less than
the calculated value if the criteria are such that the quantity has to be maximized).
This has been the goal of the radiological assessment for normal operation and facility
accidents in this study (i.e., to produce results that are conservative).
The degree of conservatism in the calculated results is closely related to the range of
possible values the quantity can have. This range is determined by what can be expected to
realistically occur. Thus, the only processes, events, and accidents considered are those
credible for the conditions under which the physical system being modeled operates. This
consideration has also been employed for both normal operation and facility accident
analyses.
Uncertainties are also derived from the lack of engineering design data for facilities
that are only conceptual. Uncertainties are also introduced when accident analyses
performed for similar existing facilities have been used as a major source of data.
Although the radionuclide composition of source terms are reasonable estimates, there
are uncertainties in the radionuclide inventory and release reactions which affect the
estimated consequences. Accident frequencies for low probability sequences of events are
always difficult to estimate, even for operating facilities, because there is little or no
record of historical occurrences. For a new facility, such as the Heavy Water Reactor
(HWR), MHTGR, ALWR, and APT any use of accident frequencies that are estimated from
similar existing facilities would tend to further compound the effects of uncertainties.
There are also uncertainties attributed to differences in information sources. For the HWR
and MHTGR a considerable amount of information on source terms and accident scenarios is
based on 1992 documentation from the New Production Reactor program. For the ALWR, there
are four technologies with documentation and analyses prepared independently by
different vendors. For the APT, there are two technologies with documentation and analyses
prepared by a team led by Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Brookhaven Laboratory, and private contractors.
The risk analysis presented in this PEIS is not a complete risk assessment in the sense of
identifying and analyzing all physically possible accidents including those high
consequence accidents whose probability is so remote as to render them not reasonably
foreseeable. The accident analyses do include, however, a spectrum of reasonably
foreseeable accidents including high consequence accidents and their associated risks for
the technologies and facilities. These severe accidents have low accident frequencies,
often less than 1.0x10-6 per year. The accident analyses also include higher frequency
accidents (design-basis and other operational accidents) that typically have lower
consequences. These design-basis and other operational accidents have accident frequencies
that are greater than 1.0x10-6 per year.
In summary, the radiological and hazardous chemical impact estimates presented in this
document were obtained by:
Using the best available data.
Using state-of-the-art computational tools.
Considering the processes, events, and accidents that are reasonably foreseeable for the
tritium supply and recycling facilities described in this study and the environment.
Making conservative assumptions when there is doubt about the exact nature of the
processes and events taking place.

4.1.10 Waste Management
A major thrust of the Tritium Supply and Recycling Program effort has been, and will
continue to be, the minimization of wastes. The proposed action would consider and
incorporate waste minimization and pollution prevention practices. Alternative processes
and technologies used in the production and recycling of tritium are being reviewed to
determine whether proven technologies could accomplish significant reductions in the
generation of waste. Waste minimization efforts and the management of tritiumrelated
wastes are discussed for each DOE site. Tritium facilities would treat and package waste
into forms that would enable long-term storage or disposal. Pantex is the only site under
consideration that does not have existing or planned onsite low-level waste (LLW)
disposal; the number of additional shipments required to transport LLW from Pantex to a
DOE LLW disposal facility is estimated. The risks associated with additional shipments are
addressed as part of the intersite transport assessment (section4.7). Long-term
disposition of wastes and other methods of waste minimization is expected to be addressed
by the DOE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) as part of
an overall waste management strategy. The PEIS prepared by EM will evaluate the
environmental impacts of transporting wastes. Both this document and the PEIS prepared
by EM are intended to provide environmental input into development of long-term strategies
that, when decided on, provide a basis for assessing and implementing site-specific and
facility-specific actions.
The construction and operation of tritium facilities could generate spent nuclear fuel and
several types of wastes. Generation points are different dependent upon siting of various
facilities. Construction wastes are similar to those generated by any construction project
of comparable scale. Wastes generated during the operation of tritium supply and recycling
facilities consist of four primary types: low-level radioactive waste, low-level mixed
waste, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. The types and amounts of waste and spent
nuclear fuel vary according to the tritium supply technology.
The nuclear weapons mission provides for the shortterm management and onsite storage of
wastes and spent nuclear fuel, including the means to minimize waste generation, until DOE
either disposes of the wastes or places them in long-term storage. To provide a framework
for addressing the impacts of waste management for tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities, descriptive information is presented on waste management activities
anticipated for each DOE site and tritium facility combination. The volumes of each
waste type generated are estimated by facility and DOE site for tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities and vary according to technologies analyzed for the
facilities. These estimates include consideration of concepts for waste minimization. The
impact assessment addresses the waste types and projected waste volumes from the various
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at each site versus No Action.
Impacts are assessed in the context of site practices for treatment, storage, and disposal
including the applicable regulatory setting.
The volumes of wastes to be generated by tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities were provided for inclusion, consideration, and evaluation of alternative waste
management configurations in the PEIS being prepared by EM. The evaluation of waste
management for tritium supply and recycling facility-generated waste are presented in both
documents.
D&D activities are greatly dependent upon the final disposition of a facility and its
design. D&D could range from performing a simple radiological survey to completely
dismantling and removing a radioactively-contaminated facility. Because the tritium
supply technology and recycling facility designs are preconceptual, estimates of D&D waste
volumes have not been made; however, a relative comparison between the tritium supply
technologies was made.

4.1.11 Intersite Transportation
The intersite transport assessment addresses the transport of tritium, highly-enriched
uranium, plutonium, and heavy water since these materials pose the primary health
concern in this PEIS. A transportation baseline, using historical and projected shipment
information, is established for evaluating potential environmental impacts. The existing
transportation modes that serve each candidate site and the transportation links to
those modes for the intersite transport of hazardous materials are described. The packag-
ings required for the shipment of materials is also described. Risks are also calculated
for transporting LLW generated from tritium activities.
The potential environmental impacts of transporting tritium, highly-enriched uranium,
plutonium, heavy water, and LLW are qualitatively determined using existing health and
accident risk data. Quantitative data are included, as appropriate. For evaluating risk,
the following elements are considered: transport mode, weight of material, curies,
proximity dose rates (transport index), type of package, number of shipments, and/or
distance. Transportation health impacts are summarized for the alternatives.

4.1.12 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts address the incremental effects of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (43 FR 55978; 40CFR1500-1508).
Other DOE programs (including environmental management missions) and other Federal,
state, and local development programs all have the potential to contribute to cumulative
effects on DOE sites. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). To
the extent information was available for these other actions at a given site, the
cumulative impacts are presented.
Continuing Department of Energy Missions. Continuing DOE missions and any reasonably
foreseeable changes to these missions are addressed as part of the affected environment
baseline. Continuing missions at each site are discussed in the Site Infrastructure
section of the affected environment discussion for each DOE site. These missions provide
the baseline against which the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are
compared. For example, water requirements for the tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities are combined with requirements of continuing missions to assess the
total impact to water resources.
Environmental Management Missions. Any planned and reasonably foreseeable new or modified
waste handling facilities are discussed in the waste management section for each site. In
addition, to the extent that other environmental management missions or strategies are
planned and defined, they are also discussed as are bounding environmental impacts of
waste management actions. Specific waste management activities will be addressed in the
PEIS being prepared by EM.
Other Federal and State Programs. Other Federal and state programs are identified but only
planned, reasonably foreseeable programs are considered. Typical programs in this category
include public works projects and military base closures and reuse projects. Potential
consequences of any major programs that accumulate effects when combined with the tritium
supply and recycling alternatives are presented.
Local Development Programs. Local development programs are not specifically identified.
However, socioeconomic projections take into account anticipated regional growth. Local
development programs are a part of this growth and are addressed collectively using
growth as a surrogate. Socioeconomic projections form the baseline for much of the envi-
ronmental analysis presented in this document.
Approach for Cumulative Impact Assessments. There is no generic methodology for the
assessment of cumulative impacts. Therefore, the following approach represents a design
for analyzing programmatic cumulative impacts relative to past, present, and probable
future activities. It incorporates a wide ranging view of DOE defense programs, environ-
mental management, and other outside interactions. This strategy is integrated with
detailed resource-specific assessment methods where appropriate, and can be developed
further in tiered project-specific NEPA documentation to ensure compatibility across
defense programs, environmental management, and other programs.
The rationale for this approach reflects that this PEIS is a programmatic document. The
reference condition for cumulative effects is the No Action alternative. The strategy has
four major components:
Focus analysis primarily on the impacts at each tritium supply candidate site where other
defense programs and/or environmental management activities are reasonably anticipated.
Past, baseline, and future defense programs and environmental management activities are
more clearly defined and have a higher degree of certainty than offsite activities. These
activities tend to be much more speculative the further into the future they are
planned.
Address quantitatively cumulative impact analyses associated with offsite activities in
tiered, site-specific NEPA documentation.
Coordinate efforts between defense programs and environmental management activities
through the Memorandum of Agreement between defense programs and environmental management
activities.
Focus on site-specific cumulative effects from tritium supply and recycling, addressing
them in terms of both the temporal and spatial aspects of defense programs activities, as
well as, the level, phasing, and site-specific locations of proposed environmental
management facilities and activities. This is appropriate due to the uncertainty and
lack of specificity associated with offsite activities that could result in significant
incremental, indirect, or synergistic cumulative impacts; these activities are more
effectively addressed in tiered site-specific NEPA documentation.
The method is flexible and allows for the assessment of cumulative impacts to regulated
resources at a lower level of analysis due to the protection afforded to them through
applicable regulations. In addition, the method recognizes that the focus on a given
resource may vary according to site-specific characteristics of the local environment.
Where these type of variations are identified, a level of analysis would be performed
commensurate to the importance of the potential cumulative impacts on that resource.

4.1.13 Environmental Justice
This PEIS assesses the potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and low income populations in accordance with Executive
Order 12898 Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low Income Populations. Because both the Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice
and DOE are still in the process of developing guidance on criteria for identifying
effects to these populations, the approach taken in the PEIS analysis may somewhat differ
from whatever guidance may be issued.
The PEIS environmental justice analysis addressed selected demographic characteristics of
region of influence (50-miles) for each of the five candidate sites. The analysis
identified census tracts where people of color comprise 50 percent, or simple majority, of
the total population in the census tract, or where people of color comprise less than 50
percent but greater than 25 percent of the total population in the census tract. The
analysis also identified low-income communities where 25 percent or more of the
population is characterized as living in poverty (yearly income of less than $8,076 for a
family of two based on 1990 census data). Impacts are assessed based on the analysis
presented for each resource and issue area for each tritium supply technology at each
site. Any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority and low-income populations are discussed.

4.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) was established in 1949, and currently
occupies approximately 570,000 acres near Idaho Falls, ID. As discussed in section 3.3.2,
INEL performs research and development activities on reactor performance; conducts
materials testing and environmental monitoring activities; performs research and develop-
ment activities for the processing of waste; conducts breeder reactor development; and is
a naval reactor training site. There are currently no DOE defense program missions at
INEL. The DOE property boundaries for INEL are illustrated in figure 4.2-1.

4.2.1 Description of Alternatives
Under the proposed action, any one of the four tritium supply technologies (Heavy Water
Reactor (HWR), Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR), Advanced Light Water
Reactor (ALWR), or Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT)) alone or collocated with a new
tritium recycling facility could be sited at INEL. Section 3.4.2 provides a description of
the tritium supply technologies and section 3.4.3.1 describes the tritium recycling
facility. Figure 4.2.1-1 shows the location of existing facilities within INEL and the
proposedTSS.
Under No Action, INEL would continue to perform the missions described in section 3.3.2.
There are no facilities at INEL that would be phased out as a result of any of the
proposed action alternatives discussed in this PEIS.

4.2.2 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the affected environment at INEL for land resources, air
quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, cultural
and paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. In addition, the infrastructure at
INEL, the radiation and hazardous chemical environment, and the waste management
conditions are described.

4.2.2.1 Land Resources
The discussion of land resources at INEL includes land use and visual resources.
Land Use. INEL is located within Bingham, Bonneville, Butte, Clark, and Jefferson
Counties, 22miles west of downtown Idaho Falls in southeastern Idaho. The site covers
approximately 570,000acres, all of which is owned by the Federal government and is
administered, managed, and controlled by DOE. The Federal government also owns
approximately 75percent of the land bordering INEL; this land is administered by the
Bureau of Land Management. Twenty-four percent of adjacent land is privately owned, with
the remaining 1percent held by the State of Idaho. Generalized land uses at INEL and in
the vicinity are shown in figure 4.2.2.1-1. Only 2 percent of the land within INEL has
been developed for the nine operating areas and facilities. The developed INEL facilities
are sited within a central core area of 225,000 acres designated as open space.
A buffer zone consisting of 345,000acres surrounding the central core area has been
created within INEL boundaries. The Bureau of Land Management has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with DOE to permit private individuals to graze livestock on
the buffer zone rangeland. However, the grazing of livestock is prohibited within the
central core area and within 2 miles of any nuclear facilities. Other agricultural
activities consist of approximately 140 acres of irrigated cropland located adjacent to
State Routes 28 and 33, and just west of the Mud Lake community. No prime farmland lies
within the INEL boundaries.
In 1975, DOE designated most of INEL as a National Environmental Research Park. It is used
by the national scientific community as an outdoor laboratory for environmental sciences
research on changes to the natural environment caused by human activities.
The proposed 600-acre TSS would be located within INEL's Prime Development Land Zone. This
designation applies to land most suitable for development due to an absence of physical
constraints such as steep slopes, faults, and floodplains, and because of the land's
proximity to site infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and INEL support facilities.
Figure (Page 4-18)
Figure 4.2-1.-Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, and Region.
Figure (Page 4-19)
Figure 4.2.1-1.-Primary Facilities and Proposed Tritium Supply Site at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory.
Figure (Page 4-20)
Figure 4.2.2.1-1.-Generalized Land Use at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and
Vicinity.
Offsite land use within 2 miles of INEL is shown in figure 4.2.2.1-1. This offsite land is
primarily used for livestock and agricultural purposes. The closest residence to the INEL
boundary is 1,000feet east of the facility (approximately 7 miles northwest of the
unincorporated community of Mud Lake).
Two National Natural Landmarks border INEL: Big Southern Butte, 1.5 miles south and Hell's
Half Acre Lava Field, 1.6miles southeast. The Bureau of Land Management has also
recommended that Congress consider designating Hell's Half Acre Lava Field as a wilderness
area (BLM 1986a:388).
Visual Resources. INEL generally consists of open desert land containing sagebrush. The
surrounding volcanic cones, domes, and mountain ranges are visible throughout INEL. The
proposed TSS consists of the typical open, undeveloped desert landscape characteristic of
the Snake River Plain. The Bureau of Land Management has classified the acreage within
INEL as VRM Class3 (mixed use) and Class4 (industrial use). INEL facilities and operating
areas maintain industrial uses consistent with these classifications.
The Lost River State Rest Area, located along U.S. Route 20/26 (figure 4.2.2.1-1), is
approximately 3 miles southwest of the Test Reactor Area, the closest INEL facility. This
viewpoint provides the public the best view of the proposed TSS. The Black Canyon
Wilderness Study Area is located adjacent to INEL and 9.4 miles west-northwest of Test
Area North (figure 4.2.2.1-1). Views from this Wilderness Study Area include agricultural
land use and the facilities of INEL, including the proposed TSS. Views of the facilities
from these points are distant and therefore the facilities have a minor effect on the
overall natural appearance of the area. Craters of the Moon National Monument and
Wilderness Study Area are both approximately 12.5 miles southwest from the closest INEL
boundary and 34 miles from the proposed TSS.

4.2.2.2 Site Infrastructure
Section 3.3.2 describes the current missions at INEL. To support these missions, an
extensive infrastructure exists as shown in table 4.2.2.2-1. Of critical importance to
the proposed action is the electrical power infrastructure at each potential site. INEL is
located in the Western Systems Coordinating Council Regional Power Pool and draws its
power from the Northwest Power Pool Subregion. Characteristics of this subregion are
listed in table 4.2.2.2-2.
Table 4.2.2.2-1.-Baseline Characteristics for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Current Characteristics Value
Land -
Area (acres) 570,000
Roads (miles) 277
Railroads (miles) 30
Electrical -
Energy consumption (MWh per year) 232,500
Peak load (MWe) 42
Fuel -
Natural gas (ft3 per year) 0
Oil (GPY) 1,538,800
Coal (ton per year) 12,500
Steam (lb per hour) 90,000
Table 4.2.2.2-2.-Subregional Power Pool Electrical Summary for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
Type Fuel Production
(percent)
Coal 34
Nuclear 3
Hydro/geothermal 46
Oil/gas 7
Other 11
Total Annual Production: 256,404,000 MWh Total Annual Load: 250,045,000 MWh Energy
Exported Annually: 6,359,000 MWh Generating Capacity: 53,206 MWe Peak Demand: 33,325 MWe
Capacity Margin: 13,655 MWe

4.2.2.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
The following describes existing air quality and acoustics and includes a review of the
meteorology and climatology in the vicinity of INEL. More detailed discussions of the air
quality and acoustics methodologies, input data, and atmospheric dispersion
characteristics are presented in appendix section B.1.3.2.
Meteorology and Climatology. The climate at INEL and in the surrounding region is
characteristically that of a semiarid steppe (Trewartha 1954a). The annual average
temperature is 42F; average daily temperatures vary from 16F in January to 68F in July.
The average annual precipitation is 8.7inches (IN DOE 1989b:55,77). Prevailing winds are
from the southwest through west-northwest with a secondary maximum frequency from the
north-northeast to northeast. The annual average wind speed is 7.5mph. Additional
information related to meteorology and climatology at INEL is presented in appendix
section B.1.3.2.
Ambient Air Quality. INEL is located within the Eastern Idaho Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR) 61. None of the areas within INEL and its surrounding counties are
designated as nonattainment areas (40 CFR 81.313) with respect to any of the NAAQS for
criteria pollutants (40 CFR 50). The nearest nonattainment area for particulate matter is
in Pocatello, about 50 miles to the south. A nonattainment area is an area that has air
quality worse than the NAAQS for one or more criteria pollutant. Applicable NAAQS and
Idaho State ambient air quality standards are presented in appendix table B.1.3.1-1.
Three Prevention of Significant Deterioration (40CFR 52.21) Class I areas have been
designated in the vicinity of INEL: Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID,
approximately 33 miles west-southwest from the center of the site; Yellowstone National
Park, Idaho-Wyoming, approximately 89 miles east-northeast from the center of the site;
and Grand Teton National Park, WY, approximately 90 miles east from the center of the site
(IN DOE 1991b:4-11).
Since the promulgation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations (40 CFR
52.21) in 1977, Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits were obtained by INEL for
two major emission sources: the Coal-Fired Steam-Generating Facility next to the Idaho
Chemical Processing Plant (IN DOE 1980a) and the Fuel Processing Restoration Facility (IN
ES 1988a), which is not expected to be operated.
Historically, the primary emission sources of criteria air pollutants at INEL are: the
calcination of liquid waste, the combustion of coal for steam generation at the Idaho
Chemical Processing Plant, and the combustion of fuel oil for heating at various INEL
facilities. Other emissions and sources include fugitive particulates from waste-burial
activities and coal piles, other processes, vehicles, and temporary emissions from various
construction activities. Emission estimates for these sources are presented in appendix
table B.1.3.2-2.
Ambient air quality monitoring data collected during the last few years are summarized in
appendix table B.1.3.2-1. Data indicate that ambient air concentrations are in
compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. The Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare no longer monitors ambient O3, NO2, and lead (Pb) in the vicinity of INEL because
previous monitoring indicated that ambient concentrations were very low (IN DHW
1988a:3-4).
The annual emission rates of hazardous/toxic air pollutants from existing INEL
facilities during 1989 and estimates of maximum annual average ground-level concentrations
at the INEL boundary are listed in appendix table B.1.3.2-4. These concentrations are in
compliance with respective acceptable ambient concentrations listed in Rules for the
Control of Air Pollution in Idaho.
Table 4.2.2.3-1 presents the baseline ambient air concentrations for criteria pollutants
and other pollutants of concern at INEL. With the exception of the 24-hour TSP
standards, baseline concentrations are in compliance with applicable guidelines and
regulations.
Acoustics Conditions. Major noise emission sources within INEL include various industrial
facilities, equipment, and machines. At the site boundary, away from most of the
industrial facilities, noise emitted from the site is barely distinguishable from
background noise levels.
Table 4.2.2.3-1.-Comparison of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 1989-1991
Pollutant Averaging Most Stringent Regulation or Baseline
Time Guideline Concentration
(g/m3) (g/m3)
Criteria Pollutant - - -
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 284
- 1-hour 40,000a 614
Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5a 0.001
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100a 9
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235a -
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50a 19
- 24-hour 150a 112
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80a 6
- 24-hour 365a 143
- 3-hour 1,300a 593
Mandated by Idaho - - -
Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 45
24 -hour 150c 168
Hazardous and Other - - -
Toxic Compounds
Acetaldehyde Annual 0.45c, 0.011
Ammonia Annual 180c,d 6
Arsenic Annual 2.3x10-4c,d 9.0x10-5
Benzene Annual 0.12c,d 0.029
Butadiene Annual 3.6x10-3c,d 0.001
Carbon tetrachloride Annual 0.067c,d 0.006
Chloroform Annual 0.043c,d 4.0x10-4
Cyclopentane Annual 17,000c,d 2.7
Formaldehyde Annual 0.077c,d 0.012
Hexavalent chromium Annual 8.3x10-5c,d 6.0x10-5
Hydrazine Annual 3.4x10-4c,d 1.0x10-6
Hydrochloric acid Annual 7.5c,d 0.98
Mercury Annual 1c,d 0.042
Methylene chloride Annual 0.24c,d 6.0x10-3
Naphalene Annual 500c,d 18
Nickel Annual 4.2x10-3c,d 2.7x10-3
Nitric acid Annual 50c,d 0.64
Perchloroethylene Annual 2.1c,d 0.11
Phosphorus Annual 1c,d 0.3
Potassium hydroxide Annual 20c,d 0.2
Proprionaldehyde Annual 4.3c,d 0.3
Styrene Annual 1,000c,d 1.3
Toluene Annual 3,750c,d 370
Trichloroethylene Annual 0.077c,d 9.7x10-4
Trimethylbenzene Annual 1,230c,d 100
Trivalent chromium Annual 5c,d 0.036
The acoustic environment along the INEL boundary is assumed to be that of a rural location
with typical residual noise levels of 35 to 50dBA (EPA1974a:B-4). Along highways, traffic
contributes to ambient noise levels, especially during peak hours, resulting in
significantly higher noise levels than at remote locations. Except for the prohibition of
nuisance noise, neither the State of Idaho nor its local governments have established
specific numerical environmental noise standards applicable to INEL.

4.2.2.4 Water Resources
This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources at INEL.
Surface Water. Flowing surface water in the INEL area consists of three intermittent
streams that drain the adjacent mountains: Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch
Creek. The streams usually begin to flow in the spring and are dry by early to mid-
summer. The Big Lost River and Birch Creek are the only surface waters that enter the site
on a regular basis. The Little Lost River does not enter the site under normal flow
conditions. Since much of the flow in these streams is diverted upstream for irrigation,
it is possible that several years can pass without any flow entering the INEL boundaries
(DOE1991a). There has been no onsite flow of the three streams since 1987 (USGS 1992a).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for monitoring the streams; however,
the only onsite monitoring station is for the Big Lost River. Surface waters near INEL
are depicted in figure 4.2.2.4-1.
The proposed TSS lies within the drainage basin of the Big Lost River. The Big Lost River
flows onto the site at the southern part of its western boundary and flows northeastward
to the Big Lost River sinks (Playas 1 through 3) (IN DOE 1985a). Water flow in the Big
Lost River is controlled by the MacKay Dam located approximately 45 miles upstream from
INEL. Local rainfall and snowmelt are the primary contributors to the surface water flows.
Most precipitation is rapidly infiltrated into the soil.
Surface water is not used on INEL as a source of water, nor is it used for wastewater
discharge. Non-radioactive liquid effluents are disposed of primarily to a waste ditch, a
lined evaporation pond, an industrial waste pond, five different seepage ponds, and
sewage treatment facilities (IN DOE 1992d).
Several areas, such as Test Area North, Test Reactor Area, and Central Facilities Area,
currently divert stormwater into drainage ditches and discharge flow into soils away from
the work area. A large drainage ditch equipped with an automatic sampler surrounds the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex to ensure that radionuclides are not transported from
the area by stormwater (DOE 1991a).
Flooding at INEL by the Big Lost River has been averted by a flood diversion system
constructed in 1958 and upgraded in 1984. The flood diversion system consists of a small
dam to direct flow through a diversion channel into four spreading areas. The flood
diversion system is designed to contain a 300-year flood.
Surface Water Quality. The Big Lost River (from its source to the playas) is designated by
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's Water Quality Standards and Wastewater
Treatment Requirements for the following uses: agricultural and domestic water supply,
cold water biota, salmonid spawning, primary and secondary contact recreation, and special
resource waters (IN DHW 1992a).
The USGS is responsible for monitoring the surface water quality at INEL. The most recent
water samples collected within the facility boundaries were collected from the Big Lost
River below the diversion dam in 1985. The results of the analysis and the Idaho Water
Quality Standards for the Protection of Domestic Water Supplies are presented in table
4.2.2.4-1. More recent samples are not available because of the intermittent nature of
these water bodies. The analytical results indicate that there are no parameters in
exceedance of the water quality criteria.
Surface Water Rights and Permits. Surface water rights are not an issue because INEL
facilities do not withdraw surface water for use, nor do they discharge effluents directly
to natural surface waters.
Figure (Page 4-25)
Figure 4.2.2.4-1.-Surface Water Features at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Table 4.2.2.4-1.-Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring Data for Big Lost River at
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 1985
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Maximum Water Body
Measure Criteria Concentration
Arsenic mg/l 0.05 0.002
Barium mg/l 1 0.2
Cadmium mg/l 0.01 0.003
Chromium mg/l 0.05 0.001
Lead mg/l 0.05 0.001
Mercury mg/l 0.002 <0.0001
pH pH units 6.5 to 8.5a 8.3
Selenium mg/l 0.01 <0.001
Silver mg/l 0.05 <0.001
Temperature C 22 20
Groundwater. The Snake River Plain aquifer, classified by EPA as a Class I sole-source
aquifer, is located beneath the entire INEL site and covers a total area of approximately
9,600square miles in Southeastern Idaho. The aquifer serves as a primary source for
drinking water and crop irrigation in the Snake River Basin. It is composed of 2,000 to
10,000feet of lava flows, rhyolite, and interbedded sediments (IN Barraclough 1978a) and
is believed to contain 1 to 2 billion acre-feet of water.
Groundwater underflow from the Henry's Fork of the Snake River supplies a significant
amount of water to the Snake River Plain aquifer below INEL. Additional recharge to the
aquifer comes from the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek, which originate
in the mountains to the northwest of INEL, flow onto the site during a few months of the
year during wet years, and sink into its porous soils. Precipitation and snow melt also
contribute to its recharge. Local groundwater movement is complicated, but overall
groundwater flows laterally at an average rate of 5 to 20 feet per day to the south and
west as shown in figure 4.2.2.4-2. The groundwater emerges in springs (6.5 million
acre-feet annually) along the Snake River from Milner to Bliss, ID, and from Blackfoot to
American Falls Reservoir in the region west of Pocatello, ID (DOE 1992e). Depth to the
water table ranges from 200 feet below the ground surface in the northeast corner of INEL
to 1,000 feet in the southeast corner and approximately 476 feet below the ground surface
of the proposed TSS (IN DOE 1986a).
Perched water tables occur in the INEL area. The presence of these perched water bodies is
believed to be beneficial to water quality in the Snake River Plain aquifer. These perched
water bodies slow waste migration, allow for radioactive decay, and spread any waste
plumes over a wider area for greater dilution (DOE 1992e).
Groundwater Quality. There are several "networks" of monitoring wells drilled and
maintained by USGS. These include the INEL-wide facility groundwater monitoring group and
well networks for RCRA- and CERCLA-required monitoring. Groundwater beneath INEL is
monitored by groups including USGS, DOE's site contractor, LITCO, other DOE contractors,
and the State of Idaho. USGS has drilled more than 120 wells in the Snake River Plain
aquifer and 100 in the perched zone on the site and near INEL. Water supply wells, wells
that monitor the migration of constituents from INEL facilities, and offsite water supply
wells are routinely sampled for chemical and radiological constituents.
Figure (Page 4-27)
Figure 4.2.2.4-2.-Generalized Groundwater Flow and Groundwater Contamination in Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Area.
Historically, there has been radionuclide contamination of the Snake River Plain
aquifer. Between 1952 and 1988, approximately 30,900 curies (Ci) of tritium were disposed
of into wells and infiltration ponds at INEL (mainly from Idaho Chemical Processing Plant
and Test Reactor Area). No tritium is currently disposed of to the groundwater at INEL;
however, tritium plumes are present in the Snake River Plain aquifer and in perched
groundwater under these sites (figure 4.2.2.4-2). Tritium occurs at elevated levels in
some monitoring wells and has been detected in groundwater near the southern boundary of
INEL, 9miles south of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant and Test Reactor Area. The
average concentration of tritium in water from 26 wells decreased from 250,000 picocuries
per liter (pCi/l) in 1961 to 18,000pCi/l in 1988. In 1990, the highest tritium
concentrations occurring in INEL drinking water were in the area of the Central Facilities
Area; the concentration ranged from 16,000 to 18,000pCi/l. The elimination of tritium
disposal, radioactive decay, and dilution and dispersion within the groundwater
reservoir are factors contributing to a 93-percent decrease in tritium concentration
levels from 1961 to 1988 (IN USGS 1990a).
Other radionuclides of significance include strontium-90, cesium-137, and iodine-129. The
first two, especially cesium-137, are strongly held on mineral grains in the soils so it
is unlikely that either will reach the aquifer in significant amounts. As shown in figure
4.2.2.4-2, plumes have been delineated for strontium and iodine (INEL 1990b).
Samples from four offsite USGS wells beyond the southern and western site boundaries were
taken in 1990. Gross alpha and gross beta concentrations of 3and 5pCi/l, respectively,
were measured (DOE1990a). The concentrations are within the values expected due to
leaching of natural radionuclides in the local soil and rock. None of the samples showed
detectable concentrations of tritium or gamma-emitting radionuclides.
Nonradioactive wastes, including sodium chloride, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, and
organics, have also been discharged to ponds within many of the operating areas. In the
past, wastewater also has been injected into deep disposal wells at the Test Reactor Area
and Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. The total dissolved solids concentrations of the
injected wastewaters were approximately twice those present in the natural groundwater
(IN USGS 1988a). There are no plans to use injection wells for disposal. Monitoring of the
Snake River Plain aquifer for nonradiological constituents, including sodium chloride,
total chromium, trace metals, and nitrates, showed concentrations for these contaminants
to be at or below background levels at least 2.5 miles inside the nearest site boundary
(DOE 1992e).
Only nonradioactive and nonhazardous liquid wastes are currently discharged into the
sanitary and service waste disposal systems. All hazardous and radioactive wastes are
stored or disposed of in approved facilities designed to preclude groundwater
contamination.
The 1991 groundwater data indicate that water quality at the proposed TSS is good with no
significant radionuclide or nonradionuclide contamination as shown in table 4.2.2.4-2.
Groundwater Availability, Use and Rights. The Snake River Plain aquifer is the source of
all water used at INEL (IN DOE 1991b). The combined pumpage of the 27 onsite production
wells average approximately 2,000 MGY (IN DOE 1991b). This is 0.3 percent of the 645,000
MGY of groundwater withdrawn from the aquifer in the Eastern Snake River Plain. Most of
the water withdrawn from the aquifer in the Eastern Snake River Plain (619,114MGY) is used
for agriculture (INDOE1986a). After use, approximately 63 percent of the quantity of
groundwater withdrawn at INEL is disposed of in wells and ponds.
In the INEL ROI, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, and Rigby maintain water supply systems. All of
the community drinking water systems draw their raw water from the Snake River Plain
aquifer. In 1991, the combined water supply capacity for these systems was approximately
142MGD. The combined demand averaged about 54MGD (38percent of capacity).
DOE has negotiated with the Idaho Department of Water Resources for water rights of 51.7
MGD, not to exceed 11,360 MGY, under the Federal Reserve Doctrine. Currently, INEL's total
water usage is 5.7MGD, representing 11 percent of the 51.7MGD current INEL negotiated
water rights.
Table 4.2.2.4-2.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, 1990-1991
Parameter Unit of Measure Water Quality Well No. NPR Test
Criteria and Standards
1,1-Dichloroethylene mg/l 0.007 < 0.0002
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.005 < 0.0002
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 d 3.1
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 d 2.2
Barium mg/l 2 d 0.084
Beryllium mg/l 0.004d < 0.0005
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.005d < 0.0002
Chromium mg/l 0.1d 0.006
Tritium pCi/l 20,000 d 74
Radon pCi/l NA 160
Strontium mg/l NA 300
Tetrachloroethylene mg/l 0.005d < 0.0002
Trichloroethylene mg/l 0.005d < 0.0002

4.2.2.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. INEL occupies a relatively flat area on the northwestern edge of the Eastern
Snake River Plain. The INEL area consists of a broad plain that has been built up from the
eruptions of multiple flows of basaltic lava. It is bordered by mountains on the north and
the overthrust belt on the east. The Eastern Snake River Plain consists of Miocene and
younger volcanic rocks that probably rest upon older sedimentary and plutonic rocks, as
well as faulted remains of Eocene volcanic rocks.
The oldest faults in the region occur both to the north and south of INEL and are
approximately 40 to 65million years old. The Arco segment of the Lost River fault and the
Howe segment of the Lemhi fault are range-front normal faults associated with the Basin
and Range Province and have been active during recent geologic time (100,000 to 15,000
years ago). They are considered to be the closest capable faults to INEL within the
definition of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A. These faults terminate approximately 19 miles from
the INEL boundary (figure 4.2.2.5-1).
INEL is located in Seismic Zone 2 (figure 4.2.2.5-2). Historically there have been several
earthquakes in the region surrounding INEL (figure 4.2.2.5-1). However, none of these
occurred within approximately 30 miles of the site. The largest historic earthquake
that has occurred near INEL took place in 1983, approximately 67 miles to the northwest
near Borah Peak in the Lost River Range. The earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 7.3 and
a modified Mercalli intensity of VI, with ground acceleration of 0.022 to 0.078 g at INEL
(table 4.2.2.5-1) (IN DOE 1991e; INEL 1985a). An earthquake of greater than 5.5magnitude
is to be expected approximately every 10 years within a 200-mile radius of INEL.
No major earthquake activity has occurred on the Eastern Snake River Plain. The only
recorded earthquake on the Eastern Snake River Plain with a magnitude greater than 5.5
was the 1905 event that had a magnitude of 5.7. Recent interpretations of the event,
however, have suggested that its epicenter was more likely to have been in Utah or Nevada.
The Snake River Plain region has been volcanically active for 400,000 years. The most
recent volcanism in the region consisted of lava flows that occurred approximately 1,500
to 2,000 years ago at the present site of Craters of the Moon National Monument. The
Hell's Half Acre lava flow, which crosses INEL east of the proposed TSS, dates to 4,100
years ago.
Possible future volcanic occurrences are postulated to be of the same type that took place
in the recent past, mainly lava flows. The mean recurrence interval for all types of
volcanic activity in the Arco-Big Southern Butte area is suggested to be 3,000years
(INUSGS1978a).
Figure (Page 4-30)
Figure 4.2.2.5-1.-Major Fault Systems and Historic Earthquakes in Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Region.
Figure (Page 4-31)
Figure 4.2.2.5-2.-Seismic Zone Map of the United States.
Table 4.2.2.5-1.-The Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931, with Approximate Correlations to
Richter Scale and Maximum Ground Acceleration
Modified Observed Effects of Earthquake Approximate Maximum
Mercalli Richter Ground
Intensity Magnitude Acceleration
I Usually not felt 2 negligible
II Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors or favorably placed 2-3 <0.003g
III Felt indoors; hanging objects swing; vibration like passing of light 3 0.003 to
truck occurs; might not be recognized as earthquake 0.007g
IV Felt noticeably by persons indoors, especially in upper floors; 4 0.007 to
vibration occurs like passing of heavy truck; jolting sensation; 0.015g
standing automobiles rock; windows, dishes, and doors rattle;
wooden walls and frames may creak
V Felt by nearly everyone; sleepers awaken; liquids disturbed and may 5 0.015 to
spill; some dishes break; small unstable objects are displaced or 0.03g
upset; doors swing; shutters and pictures move; pendulum clocks
stop or start
VI Felt by all; many are frightened; persons walk unsteadily; windows 6 0.03 to
and dishes break; objects fall off shelves and pictures fall off 0.09g
walls; furniture moves or overturns; weak masonry cracks; small
bells ring; trees and bushes shake
VII Difficult to stand; noticed by car drivers; furniture breaks; damage 7 0.07 to
moderate in well built ordinary structures; poor quality masonry 0.22g
cracks and breaks; chimneys break at roof line; loose bricks,
stones, and tiles fall; waves appear on ponds and water is turbid
with mud; small earthslides; large bells ring
VIII Automobile steering affected; some walls fall; twisting and falling - 0.15 to
of chimneys, stacks, and towers; frame houses shift if on 0.3g
unsecured foundations; damage slight in specially designed
structures, considerable in ordinary substantial buildings; changes
in flow of wells or springs; cracks appear in wet ground and steep
slopes
IX General panic; masonry heavily damaged or destroyed; foundations 8 0.3 to
damaged; serious damage to frame structures, dams and 0.7g
reservoirs; underground pipes break; conspicuous ground cracks
X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; some well built - 0.45 to
wooden structures and bridges destroyed; serious damage to dams 1.5g
and dikes; large landslides; rails bent
XI Rails bent greatly; underground pipelines completely out of service 8+ 0.5 to 3g
XII Damage nearly total; large rocks masses displaced; objects thrown - 0.5 to 7g
into air; lines of sight distorted
Soils. INEL soils are derived from volcanic and clastic rocks from nearby highlands (IN
DOE 1986a). In the southern part of INEL, the soils are gravelly to rocky and generally
shallow. The northern portion is composed mostly of unconsolidated clay, silt, and sand.
There is no Soil Conservation Service soil survey of Butte County. Consequently, there are
few data available for the soils found at the proposed TSS. Generally, the soils are
acceptable for standard construction techniques and consist of wind-blown sand and silt
lying in patches over a bedrock of basaltic lava. These soils have a low-to-moderate water
erosion hazard and a moderate-to-high wind erodibility. Shrink-swell potential is
generally low-to-moderate.

4.2.2.6 Biotic Resources
The following describes biotic resources at INEL including terrestrial resources,
wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. Within each biotic
resource area, the discussion focuses first on INEL as a whole and then on the proposed
TSS. Scientific names of species identified in the text are presented in appendix C. Also
presented in appendix C is a list of threatened and endangered species that may be found
on the site or in the vicinity of INEL.
Terrestrial Resources. INEL lies in a cool desert ecosystem dominated by shrub-steppe
communities. Most land within the site is relatively undisturbed and provides important
habitats for species native to the region. Facilities and operating areas occupy 2percent
of INEL; approximately 60 percent of the areas around the periphery of the site is grazed
by sheep and cattle (DOE 1992e:4-76). Although sagebrush communities occupy about
80percent of INEL, a total of 20 plant communities have been identified (figure
4.2.2.6-1). The interspersion of low and big sagebrush communities in the northern portion
of INEL, and the juniper communities located in the northwestern and southeastern portions
of the site, are considered sensitive habitats (INDOE1986a:4,8). The former provides
critical winter and spring range for sage grouse and pronghorn, while the latter is
important to nesting raptors and songbirds. These sensitive habitats are located no closer
than 8 miles from the proposed TSS. Riparian vegetation, primarily cottonwood and willow,
along the Big Lost River and Birch Creek also provides nesting habitat for hawks, owls,
and songbirds (DOE 1992e:4-76). In total, 399 plant species have been documented on INEL
(IN DOE 1978a:129-223; INDOE 1984a).
Within the proposed TSS, shallow soils (which occupy most of the area) are dominated by
big sagebrush. In low-lying areas of deep soil, the dominant vegetation is perennial
grasses. Isolated stands of juniper also exist in the area (DOE 1992e:4-76). Cheatgrass,
an aggressive European annual which readily replaces native species in disturbed areas, is
also present.
INEL supports numerous animal species, including 1amphibian, 9 reptile, 184 bird, and
37mammal species (DOE 1992e:4-76). Common animals on INEL include the short-horned lizard,
gopher snake, sage sparrow, Townsend's ground squirrel, and blacktailed jackrabbit.
Important game animals include the sage grouse, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. During some
winters 4,500 to 6,000 pronghorn, or about 30 percent of Idaho's total population, may be
found on INEL. Pronghorn wintering areas are located in the northeastern portion of the
site, in the area of the Big Lost River sinks, in the west central portion of the site
along the Big Lost River, and in the south central portion of the site (IN DOE 1978a:222).
The latter two areas are both about 4 miles from the proposed TSS. Hunting is permitted
only within one-half mile of the northern site boundary. Pronghorn, which is the only
species taken, are hunted in order to control damage to agricultural land (INEL1992a:2).
Numerous raptors and carnivores are also found on INEL and include the golden eagle and
prairie falcon, and coyote and mountain lion, respectively (INDOE1986a:7). A variety of
migratory birds has been found at INEL. Migratory birds, their nests and eggs, are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eagles are similarly protected by the Bald and
Golden Eagle ProtectionAct.
Extensive wildlife surveys of the proposed TSS have not been conducted. However, due to
the similarity of habitat conditions on the site to other areas of INEL, animal species
composition would be expected to closely resemble that of the rest of INEL. Pronghorn use
of the area is relatively low (DOE 1992h:4-76).
Wetlands. The Big Lost River spreading areas and Big Lost River sinks are seasonal
wetlands and are located approximately 10miles southwest and 12miles north of the proposed
TSS, respectively (figure 4.2.2.4-1). These areas can provide more than 2,000acres of
wetland habitat during wet years. Riparian wetland vegetation exists along the Big Lost
River and along Birch Creek. Plants found along the Big Lost River, which is located 1.5
miles west of the proposed TSS, are in poor condition due to recent years of only
intermittent flows. The river has flowed onsite most recently in 1986 and 1993.
National Wetland Inventory maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
have been completed for most of INEL. The National Wetland Inventory maps indicate that
the primary wetland areas are associated with the Big Lost River, the Big Lost River
Spreading Areas, and the Big Lost River sinks (figure 4.2.2.4-1), although smaller (less
than 1acre) isolated wetlands also occur. Wetlands associated with the Big Lost River
are classified as riverine/intermittent, indicating a defined stream channel with
flowing water during only part of the year. The National Wetland Inventory maps indicate
that there are no designated wetlands in the area of the proposed TSS.
Figure (Page 4-34)
Figure 4.2.2.6-1.-Distribution of Plant Communities at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic habitat is limited to the Big Lost River, Little Lost River,
Birch Creek, and a number of liquid-waste disposal ponds (figure4.2.2.4-1). All three
streams are intermittent and drain into 4 sinks in the north-central part of INEL. Five
species of fish have been observed in the Big Lost River including trout, mountain
whitefish, speckled dace, shorthead sculpin, and kokanee salmon (DOE 1992e:4-78; DOE
1992h:6-11). Due to drought and upstream diversions, the Big Lost River has flowed onto
the site only once since 1986 (i.e., in 1993).
The Little Lost River, located west of the site, and Birch Creek, located north of the
proposed TSS, enter INEL only during periods of high flow (IN DOE nda:22). Surveys of fish
in these surface water bodies have not been conducted. The liquid waste disposal ponds on
INEL, while considered aquatic habitat, do not support fish (INEL 1992a:4). No aquatic
habitat occurs on the proposed TSS, located about 1.5 miles east of the Big Lost River.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Twenty-five Federal- and state-listed threatened,
endangered, and other special status species have been identified on and in the vicinity
of INEL (appendix table C-2). Five of these species may occur in the vicinity of the
proposed TSS (table 4.2.2.6-1). Nocritical habitat for threatened or endangered species,
as defined in the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11; 50CFR17.12), exists on INEL (DOE
1992e:4-78).
Table 4.2.2.6-1.-Federal- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special
Status Species That May Be Found On the Site or In the Vicinity of the Proposed Tritium
Supply Site at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Species Status Known or Potential Habitat/Location
- Federal State -
Mammals - - -
Pygmy rabbit C2 NL Tall sagebrush clumps
Townsend's western big-eared bat C2 SSC Cave roost, forage throughout
Birds - - -
Ferruginous hawk C2 SSC Dry, open country - forage/nest
Loggerhead shrike C2 NL Semi-open areas with lookout perch
Plants - - -
Tree-like oxytheca NL S Sandy areas in sagebrush zone
The pygmy rabbit is common on INEL, but its distribution is patchy (DOE 1994e:4.9-4).
The Townsend's western big-eared bat, which roosts in caves on INEL, has not been observed
in the area of the proposed TSS, but could potentially occur. The ferruginous hawk is
expected to use the proposed site area on a regular basis (DOE 1992e:5-137, 5-138).
Nesting habitat exists for the loggerhead shrike, which is found throughout the site.
Federal candidate species do not receive legal protection under the Endangered Species
Act, but USFWS recommends that impacts to these species be considered in project planning
since these species may become listed in the future.
The State of Idaho does not maintain a list of threatened or endangered plant species.
Plants that are considered rare in Idaho are included in a State Watch List. Only the
tree-like oxytheca, listed by the state as a sensitive species, has been found in the area
of the proposed TSS (DOE 1992e:4-79).

4.2.2.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric site types identified on INEL include residential
bases, campsites, rockshelters, hunting blinds, rock alignments, lithic quarries, and
limited activity locations including lithic and ceramic scatters, hearths, and concentra-
tions of fire-affected rock. Since 1984, 93 cultural resource surveys have been conducted,
and approximately 4percent of INEL has been inventoried for cultural resources. Of the
803 prehistoric sites that have been recorded, approximately 95 percent are lithic
scatters or locations. Most have not been formally evaluated and are considered
potentially eligible for the NRHP.
Cultural resources surveys of the proposed TSS and potential access corridors have
identified 14sites with buried remains, 3 stone circle sites, 42 lithic scatters, and
1prehistoric/historic site (INEL1991a:4). Approximately 19 percent of the proposed TSS has
been intensively surveyed and the remaining area has received only reconnaissance-level
study. Based on current studies, additional sites are likely to occur and are regarded as
potentially eligible for the NRHP, pending further evaluation.
Historic Resources. About 30 historic resources have been identified; most are related to
either agriculture (e.g., homesteads and canals) or ranching (e.g., sheep and cattle
camps). The Experimental Breeder Reactor I, the first reactor to achieve a self-
sustaining chain reaction using plutonium instead of uranium as the principal fuel
component, is listed on the NHRP and is designated a National Historic Landmark. Goodale's
Cutoff, a spur of the Oregon Trail, is still recognizable in the southwestern corner of
INEL. Various other nuclear reactors and associated buildings, such as those at
Auxiliary Reactor Area-I, -II, -III, the Borax Reactor, Materials Test Reactor,
Engineering Test Reactor, and the Hot Shop, are considered eligible for the NRHP
(INEL1991a:1). Although such facilities are not 50 years old, they are of exceptional
scientific and engineering significance and have played major roles in the development
of nuclear science since World War II.
Only one site with historic content has been identified on the proposed TSS. The historic
content consists of early household debris and may be potentially eligible for the NRHP,
pending further evaluation. Based on current studies, additional historic sites are likely
to occur in unsurveyed portions of the proposed TSS.
Native American Resources. At the time of Euro-American contact, the area was inhabited
by nomadic hunters and gatherers consisting of two linguistically distinct groups: the
Shoshone and the Bannock. Horses enabled the Shoshone and the Bannock to increase their
foraging range, congregate in larger groups, and protect their possessions from other
groups. Winter camps were reportedly scattered along major river drainages. Groups
dispersed during the other seasons, probably moving across what is now INEL as they
utilized floral and faunal resources and obsidian from Big Southern Butte or Howe Point.
Important Native American resources that might be found in the proposed TSS include
buttes, caves, village shrines, rock art, burials, and vision quest sites. It is worth
noting that many natural resources at INEL are viewed as cultural resources by Native
Americans. As one example, sagebrush is used as a tool, and for clothing and medicinal
purposes. INEL recently initiated general consultation with the Shoshone and Bannock
tribes. While specific sites or traditional use areas have not yet been identified, the
Shoshone and Bannock tribes consider INEL part of their ancestral homeland and have
expressed support for the use of scientific methods to preserve cultural resources.
Paleontological Resources. No paleontological localities have been identified within the
proposed TSS. No lava tubes, caves, or rock shelters that might be expected to contain
fossils are visible on the surface. However, lava tubes and caves containing
paleontological materials may be buried beneath the aeolian sediments. Because these
assemblages may contain both vertebrate and floral remains, such localities would have
high research potential.

4.2.2.8 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic characteristics described for INEL include employment and local economy,
population, housing, public finance, and local transportation. Statistics for economy
characteristics are presented for the regional economic area that encompasses 13counties
around INEL (appendix table D.2.1-2). The regional economic area is a broad labor and
product market-based region linked by trade among economic sectors within the region.
Statistics for population and housing, public finance, and local transportation are
presented for the ROI, a 5-county area in which 98 percent of all INEL employees reside:
Bannock County (5 percent), Bingham County (9 percent), Bonneville County (76 percent),
Butte County (2 percent), and Jefferson County (6percent). (See figure 4.2-1 for a map of
counties and cities.) Fiscal characteristics of the jurisdictions in the INEL ROI are
presented in the public finance section in appendix tables D.3-11 and D.3-12. The school
districts most likely to be affected by the proposed action include Arco, Blackfoot,
Bonneville, Idaho Falls, Jefferson, Pocatello, Ririe, Shelley, Snake River, and West
Jefferson. Assumptions, assessment methodologies, and supporting data are presented in
appendix D.
Regional Economy Characteristics. Employment and local economy statistics for the INEL
regional economic area are presented in appendix table D.3-2 and summarized in figure
4.2.2.8-1. Between 1970 and 1990, the civilian labor force in the regional economic area
increased 53 percent. The unemployment rate in the regional economic area in 1990 was
slightly higher than the State of Idaho rate and the 1990 per capita income was slightly
lower than the state per capita income.
As shown in figure 4.2.2.8-1, the percentage of total employment involving farming and
governmental activities in the regional economic area was approximately the same as in
the state. Nonfarm private sector activities of manufacturing, retail trade, and services
were similar in the regional economic area and the state overall, except that the state
had a higher percentage of employment in manufacturing while the regional economic area
had a higher percentage in services.
In 1990, INEL employed 11,100 persons (8.7 percent of the total regional economic area
employment), increasing from 6,755 persons in 1970. Historical and future employment at
INEL and the distribution of INEL employees by place of residence in the ROI are presented
in appendix tables D.2.1-1 and D.3.-1, respectively.
Population and Housing. Population and housing distribution in the ROI is presented in
appendix tables D.3-5 and D.3-8 and summarized in figure 4.2.2.8-2. Overall, the percent
increase in population in the ROI from 1970 to 1990 was 9 percent lower than the state
population increase.
The counties of Bonneville and Jefferson experienced population increases between 1970
and 1990 approximately equal to that of the state, while the counties of Bannock and
Bingham experienced a growth rate 15 percent lower than that of the state. Butte County
experienced a slight population decrease (less than 1 percent) between 1970 and 1990.
Between 1970 and 1990, housing units in the ROI experienced a slightly lower (8 percent)
increase compared to state housing unit increases. Homeowner and rental vacancy rates in
the ROI in 1990 were similar to those of the state.
Public Finance. Financial characteristics of the local jurisdictions in the ROI that are
most likely to be affected by the proposed action include total revenues and expenditures
of each jurisdiction's general fund, special revenue funds, and, as applicable, debt
service, capital project, and expendable trust funds. School district boundaries may or
may not coincide with county or city boundaries, but the districts are presented under the
county where they primarily provide services. Major revenue and expenditure fund
categories for counties, cities, and school districts are presented in appendix tables
D.3-11 and D.3-12, and figure 4.2.2.8-3 summarizes local governments' revenues less their
expenditures.
Local Transportation. Vehicular access to INEL is provided by U.S. Routes 20 and 26 to the
south and State Routes 22 and 33 to the north. Both U.S. Routes 20 and 26 and State Routes
22 and 33 share rights-of-way adjacent to INEL (figure 4.2-1). Road segments providing
access to INEL experience varying levels of traffic congestion. Potential disruptions to
the traffic flow caused by accidents or maintenance activities are usually minor. No
major improvements are scheduled for those roadway segments providing immediate access to
INEL (figure 4.2.1-1) (IN DOT 1991a).
Figure (Page 4-38)
Figure 4.2.2.8-1.-Economy for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Regional Economic
Area.
Figure (Page 4-39)
Figure 4.2.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Region
of Influence [Page 1 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-40)
Figure 4.2.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Region
of Influence [Page 2 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-41)
Figure 4.2.2.8-3.-1992 Local Government Public Finance for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Region of Influence.
A fleet of government-owned, contractor-operated passenger buses operates between INEL
facilities and communities within the ROI. Approximately 4,000 employees use this
transportation daily. The major railroad in the ROI is the Union Pacific Railroad. The
railroad's MacKay branch provides rail service to the southern portion of INEL. A
DOE-owned spur connects the Union Pacific Railroad to INEL by a junction at Scoville
Siding. There are no navigable waterways within the ROI capable of accommodating
waterborne transportation of material shipments to INEL.
Fanning Field in Idaho Falls and Pocatello Municipal Airport in Pocatello provide jet air
passenger and cargo service from both national and local carriers. Numerous smaller
private airports are located throughout the ROI (IN DOT 1991a).

4.2.2.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
The following provides a description of the radiation and hazardous chemical environment
at INEL. Also included are discussions of health effects studies, emergency preparedness
considerations, and an accident history.
Radiation Environment. Major sources of background radiation exposure to individuals in
the vicinity of INEL are shown on table 4.2.2.9-1. All annual doses to individuals from
background radiation are expected to remain constant over time. Accordingly, the
incremental total dose to the population would result only from changes in the size of the
population. Background radiation doses are unrelated to INEL operations.
Releases of radionuclides to the environment from INEL operations provide another source
of radiation exposure to individuals in the vicinity of INEL. The radionuclides and
quantities released from INEL operations in 1992 are listed in The Idaho National
Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1992 (DOE/ID-12082 (92)). The doses
to the public resulting from these releases are presented in table 4.2.2.9-2. These doses
fall within radiological limits (DOE Order 5400.5) and are small in comparison to
background radiation. The releases listed in the 1992 report were used in the
development of the reference environment (No Action) radiological releases at INEL in the
year 2010 (section 4.2.3.9).
Table 4.2.2.9-1.-Sources of Radiation Exposure to Individuals in the Vicinity, Unrelated
to Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Operations, 1992
Source Committed
Effective Dose
Equivalent
(mrem/yr)
Natural Background Radiation -
Cosmic radiation 39
External terrestrial radiation 74
Internal terrestrial radiation 40
Radon in homes (inhaled) 200
Other Background Radiation -
Diagnostic x-rays and nuclear 53
medicine
Weapons test fallout <1
Air travel 1
Consumer and industrial products 10
Total 418
Based on a risk estimator of 500 cancer deaths per 1million person-rem to the public
(appendix sectionE.2), the fatal cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public
due to radiological releases from INEL operations in 1992 is estimated to be approximately
2.0x10-9. That is, the estimated probability of this person dying of cancer at some point
in the future from radiation exposure associated with 1year of INEL operations is about 2
chances in 1billion. (Note that it takes several to many years from the time of exposure
to radiation for a cancer to manifest itself.) Approximately 1.5x10-5 excess fatal cancers
were estimated from normal operations in 1992 to the population living within 50 miles of
INEL. To place this number into perspective, it can be compared with the number of fatal
cancers expected in this population from all causes. The 1990 mortality rate, associated
with cancer, for the entire U.S. population was 0.2 percent per year (Almanac 1993a:839).
Based on this national mortality rate, the number of fatal cancers from all causes
expected during 1992 in the population living within 50 miles of INEL was 243. This number
of expected fatal cancers is much higher than the estimated 1.5x10-5 fatal cancers that
could result from INEL operations in 1992.
Table 4.2.2.9-2.-Doses to the General Public from Normal Operations at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, 1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Atmospheric Liquid Total
Releases Releases
Affected Environment Standard Actual Standarda Actualb Standarda Actual
Maximally exposed individual (mrem) 10 0.004 4 0 100 0.004
Population within 50 miles (person-rem) None 0.03 None 0 100 0.03
Average individual within 50 miles (mrem) None 0.00025 None 0 None 0.00025
Workers receive the same dose as the general public from background radiation, but also
receive an additional dose from working in the facilities. Table 4.2.2.9-2 includes the
average, maximum, and total occupational doses to INEL workers from operations in 1992.
These doses fall within radiological limits (10 CFR 835). Based on a risk estimator of 400
fatal cancers per 1million person-rem among workers (appendix section E.2), the number of
excess fatal cancers to INEL workers from operations in 1992 is estimated to be 0.030.
A more detailed presentation of the radiation environment, including background
exposures and radiological releases and doses, is presented in The Idaho National
Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1992 (DOE/ID-12082(92)). The con-
centrations of radioactivity in various environmental media (air, water, and soil) in the
site region (onsite and offsite) are also presented in that document. INEL operations
contribute negligible radioactivity to these media.
Table 4.2.2.9-3.-Doses to the Worker Onsite from Normal Operations at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, 1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Onsite Releases
and Direct
Radiation
Affected Environment Standard Actual
Average worker (mrem) None 14.2
Maximally exposed worker (mrem) 5,000 1,000
Total workers (person-rem) None 75
Chemical Environment. The background chemical environment important to human health
consists of: the atmosphere, which may contain toxic chemicals which can be inhaled;
drinking water, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be ingested; and other
environmental media with which people may come in contact (e.g., surface waters during
swimming and soil through direct contact or via the food pathway). The baseline data for
assessing potential health impacts from the chemical environment are those presented in
sections 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4.
Health impacts to the public can be minimized through effective administrative and design
controls for decreasing pollutant releases to the environment and achieving compliance
with permit requirements, (e.g., air emissions and NPDES permit requirements). The
effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use of monitoring information and
inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts to the public may occur during normal
operation via inhalation of air containing pollutants released to the atmosphere by INEL
operations. Risks to public health from other possible pathways, such as ingestion of
contaminated drinking water or direct exposure, are low relative to the inhalation
pathway. The risk to public health from water ingestion and direct exposure pathways is
low because the surface water resource (Big Lost River) is not used either for drinking or
as a receptor for wastewater discharges and because monitoring of groundwater contami-
nated from INEL operations indicates contamination is generally below threshold levels of
concentration. If concentrations are above threshold levels of concentration,
appropriate treatment is performed.
Baseline air emission concentrations for hazardous/toxic air pollutants and their
applicable standards are presented in section 4.2.2.3. These concentrations are
estimates of the highest existing offsite concentrations and represent the highest
concentrations to which members of the public could be exposed. These concentrations are
in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. Information about estimating
health impacts from hazardous/toxic chemicals is presented in appendix section E.3.
Health impacts to INEL workers during normal operation may include those from: inhalation
of the workplace atmosphere, drinking INEL potable water, and possible other contact with
hazardous materials associated with work assignments. The potential for health impacts
varies from facility to facility and from worker to worker, and available information is
not sufficient to allow a meaningful estimation and summation of these impacts. However,
workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through appropriate training,
protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. INEL workers are also protected
by adherence to occupational standards that limit workplace atmospheric and drinking
water concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Monitoring ensures that these
standards are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements (DOE Order 3790.1B) ensure that
conditions in the workplace are as free as possible from recognized hazards that cause
or are likely to cause illness or physical harm. Therefore, worker health conditions at
INEL are expected to be substantially better than required by the standards.
Health Effects Studies. Two epidemiological studies have been conducted on the communities
that surround INEL to determine if there are any excess cancers in the general population;
no occupational epidemiological studies have been conducted at INEL to date. No excess
cancer mortality was reported, although excess cancer incidence was observed. However, no
association of the excess cancer incidence with INEL was established. For a more detailed
description of the study findings reviewed, refer to appendix section E.4.2.
Accident History. A recent study was conducted by DOE Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Historical Dose Evaluation (DOE/ID-12119) to estimate the potential offsite
radiation doses for the entire operating history of INEL. Releases resulted from a variety
of tests and experiments as well as a few accidents at INEL. The study concluded that
these releases have made a substantial contribution to the total radiation dose during
test programs of the 1950s and early 1960s. The frequency and size of releases has
declined since that time. Based on information reported in the study, there have been no
serious unplanned or accidental releases of radioactivity or other hazardous substance at
INEL facilities in the last 10 years of operation.
Emergency Preparedness. In the event of an accident, each DOE site has established an
emergency management program. This program has been developed and maintained to ensure
adequate response for most accident conditions and to provide response efforts for
accidents not specifically considered. The emergency management program incorporates
activities associated with emergency planning, preparedness, and response. Section 4.1.9
provides a description of DOE's emergency preparedness program.
Participating government agencies whose plans are interrelated with the INEL Emergency
Plan for Action include the State of Idaho, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte
County, Clark County, Jefferson County, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. INEL contractors are responsible for responding to emergencies that occur at
their facilities. When an emergency condition exists at a contractor facility, the
Emergency Action Director is responsible for recognition, classification, notifications,
and protective action recommendations. At INEL, emergency preparedness resources include
fire protection from onsite and offsite locations and radiological and hazardous chemical
material response. Emergency response facilities include an emergency control center at
each facility, the INEL warning communication center, and the INEL site emergency
operations center. There are also seven INEL medical facilities available to provide
routing and emergency service (INEL 1991a:2).

4.2.2.10 Waste Management
This section outlines the major environmental regulatory structure and ongoing waste
management activities for INEL. A more detailed discussion of the ongoing waste
management operations is provided in appendix section H.2.1. Table 4.2.2.10-1 presents a
summary of waste management activities at INEL for 1992.
The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address
compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at INEL. The
Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory
compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain
schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties
for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones.
Table 4.2.2.10-1.-Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory [Page 1 of 2]
Category 1992 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear 0.4 metric ton Conditioning and Under Pools, dry facility Under None, federal None
Fuel heavy metal stabilization assessment assessmentb repository in
the future
High-level - - - - - - -
Liquid 1,570 Evaporation, 3,000 Tank farm, after 17,500 NA NA
(317,059 gal) calcination (606,000 GPY) evaporation prior (3,530,000 gal)
to calcination
Solid None Under development Planned Bins inside 9,267 None, federal None
concrete vaults repository in the
future
Transuranic - - - - - - -
Liquid None NA NA NA NA NA NA
Solid 1 Under development Expandable as Asphalt pads and Under None, federal None
required vaults in the assessmentb repository in the
ground or under future
earthen cover or
tarps
Low-level - - - - - - -
Liquid None Evaporation 15,993 Tank farm after Included in HLW NA NA
(3,230,365 GPY) evaporation prior
to calcination
Solid 14,757 Incineration and 2,300 NA NA Onsite burial 235,345d
compaction
Mixed - - - - - - -
Liquid 6.6 Evaporation, 14,400 Tank farm Included in HLW None None
(1,341 gal) fractionation, (2,900,000 GPY)
and calcination
Solid 67 Incineration and 64,900 Mixed waste and 2,300 None None
compaction WERF storage
facilities,
radioactive
sodium storage
facilities
Hazardous - - - - - - -
Liquid Included in solid Offsite and Under Percolation ponds Under Offsitef NA
percolation assessmentb assessmentb
ponds
Solid 1,092 Offsite NA Hazardous waste Under Offsite NA
storage facility assessmentb
Nonhazardous - - - - - - -
(Sanitary)
Liquid 66,446 Percolation ponds NA NA NA NA NA
(13,422,173 gal)
Nonhazardous - - - - - - -
(Other)
Liquid Included in sanitary Recycle NA NA NA NA NA
Solid 81,058 Segregate and NA NA NA Industrial and 2,400,000 to
recycle asbestos waste 4,000,000
landfills
EPA placed INEL on the NPL on December21,1989. DOE has entered into a Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order with EPA and the State of Idaho to coordinate cleanup
activities at INEL under a comprehensive strategy. This agreement integrates DOE's CERCLA
response obligations with RCRA and Hazardous Waste Management Act corrective action
obligations. In this process, INEL has been divided into 10 waste area groups. Each group
is subdivided into separate operable units which are groupings of potential release sites
that are considered together for assessment and cleanup activities. Ongoing assessments
are characterizing the nature and extent of contamination. Aggressive plans are in place
to achieve early remediation of sites that represent the greatest risk to workers and the
public. The goal is to complete remediation of contaminated sites at INEL to support
delisting from the NPL by 2019.
INEL manages spent nuclear fuel and the following waste categories: high-level,
transuranic (TRU), low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous. A discussion of the
waste management operations associated with each of these categories follows.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. Spent nuclear fuel had been stored and processed at the Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant. Processing was terminated with DOE's decision not to reprocess spent
nuclear fuel to recover useful isotopes. INEL has received spent fuel from Three Mile
Island, reactor tests, and the gas-cooled reactor and naval reactors programs. Spent
nuclear fuel from these programs and from reactor experiments at INEL is in storage in
various locations. The bulk of the fuel is stored at the Idaho Chemical Processing
Plant. Interim management of the spent nuclear fuel (pending the availability of a
geologic repository) will be in accordance with the ROD published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 28680) on June 1, 1995, for the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS (DOE/EIS-0203-F).
Preparations will be made to implement the ROD and consolidate nonaluminum clad spend
nuclear fuel at INEL on a basis consistent with risk priorities and budget constraints.
High-Level Waste. High-level waste (HLW) at INEL was generated in the process of
extracting useful isotopes from spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.
Most of this fuel was from the naval reactors program. Most aqueous solutions from spent
fuel processing and isotope extraction were concentrated by evaporation and separated into
low-level and high-level waste streams in the Process Equipment Waste Evaporator. The
liquid HLW is stored in subsurface tanks and then transformed into solid metallic oxides
in a granular form by calcination. The majority of the waste in storage tanks contains
sodium and cannot be calcined directly. New equipment is being installed to permit
resumption of calcination in 1996. The calcine is stored in stainless steel bins in
near-surface concrete vaults where it awaits further processing into a form suitable for
emplacement in a Federal repository. Technologies are being tested that would convert the
calcine into an immobilized form suitable for storage under RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions, and meeting waste acceptance criteria for a Federal repository. The Idaho
Operations Office has prepared a No-Migration Variance Petition to be submitted to EPA for
the continued storage of calcine. Calcination will continue and new storage facilities
will be added as necessary until all the liquid HLW is stabilized.
Transuranic Waste. TRU wastes are stored at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. The
inventory represents more than one-half of the total DOE inventory. There is very little
TRU waste generation at INEL. Most of the TRU waste in storage was received from the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (formerly known as the Rocky Flats Plant). Since
1989, there has been a moratorium on the receipt of TRU wastes from out-of-state
facilities; however, shipments may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. TRU wastes are
currently being stored pending the outcome of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Test
Program to determine the suitability of WIPP to serve as a repository for these wastes.
Assuming WIPP is determined to be a suitable repository for these wastes, pursuant to
the requirements of 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 268, these wastes will be treated to meet the
WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria and packaged in accordance with DOE and NRC requirements
for transport to WIPP for disposal.
Prior to 1970, when the Atomic Energy Commission required segregation of TRU waste from
other wastes, TRU wastes were buried in earthen trenches at the Radioactive Waste
Management Complex. This waste must be retrieved and repackaged to meet the current WIPP
Waste Acceptance Criteria. Wastes generated or received from offsite since 1970 are stored
in a form designed for eventual retrieval. Since 1972, TRU wastes have been stored on Pad
A in the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Most of this waste will require
certification and repackaging. A new facility, the Idaho Waste Processing Facility, is
being designed to accomplish this task. Some waste has radioactivity levels high enough
that there are no certified or licensed transportation capabilities for it. Further
study will be required for its eventual disposal. While the EPA has issued a Notice of
Noncompliance for TRU waste stored at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, a proposed
plan for the treatment and storage of TRU wastes has been documented in the Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent Order, which addresses EPA and State of Idaho concerns,
while also meeting DOE's concerns for worker protection.
Most of the mixed TRU waste at INEL requires retrieval, treatment, and repackaging in
order to meet the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria. Additional facilities at other areas of
INEL are planned for the treatment of mixed waste, rendering it acceptable for disposal.
The specifics of their Site Treatment Plan will be detailed pursuant to the requirements
of the Federal Facility Compliance Act and as negotiated with the State of Idaho and EPA.
Some of the waste now handled as TRU or mixed TRU is alpha-contaminated LLW and mixed
LLW. A strategy for treatment and disposal of this waste has yet to be established. Onsite
and offsite treatment is being investigated.
Low-Level Waste. The bulk of LLW generated at INEL is the result of work in contaminated
areas, and consists of materials such as rags, bags, scrap metal, and used protective
clothing. A large volume of LLW is generated in the decontamination and decommissioning
activities associated with environmental restoration. These materials must be treated by
the operating facility to meet the waste acceptance criteria of the receiving facility,
and their conformity to these criteria must be inspected by the receiving facility. Solid
LLW at INEL is sent to the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility for compaction, sizing,
incineration, and stabilization prior to shipment for disposal at the Radioactive Waste
Management Complex. The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility, shut down while
undergoing a revision of processes and procedures, is currently in startup and is expected
to be in operation in 1996.
Mixed Low-Level Waste. The volume of mixed LLW waste generated at INEL is small. This
mixed waste is stored in several areas onsite awaiting treatment capacities to be
developed to treat the specific nature of a wide variety of different mixed waste streams.
Organic mixed LLW is planned to be processed through the Waste Experimental Reduction
Facility incinerator to the established Land Disposal Restrictions treatment standards.
The resulting ash will be immobilized and disposed of as LLW. The use of commercial
treatment facilities is also being considered. Large volumes of wastewater are processed
in the Process Equipment Waste Evaporator, resulting in a concentrated mixed waste that
is sent to the HLW tank farm and eventually stabilized in a fluidized bed calciner.
Condensate from the Process Equipment Waste Evaporator is converted into a concentrated
acidic solution in the Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility. This concentrate is either
recycled as a scrubber solution for the calciner or sent to the HLW tank farm for storage.
The Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility eliminates residual discharge of
hazardous/radioactive contaminants into wastewater percolation ponds, which was the former
practice, in accordance with a Consent Order signed on October7, 1992. Stored and newly
generated mixed LLW will be treated at the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility
incinerator, the Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment Project, and the Sodium Processing
Facility through generator treatment plans developed under 40 CFR 262.34.
Hazardous Waste. Hazardous wastes are generated at the widely separated facilities at INEL
and sent to the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility in the Central Facilities Area. There it
is staged for shipment offsite to commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal
facilities. DOE has temporarily prohibited offsite shipments pending development of a
system for the certification that the wastes have no radioactive content (are not mixed
waste). Facilities to convert sodium hydroxide to a disposable waste form are planned at
Argonne National Laboratory-West.
Nonhazardous Waste. Nonhazardous waste generated at INEL facilities is disposed of onsite
in a landfill complex in the Central Facilities Area and at the Bonneville County
landfill. The current landfill complex contains separate areas for sanitary, industrial,
and asbestos waste. In accordance with terms of the Consent Order dated October 7, 1992,
sewage is directed to surface impoundments and the water is allowed to evaporate. The
resulting sludge is placed in the landfill. Solids are separated and reclaimed where
possible. The goal of the INEL waste minimization program is to reduce the nonhazardous
waste quantities generated by 50 percent over the next 5 years. Continuation of existing
programs will require expansion of the industrial/commercial landfill, adding 225 acres to
provide capacity for the next 30 years.

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts of constructing and operating various
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at INEL, which are described in
sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. The section begins by describing potential impacts to existing
and planned facilities at INEL, followed by descriptions of potential impacts and the
environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives on potentially affected environmental
resources. The section concludes by describing the potential impacts of tritium supply and
recycling on human health during normal operation, the consequences of facility accidents,
and regulatory considerations and waste management. Each description addresses the effects
of No Action and the potential impacts and environmental impacts of constructing and
operating any of the tritium supply technologies and collocated recycling facilities or
tritium supply facilities alone at INEL.

4.2.3.1 Land Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at INEL would affect
land resources, including land use and visual resources. Potential impacts to these
resources are summarized below.
INEL has sufficient land area to accommodate any of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and collocated recycling facilities or tritium supply facilities alone.
These facilities would be located within the proposed 600-acre TSS. The construction and
operation of any of the facilities would be consistent with the external views of INEL.
The following sections present the effects of proposed alternatives on land resources.
Land Use
No Action. Under No Action, no additional land use impacts are anticipated at INEL beyond
the effects of existing and future activities that are independent of the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Any one of the tritium supply technologies and collocated
tritium recycling facilities (section 3.4) or tritium supply alone could be sited within
the proposed TSS (figure 4.2.2.1-1). Land requirements for the tritium facilities are
presented in table 4.2.3.1-1. The land area affected ranges from 360 acres for the MHTGR
to 173 acres for the APT. An additional 196 acres would be required if the tritium supply
facility is collocated with a new recycling facility. Construction and operation of the
tritium facilities would be consistent with the INEL Landlord Site Development Plan, and
would not affect prime farmland, grazing allotments, other agricultural activities, or
other land uses on the site.
No tritium facilities would be constructed offsite, and offsite land use would not be
directly affected. Offsite undeveloped land is available and could be converted to
residential developments to house workers. Such development would be subject to local land
use controls and zoning ordinances, which vary by jurisdiction.
Table 4.2.3.1-1.-Potential Changes to Land Use Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies
and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Indicator Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Land requirements (acres) 260 360 350 173 196
Available land, (percent) 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.04
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity to
meet a tritium supply requirement less than baseline, or the construction and operation of
a Phased APT would not change potential baseline tritium requirement land use impacts
described above. Land requirements would be the same in both operation scenarios.
Multipurpose Reactor. The land requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR (see
section 4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3) with recycling would be 925 and 675 acres, respectively. The
site requirements for both the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR exceed the 600-acre TSS study
area; however, the proposed TSS is in an area where the additional land requirements
would not result in potential conflicts with site land use or development plans. The 925
and 675 acres represent less than 0.2 percent of the available land at INEL. Construction
and operation of the multipurpose MHTGR or ALWR would not affect prime farmland, grazing
allotments, other agricultural activities, or other land uses on the site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Visual Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the existing landscape character would remain unchanged, with
a Bureau of Land Management VRM Class 4 (industrial use) designation.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The construction and operation of either the proposed
tritium supply and recycling facilities or tritium supply alone would be consistent with
the existing views of INEL, which consist of large industrial facilities and plumes from
cooling towers. The existing VRM Class 4 industrial use landscape character would remain
unchanged. The proposed facilities, except for the APT which is mostly low profile
structures, would be visible in the background (approximately 7 miles away) with the
existing INEL facilities from the Lost River State Rest Area along U.S. Route 20/26.
Impacts would be negligible. The impacts of the tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities on the Environmental Breeder Reactor I National Historic Landmark
would be similar to the Lost River State Rest Area. Impacts to the view from Black Canyon
Wilderness Study Area, approximately 16 miles away, would be less than the previously
mentioned viewpoints because of greater distance. The Craters of the Moon National
Monument, located 37 miles away from the proposed TSS, would also incur virtually no
visual impacts because of greater distance. Because a nonevaporative cooling system is
proposed for reactor technologies at INEL, there would be little visual impact from
plumes.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline requirement visual impacts would not change due
to operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR at reduced capacity or the construction and
operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed.

4.2.3.2 Site Infrastructure
This section discusses the site infrastructure for No Action and the modifications needed
for actions due to construction and operation of new tritium supply and recycling
facilities. Construction and operation of each alternative at INEL would affect the site
infrastructure in varying degrees, depending upon the specific tritium supply technology
chosen. All of the tritium supply technologies would require major modifications to the
electrical power infrastructure at the site. A comparison of the site infrastructure and
facility resource needs for No Action and the proposed tritium supply alternatives is
presented in table 4.2.3.2-1.
No Action. Missions discussed in section 3.3.2 would continue under No Action. There are
no defense program activities being performed at INEL, and none are being considered other
than tritium supply; therefore, under No Action, there would be no impacts to INEL.
Table 4.2.3.2-1.-Modifications to Site Infrastructure for Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
- Transportation Electrical Fuel
Alternative Road Railroad Energy Peak Load Oil Natural Gas Coal
(miles) (miles) (MWh/yr) (MWe) (GPY) (million ft3/yr) (tons/yr)
Current Resources 277 30 232,500 93 1,538,800 0 12,500
No Action
Total site requirement 277 30 232,500 42 1,538,800 0 12,500
Change from current resources 0 0 0 -51 0 0 0
Heavy Water Reactor
Total site requirement 285 32 860,500 127 3,295,000 0 12,500
Change from current resources 8 2 628,000 34 1,757,000 0 0
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor
Total site requirement 285 32 680,500 104 1,754,500 0 12,500
Change from current resources 8 2 448,000 11 216,500 0 0
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 285 32 1,420,500 198 1,834,000 0 12,500
Change from current resources 8 2 1,188,000 105 296,000 0 0
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 285 32 900,500 133 1,744,000 0 12,500
Change from current resources 8 2 668,000 40 206,000 0 0
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 288 32 4,060,500 608 1,647,200 0 12,500
Change from current resources 11 2 3,828,000 515 109,200 0 0
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 288 32 2,720,500 413 1,647,200 0 12,500
Change from current resources 11 2 2,488,000 320 109,200 0 0
Table 4.2.3.2-2.-Impacts on Subregional Electrical Power Pool from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Tritium Supply Technology Peak Power Capacity Annual Energy Total Electricity
and Recycling Required Margin Required Production
(MWe) (percent) (MWh) (percent)
Heavy Water Reactor 85 0.62 628,000 0.25
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor 62 0.45 448,000 0.18
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor 156 1.14 1,188,000 0.46
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor 91 0.67 668,000 0.26
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium 566 4.15 3,828,000 1.49
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium 371 2.72 2,488,000 0.97
Source: DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; INEL 1993a:5.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The modifications to the infrastructure at INEL to support
the various tritium supply technologies are summarized in table 4.2.3.2-1. The additional
peak electrical power loads added to No Action for the various alternatives range from 62
MWe to 566 MWe (table 4.2.3.2-2). All tritium supply alternatives would require additional
power that could be supplied by the Northwest Regional Power Pool Subregion through the
local Idaho Power Company. The alternatives would utilize between 0.45 and 4.15percent of
the subregional Northwest Regional Power Pool capacity margin as shown in table
4.2.3.2-2, and between 0.21 and 1.95percent of the Western Systems Coordinating Council
regional power pool capacity margin. For all technologies, approximately 6 miles of con-
necting transmission lines from the central facilities area would be required to provide
power to the proposed TSS. Some of the tritium supply and recycling facilities use natural
gas as a primary fuel source. Currently, INEL does not use natural gas; therefore, the
equivalent amount of fuel oil was used to determine fuel impacts where natural gas is
used.
In order to connect the proposed TSS with the INEL road network, approximately 8 miles of
additional primary and secondary access roads would be required and a small railroad spur,
approximately 2 miles, could be necessary to support new tritium supply and recycling
facilities transportation requirements. The APT would require an additional 3 miles of
access road. Interconnection requirements for facilities with the TSS are not expected to
change appreciably when specific site adaptations are completed.
Tritium Supply Alone. If new tritium recycling facilities were not collocated with the
tritium supply facilities at INEL, and the upgraded recycling facilities at SRS were
utilized, the overall impact at INEL would be reduced. Onsite transportation network and
electrical transmission line requirements would not be affected. The electrical power
requirements associated with each of the technologies would decrease by 88,000 MWh per
year, with the peak load decreasing by 16 MWe. This represents a reduction in the total
site peak power requirement of between 2and 15percent with no appreciable change to the
capacity margin of the regional power pool. Even with these reductions, additional power
would still be required from the Northwest Regional Power Pool Subregion through the Idaho
Power Company, but the impact would be marginally less than previously discussed. The fuel
oil requirement, which is primarily for heating, ventilation and air conditioning of the
recycling facility, would decrease by approximately 96,000 gal per year.
Less than Baseline Operations. In the event that only the steady-state component of the
baseline tritium requirement is required, the impacts on the site infrastructure would
change for some technologies. There would be no appreciable change for the HWR, MHTGR, and
ALWR technologies. The Phased APT would reduce electrical consumption by approximately 35
percent but the fuel, onsite transportation infrastructure, and power line requirements
would not change.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or the ALWR multipurpose reactor option described in
section 4.8.3 could be sited at INEL. The site infrastructure impacts would vary depending
on the technology.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility described in section 4.8.3.1 along with three additional
MHTGR reactor modules. Fabrication of the plutonium-oxide fuel could be accomplished
in the fuel fabrication facility already included in the tritium supply MHTGR design.
Operation of this facility along with the six module MHTGR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 373,000 MW per year (55 percent)
and the total site fuel requirement by about 651,000 GPY (16 percent) over that for
operation of the three module tritium supply MHTGR.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. Operation of this facility along with the ALWR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 20,000 MWh per year (less than 2
percent) and the total site fuel requirement by about 830,000 GPY (20 percent) over that
for operation of the tritium supply ALWR.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated gas-fired power plant at INEL
to provide the necessary power for the APT could be constructed (section 4.8.2.2). This
would decrease the annual amount of electricity required to be purchased from commercial
sources by up to 3,740,000 MWh per year for the Full APT and 2,400,000 MWh for the Phased
APT. Although INEL now has no natural gas supply, a pipeline could be installed within
existing rights-of-way. This gas-fired plant would require 54,200 million ft3 per yr of
natural gas to provide the Full APT requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year and 34,800
million ft3 per yr of natural gas to provide the Phased APT requirement of 2,400,000 MWh
per year.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Siting of new roads, railroad spurs, and utility
infrastructure could follow existing rights-of-way to minimize impacts to natural
resources. Where new rights-of-way would need to be constructed, alignments should
consider existing sensitive habitat (e.g., wetlands, streams, and vegetation) to
minimize the potential for impacting these resources.

4.2.3.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Construction and operation of a tritium supply and recycling facility at INEL would
generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the potential to exceed Federal
and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. To determine the air quality
impacts, criteria and toxic/hazardous concentrations from each technology have been
compared with Federal and state standards and guidelines. Impacts for radiological
airborne emissions are discussed in section 4.2.3.9.
Table 4.2.3.3-1.-Estimated Cumulative Concentrations of Pollutants Resulting from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling Including No Action at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory [Page 1 of 2]
Pollutant Averaging - - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Time
- - Most Stringent 2010 HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Regulation or No Action (g/m3) (g/m3) (g/m3) (g/m3) Recycling
Guideline (g/m3) (g/m3)
(g/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 284 316 391 324 296 12
1-hour 40,000 614 712 947 738 652 38
Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 -
Quarter
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 9 10 12 12 9 0.4
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 a a a a a a
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 19 19 19 19 19 0.1
24-hour 150 112 115 113 114 113 1.5
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 6 6 6 6 6 0.01
24-hour 365 143 143 143 144 143 0.1
3-hour 1,300 593 594 594 596 593 0.4
Mandated by Idaho
Total suspended particulates Annual 60 45 45 45 45 45 0.1
(TSP)b 24-hour 150 168 171 170 170 169 1.5
Hazardous and Other
Toxic Compounds
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Annual 19,000 a 0.01 <0.01 0.27 a a
Acetaldehyde Annual 0.45c 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 a
Acetone Annual 17,800c a a a 0.12 a a
Acetylene Annual 150c a 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Ammonia Annual 180c 6 6 6 6.06 6 a
Arsenic Annual 2.3x10-4c 9.0x10-5 9.0x10-5 9.0x10-5 9.0x10-5 9.0x10-5 a
Benzene Annual 0.12c 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 a
Butadiene Annual 3.6x10-3c 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-3 a
Carbon tetrachloride Annual 0.067c 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 a
Chloroform Annual 0.043c 4.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 4.0x10-4 a
Cyclopentane Annual 17,000c 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 a
Ethyl alcohol Annual 18,800c a 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Formaldehyde Annual 0.077c 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 a
Hexavalent chromium Annual 8.3x10-5c 6.0x10-5 6.0x10-5 6.0x10-5 6.0x10-5 6.0x10-5 a
Hydrazine Annual 3.4x10-4c 1.0x10-6 1.0x10-6 1.0x10-6 1.0x10-6 1.0x10-6 a
Hydrochloric acid Annual 7.5c 0.98 0.98 0.988 0.98 0.98 a
Mercury Annual 1c 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 a
Methane Annual - a 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Methyl alcohol Annual 2,600c a 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Methylene chloride Annual 0.24c 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 6.0x10-3 a
Naphalene Annual 500c 18 18 18 18 18 a
Nickel Annual 4.2x10-3c 2.7x10-3 2.7x10-3 2.7x10-3 2.7x10-3 2.7x10-3 a
Nitric acid Annual 50c 0.64 0.71 0.64 1.46 0.64 a
Perchloroethylene Annual 2.1c 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 a
Phosphorus Annual 1c 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a
Potassium hydroxide Annual 20c 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 a
Proprionaldehyde Annual 4.3c 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a
Styrene Annual 1,000c 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 a
Toluene Annual 3,750c 370 370 370 370 370 a
Trichloroethylene Annual 0.077c 9.7x10-4 9.7x10-4 9.7x10-4 9.7x10-4 9.7x10-4 a
Trichlorotrifluoroethane Annual d a 0.5 a a a a
Trimethylbenzene Annual 1,230c 100 100 100 100 100 a
Trivalent chromium Annual 5c 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 a
In general, all of the proposed technologies would emit the same types of air pollutants
during construction. Emissions would typically not exceed Federal, state, or local air
quality regulations or guidelines, except that PM10 and TSP concentrations may be close to
or exceed the 24-hour PM10 and TSP standard during peak construction periods, which is not
uncommon for large construction projects.
During operation, impacts from each of the tritium supply and recycling technologies with
respect to the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants are
predicted to be in compliance with Federal, state, and local air quality regulations or
guidelines. The estimated pollutant concentrations presented in table 4.2.3.3-1 for each
of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities indicate little difference
between technologies with respect to impacts to air quality.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect
ambient air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to
existing sources. Based on the emission rates presented in appendix table B.1.4-1,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for each of the proposed
alternatives at INEL. This may require "offsets," reductions of existing emissions, to
permit any additional or new emission source.
Noise emissions during either construction or operation are expected to be low. Air
quality and acoustic impacts for each technology are described separately. Supporting data
for the air quality and acoustics analysis, including modeling inputs, are presented in
appendix B.
Air Quality
An analysis was conducted of the potential air quality impacts of emissions from each of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. The air quality modeling
analysis used the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model recommended by EPA. The
resulting air quality concentrations were then evaluated against local and state air
quality regulations, and NAAQS (40 CFR 50). The potential exceedance of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (40 CFR 52.21) increments for PM10, SO2, or NO2 was also
determined.
No Action. No Action utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations at INEL in the
year 2010 assuming continuation of site missions as described in section 3.3.1. These data
reflect conservative estimates of criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions at INEL. The
emission rates for the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented
in appendix table B.1.4-1. Table 4.2.3.3-1 presents the No Action concentrations. With the
exception of the 24-hour TSP standards, pollutant concentrations are in compliance with
all air quality regulations and guidelines. It is conservatively assumed that PM10
concentrations are equal to TSP concentrations.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Alternatives for INEL consist of four candidate
technologies: HWR, MHTGR, ALWR and APT, alone and collocated with tritium recycling
facilities. Air pollutants would be emitted during construction of the tritium supply and
recycling facilities. The principal sources of such emissions during construction include
the following:
Fugitive dust from land clearing, site preparation, excavation, wind erosion of exposed
ground surfaces, and operation of a concrete batch plant.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, construction equipment, vehicles delivering
construction material, and vehicles carrying construction workers.
PM10 and TSP concentrations are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient
standard during the peak construction period. Exceedances would also be expected to occur
during dry and windy conditions. Appropriate control measures would be followed, such as
watering to reduce emissions. With the exception of PM10 and TSP, it is expected that
concentrations of all other pollutants at the INEL boundary or public access highways
would remain within applicable Federal and state ambient air quality standards during
construction.
Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of each of the technologies
include all or part of the following:
Increased operation of existing boilers to generate additional steam for space heating.
Operation of diesel generators and periodic testing of emergency diesel generators.
Recycling operations.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, vehicles delivering supplies and bringing employees
to work.
Appendix table B.1.4-1 presents emissions from each of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. There are no gaseous releases associated with the
APT (SNL 1995a), although emissions are associated with operation of the tritium supply
facility included with the APT and with recycling facilities. Emissions from the Large
ALWR were used to determine pollutant concentrations since these represent the maximum
emission rates from either the Large or Small ALWR. Consequences from operation of the
tritium supply and recycling facilities at INEL are presented in table 4.2.3.3-1. With the
exception of the 24-hour TSP standards, pollutant concentrations, combined with the No
Action concentrations, are in compliance with Federal and state standards.
Pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of tritium supply technologies alone
(HWR, MHTGR, ALWR and APT) consist of criteria pollutants from the operation of boilers
and diesel generators and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions from facility processes.
Criteria pollutant emissions from the MHTGR are the highest among the other tritium supply
technologies and would increase existing total site criteria pollutant emissions by less
than 5 percent above No Action emissions. Concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous
pollutants, added to No Action concentrations, are in compliance with Federal and state
standards except for 24-hour TSP standards.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Air emissions from the HWR would be reduced slightly when
operated at reduced capacity. However, the reduction would be negligible since most
emissions are attributed to support equipment and facilities that are not related to the
reactor operating level. The MHTGR or ALWR would have no change in air emissions because
it would continue to operate at the same level as the baseline requirement to maintain
power levels for steam or electrical production. The Phased APT construction and operation
emissions and impacts would be the same as the Full APT.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Operation of a 500 to 600 MWe natural gas
electric generating facility (section 4.8.2.2) would generate a substantial amount of
emissions consisting of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These emissions would be controlled using the best available control technology to
minimize impacts and comply with the NAAQS and state mandated emission standards.
Estimated emissions are based upon emission factors for a large controlled gas turbine
(EPA 1995a; SPS 1995a). Table B.1.3.1-3 presents the emission factors and resulting annual
emission rates for a 600 MWe natural gas-fired turbine power plant.
For a natural gas-fired power plant located at INEL, the increase in carbon monoxide
emissions with respect to the 2010 No Action emissions at INEL would be approximately 3
percent (75 tons per year); for nitrogen oxides the increase would be approximately 10
percent (314 tons per year); for particulate matter the increase would be approximately
18percent (179 tons per year); for sulfur dioxide the increase would be less than 0.3
percent (5 tons per year); and for volatile organic compounds the increase would be
approximately 239 percent (215tons per year). In addition, the gas turbine generating
facility would generate 126 tons per year of methane, 58 tons per year of ammonia, 29 tons
per year of nonmethane hydrocarbons, and 24 tons per year of formaldehyde.
Any power plant facility constructed to meet the power needs of the APT would be required
to meet the Federal NAAQS and state mandated regulations for toxic/hazardous pollutants.
Appropriate pollution control equipment would be incorporated into the design of that
facility to meet these standards.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures during construction include:
watering to reduce dust emissions; applying non-toxic soil stabilizers to all inactive
construction areas; covering, watering, or applying non-toxic soil binders to exposed
piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt); suspending all excavation and grading operations
when wind speeds warrant; paving construction roads that have a traffic volume of more
than 50 daily trips by construction equipment; and using electricity from power poles
rather than temporary gasoline and diesel power generators. Potential mitigation measures
during operation include incorporating additional HEPA filters to reduce particulate
emissions from processing facilities; substituting cleaning solvents for those which
present health hazards or exceed the applicable standards; and switching from coal or fuel
oil, to produce electricity or steam, to natural gas to reduce criteria pollutants.
Acoustics
The location of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities relative to the
site boundary and sensitive receptors was examined to determine the contribution to noise
levels at these locations and the potential for onsite and offsite impacts.
No Action. The continuation of operations at INEL would result in no appreciable change in
traffic noise and onsite operational noise sources from current levels (section 4.2.2.3).
Sources of nontraffic noise associated with current operations are located at sufficient
distances from offsite noise sensitive receptors that the contribution to offsite noise
levels would continue to be small.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Noise sources during construction may include
heavy-construction equipment and increased traffic. Increased traffic would occur onsite
and along offsite major transportation routes used to bring construction material and
workers to the site.
Most nontraffic noise sources associated with operation of tritium supply and recycling
facilities would be located at sufficient distance from offsite areas that the
contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be small. Due to the size of the
site, noise emissions from construction equipment and operations activities would not be
expected to cause annoyance to the public.
Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes would be considered in
tiered NEPA documents. Some nontraffic noise sources associated with construction and
operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities may be located close
enough to offsite noise receptors that they could experience some increase in noise
levels.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline noise impacts would not change due to reactors
operating at reduced tritium capacity or the construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential measures to minimize noise impacts on workers
include the use of standard silencing packages on construction equipment and providing
workers in noisy environments with appropriate hearing protection devices meeting OSHA
standards. As required, noise levels would be measured in worker areas, and a hearing
protection program would be conducted.

4.2.3.4 Water Resources
Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at INEL would affect surface water
and groundwater resources. No surface water would be withdrawn for construction or for
operation. Instead, groundwater from the Snake River Plain aquifer would be used, which is
a sufficient source. Water requirements for operation of all tritium supply technologies
would fall within INEL's current allotment. The site proposed for the tritium supply and
recycling facilities would be outside the floodplain that could result from failure of
McKay Dam during a probable maximum flood.
During construction, treated sanitary wastewater would be discharged to lined evaporation
ponds. While the potential impacts to surface waters during the construction phase would
be erosion and sedimentation of drainage channels, the relatively dry climate and
application of appropriate controls should preclude adverse impacts. No wastewater would
be discharged to surface waters during operation of tritium supply and recycling
facilities, nor would there be impacts to surface water quality from these types of
activities. All wastewater would be treated and either recycled for cooling system makeup
or discharged to lined evaporation ponds. Stormwater runoff would be collected and treated
if necessary before discharge to natural drainage channels.
Table 4.2.3.4-1.-Potential Changes to Water Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Affected Resource Indicator No HWR MHTGR Large Small Full Phase Tritium
Action ALWRa ALWRa APT APT Recycling
Construction (2005)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Total water requirement (MGY) 2,000 2,021 2,018 2,033 2,020 2,008 2,008 1.5
Percent increase in projected water use 0 1 1 2 1 <1 <1 NA
Percent of groundwater allotment (11,360 MGY) 18 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters or groundwater (MGY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent change in stream flow from wastewater NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NPDES permit required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Operation (2010)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Total water requirement (MGY) 2,000 2,048 2,030 2,090 2,050 3,200 2,770 14
Percent increase in projected water used 0 3 2 5 3 61 39 NA
Percent of groundwater allotment (11,360 MGY) 18 <1 <1 <1 <1 11 7 NA
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters or groundwater (MGY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent change in stream flow from wastewater NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NPDES permit requirede No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Floodplain
Actions in 100-year floodplain NA No No No No No No NA
Critical actions in 500-year floodplain NA No No No No No No NA
Floodplain assessment required NA No No No No No No NA
Table 4.2.3.4-1 presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the
potential changes to water resources at INEL resulting from the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. Resource requirements for each tritium supply tech-
nology shown in this table represent the total requirements at the site, including No
Action. Resource requirements for tritium recycling are added to these values to obtain
the water resource requirements for assessing impacts associated with combined tritium
supply and recycling.
Surface Water
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to surface water resources are
anticipated beyond the effects of existing and future activities that are independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action. A description of the activities that would continue
at INEL is provided in section 3.3.2.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. No surface water would be withdrawn for any construction or
operation activities associated with any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities; consequently, no impacts to surface water availability or surface water
quality are expected. The potential impacts to surface waters during the construction
phase would be erosion of disturbed land and sedimentation in drainage channels. To
minimize soil erosion impacts, stormwater management and standard erosion control measures
would be employed. In most cases, impacts from runoff would be temporary and manageable.
Nonhazardous wastewater, including sanitary wastewater, generated during the
construction of either the collocated tritium supply and recycling facilities (which
ranges from 1.2 MGY for the APT to 28.4MGY for the Large ALWR) or tritium supply alone
(which ranges from 0.3 MGY for the APT and 27.5 MGY for the Large ALWR) would be dis-
charged to either a leach field or lined evaporation ponds.
During operation, no effluents would be discharged to natural surface waters. Utility,
process and sanitary wastewater from the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR would be treated prior to
discharge into lined evaporation ponds. However, cooling system blowdown and sanitary
wastewater from the APT would be treated and recycled for reuse as cooling system makeup.
The treated effluent from the process wastewater treatment would be discharged to lined
evaporation ponds. Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with the NPDES permit and
other discharge requirements. The extent to which treated effluents or stormwaters would
be recycled for reuse within the plant would be determined during site-specific studies.
Stormwater runoff from either the collocated tritium supply and recycling facilities or
tritium supply alone would be collected in detention ponds. Runoff from site support
facilities outside the main facility, except those that require onsite management measures
by regulation such as sanitary wastewater plants and landfill areas, would be discharged
directly to natural drainage channels. Uncontaminated stormwater runoff would be released
to natural drainage channels, while contaminated stormwater runoff would be retained,
treated in the radioactive waste treatment system, and released. All stormwater dis-
charges to natural channels would be subject to compliance with NPDES permit
requirements.
The site proposed for construction of the tritium supply facility is outside the flood
zone of the Big Lost River that could develop as a result of the failure of MacKay Dam
during a probable maximum flood. This flood event would be more critical than either the
100- or 500-year flood. The 1-mile buffer zone between the boundary of the proposed site
and the location of the new facilities would provide an additional measure of flood
protection. Where a potential exists for flooding impacts, design mitigation measures will
be considered and discussed in sitespecific tiered NEPA documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline tritium requirement surface water impacts
described above for the construction and operation phases would not change due to changes
in the reactor operating capacity, or construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or an ALWR multipurpose reactor option at INEL would
require a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility to be constructed in conjunction with the reactors. Water
used for both of the reactors and support facilities would be obtained from groundwater
resources.
During construction and operation, no effluents would be discharged to natural surface
waters. Utility, process, and sanitary wastewater not recycled would be treated prior to
discharge into lined evaporation ponds. Treated effluent would be monitored to comply
with the NPDES permit and other discharge requirements.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the
technology at INEL. Water requirements (80MGY) for the natural gas-fired power plant would
be obtained from groundwater resources, with no impact to surface water.
Demineralized backwash generated during operation would contain dilute concentrations of
trace metals and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate and would
be treated prior to discharge to lined evaporation ponds. No impacts to surface waters
would be anticipated.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures in addition to those implemented
during construction to comply with the NPDES stormwater regulations have been identified.
Stormwater measures include stabilization practices that cover soils with materials such
as vegetation, riprap, or mulch in order to prevent direct exposure of soils to runoff,
and structural controls, such as silt fences, dikes, and sediment traps, that divert
runoff away from disturbed areas. The dry climate and application of management measures
should preclude potential adverse impacts during operation from stormwater runoff.
Similarly, during operation, releases of stormwater runoff would be monitored and subject
to NPDES regulations.
Groundwater
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated
beyond the effects of existing and future activities that are independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Groundwater Availability and Use
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Groundwater required for construction of either a collocated
tritium supply and recycling facility or a tritium supply facility alone would represent
approximately a 2-percent maximum increase over the projected groundwater withdrawal, and
would be less than 1 percent of INEL's current allotment. Thus no additional allotments
or permits would be required and it would not cause depletion of the aquifer or affect
recharge. Groundwater required for both construction and operation of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities and the percent increase in projected water use are
shown in table 4.2.3.4-1. As discussed in section 4.2.2.4, a groundwater allotment, not
to exceed 11,360 MGY, has been negotiated by DOE with the Idaho Department of Water
Resources under the Federal Reserve Doctrine. Additionally, 35,386 MGY of water statewide
could be available for non-farm development under the Idaho-Swan Falls agreement (INEL
1993a:5). As shown in table 4.2.3.4-1, operating an HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT, whether
collocated with recycling facilities or alone, would not exceed current groundwater
allotments.
Previous studies, using a steady-state model of groundwater withdrawals of up to 7,300 MGY
from wells located in the area of the proposed TSS, have estimated that for a continuous
pumping well drawdowns in the unconfined aquifer at the well would be approximately 13
feet (5 percent of saturated thickness in this area). At a distance of 984feet from the
pumping area, drawdowns would be approximately 12 feet whereas at the INEL southern
boundary, the drawdown would be approximately 3.6feet. Recharge studies indicate that it
would take approximately 10 years for offsite springs near Hagerman, Idaho to show signs
of decline caused by pumping. Other studies indicate that pumping at a rate of 11,624 MGY
for 50 years would cause a decline in the water table near the springs of less than 1foot.
In comparison, operation of an HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would use less water than the
groundwater withdrawals used in the model discussed above and no impacts on recharge or to
nearby springs are anticipated.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR at reduced capacity to meet a tritium
supply requirement less than baseline would not change the operating water requirements or
the quantity of water discharges. The MHTGR or ALWR water requirements and discharges
would not change from the baseline; therefore, the potential impacts would remain the
same.
Construction of the Phased APT would require 2,010MGY, an increase of 2 MGY over that
required by the Full APT (table 4.2.3.4-1). The construction water requirement of the
Phased APT represents an increase of less than 1percent over projected No Action water
use. Operation of the Phased APT (with tritium recycling) would require 784 MGY of water,
a 39-percent increase over projected No Action water use. This is approximately two-thirds
of the 61-percent increase required by the Full APT. The additional 784 MGY would not
exceed current groundwater allotments. All other requirements of the Phased APT are
identical to those of the Full APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. For the multipurpose MHTGR, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would be constructed and operated to support the 6 reactors. The construction of the
multipurpose MHTGR and the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would use approximately
24.33 MGY, which would be a 35 percent increase over the water use for the MHTGR tritium
supply facility and 0.2 percent of INEL's current allotment. Water use during operation of
the MHTGR multipurpose reactor (54 MGY) and the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility (10
MGY), would total 64 MGY and would be a 113 percent increase over the water use for the
MHTGR tritium supply facility, and 0.56 percent of INEL's current allotment (11,360 MGY).
During construction and operation of a multipurpose MHTGR, all wastewater generated and
not recycled would be treated prior to being released to lined evaporation ponds.
Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with the NPDES permit and other discharge
requirements.
Water requirements during construction and operation of an ALWR multipurpose reactor would
be the same as previously discussed for an ALWR tritium supply facility. However, as
discussed in section 4.8.3, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would have to be constructed and operated in conjunction with an ALWR
multipurpose reactor. A Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility would
require an additional 0.5 MGY of groundwater during construction, which would be a 1.5
percent increase over the groundwater use for the ALWR tritium supply facility and 0.3
percent of INEL's current allotment (11,360 MGY). During operation, approximately 10 MGY
of water would be used, which would be an 11 percent increase over the groundwater use for
the ALWR tritium supply facility and 0.8 percent of INEL's current allotment (11,360 MGY).
During construction and operation of a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication
Facility approximately 10 MGY of sanitary wastewater would be generated and treated
prior to discharge into lined evaporation ponds. Treated effluent would be monitored to
comply with the NPDES permit and other discharge requirements.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant, as discussed in section 4.8.2.2, could be used to support the
technology at INEL. Water requirements for the natural gas-fired power plant would be
approximately 80MGY in addition to the groundwater requirements previously discussed for
the APT. Operation of the Full APT with tritium recycling and the dedicated power plant
would require total site groundwater withdrawals of 3,294MGY; which would be a
2.5-percent increase over the total site groundwater requirements for the Full APT with
tritium recycling (3,214MGY), a 65-percent increase over projected No Action water use of
2,000MGY, and 29 percent of INEL's current allotment of 11,360MGY.
Demineralized backwash generated during operation would contain dilute concentrations of
trace metals, and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate and would
be treated prior to discharge to lined evaporation ponds. No impacts to groundwater
quality would be expected.
Groundwater Quality
Tritium Supply and Recycling. During construction, no water would be discharged directly
to the environment and thus would not affect groundwater quality. During operation,
treated utility, process, and sanitary wastewater would be treated and discharged to
evaporation ponds. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater quality would be anticipated.
Existing tritium plumes in groundwater and in perched groundwater south of the proposed
tritium facilities are expected to continue to migrate southwesterly, away from the
proposed TSS. Studies showed that water withdrawals could change the existing plumes'
southwesterly direction to the east, but would not draw the plume into the proposed TSS.
Because dry cooling towers would be used, salt would not be released from the cooling
tower. Blowdown recycle would couple reverse osmosis with an evaporator and crystallizer
system that would remove the dissolved solids from blowdown so the water could be recycled
to the cooling tower. This system would reduce requirements for makeup water, and
discharge would not require disposal. The solids from the crystallization processes would
be disposed of as waste. This system would reduce the salt from blowdown.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Potential groundwater quality impacts described above
would not change due to changes in reactor operating capacities, or the construction and
operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential groundwater withdrawals could influence
existing southwesterly direction of the tritium plume to the east. Mitigation measures
to protect drinking water sources in the vicinity of the affected aquifer could include a
monitoring well program to detect changes in contaminate direction or rate of movement,
the deepening of existing walls, or the drilling of new wells.

4.2.3.5 Geology and Soils
Construction of tritium supply and recycling facilities at INEL would have no impact on
geological resources described in section 4.2.2.5. A moderately low seismic risk exists,
which would be considered in the design of the structures. The existing seismic risk does
not preclude safe construction and operation of the facilities. The only other geological
hazard present is volcanic activity, which is improbable and is not anticipated to impact
the project. Construction would disturb up to a few hundred surface acres of soil, the
amount depending on the tritium supply technology and recycling facilities. Control
measures would be used to minimize soil erosion. Impacts would depend on the specific soil
units in the disturbed area, the extent of land disturbing activities, and the amount of
soil disturbed. Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the construction
and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities are discussed in the following
sections.
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned activities at INEL.
Any impacts to geology and soils from these actions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would not affect geological
conditions. Design of the facilities would ensure that they would not be adversely
affected by geological conditions.
Because there are no known capable faults at or near the proposed TSS, there is little
potential for ground rupture as a result of an earthquake during the life of the tritium
facilities. Ground shaking is more likely. Intensities of approximately VII on the
modified Mercalli scale are possible at INEL which would not affect newly designed
facilities. Based on the seismic history of the area, a moderately low seismic risk exists
at INEL that should not preclude safe construction and operation of the facilities. In
addition, facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground accelerations in
accordance with DOE Order 5480.28 Natural Phenomena hazards Mitigation and accompanying
safety guides.
Although there is a history of volcanism in the INEL area, explosive volcanic eruptions
are improbable (section 4.2.2.5). Lava extrusion could recur with recurrence probabilities
at about once in every 3,000years. Precursors, such as shallow earthquakes, gas venting
activity, and increase in groundwater temperatures provide advance warning of most
eruptions of this type; no such activity is currently indicated at INEL.
It is highly unlikely that landslides, sinkhole development, or other nontectonic events
would affect project activities. Slopes and underlying foundation materials are stable.
Properties and conditions of the soils underlying the proposed site have no limitations on
construction. Soils, therefore, would not adversely affect the safe operation of the
facilities. Soils would be impacted by construction and operation of the facilities. The
amount of acreage that would be potentially disturbed by the tritium supply technologies
is shown in table 4.2.3.1-1. For tritium recycling facilities, the amount of land that
would be disturbed is 202 acres.
The soil disturbance from construction of new facilities would be as much as 562 acres
for a MHTGR collocated with recycling facilities. Disturbance would occur at building,
parking, and construction laydown areas, destroying the soil profile and leading to a
possible temporary increase in erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action.
Soil losses would depend on frequency of storms; wind velocities; size and location of
the facilities with respect to drainage and wind patterns; slopes, shape, and area of the
tracts of ground disturbed; and, particularly during the construction period, the duration
of time the soil is bare. Construction of both the MHTGR and the APT would also
necessitate deep excavations to accommodate reactor modules and an accelerator tunnel,
respectively (sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.4). A considerable volume of soil would be
removed as a result of excavations. Most of the material removed would be basaltic bedrock
and could be stockpiled for use as fill. Some of this material could be used to cover the
accelerator tunnel of the APT. Site-specific NEPA studies would evaluate in detail impacts
to geology and soils at INEL resulting from deep excavations required for the MHTGR and
the APT and would identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Net soil disturbance during operation would be less than for construction, because areas
temporarily used for laydown would be restored. Although erosion from stormwater runoff
and wind action could occur occasionally during operation, they are anticipated to be
minimal.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures would be used to minimize soil loss.
Wind erosion is likely to occur on an intermittent basis, depending on the wind
velocities, the amount of soil exposed, and the effectiveness of control measures.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Under the less than baseline operations, geology and soil
impacts would not change for the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR technologies. Disturbed acreage for
the Phased APT would be the same as the Full APT; therefore, impacts would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. The multipurpose MHTGR would disturb an additional 270 acres of land
to accommodate the construction of three additional reactor modules and a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility. The additional land area disturbances would result in the
destruction of the soil profile and potential temporary increase in erosion as a result of
stormwater runoff and wind action. The three additional reactor modules would also
double the excavation requirements over that for the tritium supply MHTGR. The excavated
soil would substantially increase the volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal.
Impacts on ground water resources from the excavation are not expected.
Construction impacts for the multipurpose ALWR would be the same as those described for
the tritium supply ALWR. Additional soil impacts would be expected from the construction
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility needed to
support the multipurpose ALWR. Approximately 129 acres would be disturbed for the new
facility, destroying the soil profile and leading to a possible temporary increase in
erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on
frequency of storms; wind velocity; location of the facility with respect to drainage and
wind pattern; slope, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and the duration
of time the soil is bare.
Soil impacts during operation are expected to be minimal. Appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures would be used to minimize any long-term soil losses.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be required to control erosion
from exposed areas of soil during construction. Potential mitigation measures include
accepted standard practices for erosion, sediment, and dust control from construction
sites such as silt fences, sediment traps, runoff diversion dikes, drainageways,
sedimentation ponds, establishment of ground cover and windbreaks, grading of slopes,
construction of berms and drainageways, or other controls appropriate to the sites.
Standard control for wind erosion, such as wetting the surface, would be done on a
day-to-day basis. Exposing only small areas for limited periods of time could also reduce
erosional effects. After the construction period, long-term control measures could
include grading, revegetation, or landscaping.

4.2.3.6 Biotic Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at INEL
would affect biotic resources. Impacts resulting from the construction of the HWR,
MHTGR, ALWR, or Full APT to meet the baseline tritium requirement would occur only at the
beginning of the project lifecycle. The less than baseline tritium requirement and Phased
APT could incur some additional constructionrelated impacts if expansion is needed to
meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential impacts would be minor since the
expansion would occur in the already developed main plant site. Impacts to terrestrial
resources would result from the loss of habitat during construction and operation. Impacts
to wetlands and aquatic resources would not occur since these resources are not located on
the proposed TSS. No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species would be affected by
the proposed action. Several special-status species could be affected, primarily through
the loss of potential foraging habitat. However, the viability of populations of these
species is not likely to be impacted. Where potential conflicts could occur, mitigation
measures would be developed in consultation with USFWS. Consultation would be conducted
at the site-specific level in tiered NEPA reviews. Table 4.2.3.6-1 summarizes the
potential changes to biotic resources at INEL resulting from the proposed action. As noted
in the table, no major differences in impact to biotic resources exist between the four
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
The following discussion of impacts from a multipurpose reactor and a dedicated power
plant for the APT applies to the biotic resources at INEL as a whole. Where potential
impacts to a specific biotic resource are notable for the tritium supply technologies, the
discussion on multipurpose reactors identifies the potential impacts to the same resource.
Table 4.2.3.6-1.-Potential Impacts to Biotic Resources During Construction and Operation
Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
Affected Resource Indicator No Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Action
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Acres of habitat disturbed 0 462 562a 552a 375a 202
Wetlands potentially impacted None None None None None None
Aquatic resources potentially impacted None None None None None None
Number of threatened and endangered 0/0 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/5
species potentially affected
Multipurpose Reactor. The selection of the multipurpose reactor option could result in
additional impacts to biotic resources at INEL. The MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility and the ALWR Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Full Fabrication Facility
would require an additional 129 acres of land. However, it is expected that during the
design phase, land requirements for this facility would be substantially reduced when
integrated into the reactor and recycling facility design. In addition, an MHTGR would
require three additional modules which would displace about 240 acres. Thus, total land
requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors would be 931 and 691 acres,
respectively. In general, impacts to terrestrial resources and threatened and endangered
species would be similar to, but greater than, those described for the tritium supply and
recycling facility. Impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources would not be expected on the
proposed TSS since these resources do not occur on the site.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated natural gas-fired power plant,
similar to that described in section 4.8.2.2, could be an option to support an APT at
INEL. This facility, which would be constructed on the proposed TSS, would occupy 25 acres
of land. Construction of the gas-fired power plant would increase the land disturbance
associated with the APT from 375 to 400 acres. This would result in a slight increase in
impacts to biotic resources over those described for the tritium supply and recycling
facility. Infrastructure requirements, such as parking and laydown areas, would be
incorporated into and take advantage of similar requirements associated with the APT.
Rights-of-way would be sited to take advantage of existing corridors to the maximum extent
practical.
Terrestrial Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.1 would continue at
INEL. This would result in no changes to current terrestrial conditions at the site
described in section 4.2.2.6.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT
and recycling facilities would take place on the proposed TSS and would result in the
disturbance of approximately 462, 562, 552, or 375 acres, respectively, of terrestrial
resources, or less than 0.1 percent of INEL (table 4.2.3.6-1). These acreages include
areas on which plant facilities would be constructed, as well as areas revegetated
following construction. Vegetation within the proposed TSS would be destroyed during land
clearing operations. Big sagebrush is the dominant plant within the proposed TSS (figure
4.2.2.6-1). Plant communities in which big sagebrush is the dominant overstory species are
well represented on INEL, but are relatively uncommon regionally because of widespread
conversion of shrub-steppe habitats to agriculture.
Constructing any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would have
some adverse effects on animal populations. Less mobile animals within the project area,
such as reptiles and small mammals, would be destroyed during land-clearing activities.
Construction activities would cause larger mammals and birds in the construction and
adjacent areas to move to similar habitat nearby. Because pronghorn use of the proposed
TSS is relatively low (DOE 1992e:4-76), the tritium supply and recycling facility should
not have a lasting impact on this species. Nests and young animals living within the
proposed TSS could be lost during construction. Areas disturbed by construction but not
occupied by facility structures would be of minimal value to wildlife because they would
be maintained as landscaped areas.
Activities associated with facility operations, such as noise and human presence, could
affect wildlife living immediately adjacent to the tritium supply and recycling facility.
These disturbances may cause some species to move from the area. A nonevaporative
cooling design is proposed for all tritium supply technologies at INEL except for the APT.
While there would be no impacts to vegetation from salt drift from an HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR,
this may not be the case for the APT. A total of 10 separate cooling towers would be
located along the length of the facility (section 3.4.2.4). Since design parameters for
these towers are not known at this time, it is not possible to estimate impacts. This
would be determined in future tiered NEPA documentation.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to terrestrial resources but less than those described for a collocated tritium
supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since 202 fewer acres of habitat
would be disturbed.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction-related impacts of the less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT
would be similar to those described above. Some additional constructionrelated impacts
could occur if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential
impacts would be minor since the expansion activities would occur in the already developed
main plant site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The loss of habitat other than the facility footprint
itself may be mitigated by revegetating with native species. This is particularly
important since disturbed areas in shrub-steppe communities are generally recolonized by
cheatgrass, a nonnative species, at the expense of native plants (DOE 1992e:5-134).
Disturbance to wildlife living in areas adjacent to the new facilities may be reduced by
preventing workers from entering undisturbed areas. It may be necessary to survey the TSS
for the nests of migratory birds or eagles prior to construction and/or avoid clearing
operations during the breeding season.
Wetlands
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.1 would continue at INEL
with no changes to wetlands at INEL.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Because there are no wetlands in the proposed TSS,
construction and operation of any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would not impact this resource. Wetlands associated with the Big Lost River are
located 1.5 miles from the site; therefore, impacts to these wetlands are not expected.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would not affect wetlands
because there are no wetlands in the proposed TSS.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have no wetland impact. Construction and operation of a
Phased APT would also not affect wetlands because there are no wetlands in the proposed
TSS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are not anticipated.
Aquatic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.1 would continue at INEL
with no changes to aquatic resources at INEL.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of any of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would not impact aquatic resources since there are
no surface water bodies in the proposed TSS. The nearest surface water body is the Big
Lost River which is located 1.5 miles from the site. Temporary aquatic habitat may develop
in evaporation and retention ponds, as well as in natural channels in the immediate
vicinity of NPDES-permitted outfalls. Construction and operation of a tritium supply
facility alone would not affect aquatic resources because there are no surface water
bodies in the proposed TSS.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have no impact on aquatic resources at INEL. Construction and
operation of a Phased APT would also not impact aquatic resources because there are no
aquatic resources in the proposed TSS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are not anticipated.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.1 would continue at INEL
with no change to the current conditions of threatened and endangered species at INEL.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Although the acreage of disturbed habitat would vary (table
4.2.3.6-1), no Federal-listed species would be affected by constructing any of the
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at the proposed TSS, but several
Federal candidate or state-listed species may be affected. Up to 462 acres of foraging
habitat for the ferruginous hawk (Category 2) would be lost and the species would be
discouraged from areas in close proximity to the construction site. However, the loss of
foraging habitat is not expected to affect the viability of the population. Suitable
nesting sites for this species are relatively rare on INEL and should be avoided (DOE
1992e:5-138). Construction activities could destroy the nests of the loggerhead shrike and
disrupt foraging birds. Likewise, burrows and foraging habitat for the pygmy rabbit would
be lost. The Townsend's western big-eared bat (Category 2) may roost in caves and forage
throughout the proposed TSS (INEL1992a:5). One state-listed sensitive plant species could
potentially be affected by construction of the tritium supply and recycling facility. The
plant species, tree-like oxytheca, has been collected at eight sites on INEL and at only
two other sites in Idaho. If present, individual plants of this species could be destroyed
during land clearing activities. Preactivity surveys would be required prior to
construction to determine the occurrence of these species in the area to be disturbed.
During operation of the new facilities, the Townsend's western big-eared bat could forage
at evaporation and stormwater retention ponds. No adverse impacts are expected due to
facility operation.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to threatened and endangered species but less than those described for a
collocated tritium supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since fewer acres
of habitat would be disturbed.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species as described for the baseline tritium production
requirement. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would have similar impacts on the
Federal candidate and state-listed species discussed above for the baseline tritium
production requirement.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Disturbance of threatened and endangered and special-status
species would be avoided where possible. Land clearing activities could be planned to
avoid nesting seasons or areas where oxytheca occur. A habitat restoration or propagation
program would be developed for oxytheca if disturbance is unavoidable.
Consultation with the USFWS would be required if INEL is selected as the location for a
tritium supply and recycling facilities and, if necessary, a detailed plan to mitigate
impacts to Federal listed threatened and endangered species would be developed. Cur-
rently, no critical habitat has been designated for threatened and endangered species at
INEL.

4.2.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance
during construction, visual intrusion of the project into the historic setting or
environmental context of historic sites, visual and audio intrusions to Native American
resources, and unauthorized artifact collecting and vandalism. Intensive cultural
resources inventories and site evaluations have not been conducted for the majority of the
proposed TSS. Site-specific surveys and evaluations would be conducted in conjunction with
tiered NEPA documentation. Although the location and acreage for proposed tritium
facilities will vary, the effects on cultural and paleontological resources are based
primarily on the amount of ground disturbance; therefore, the facilities with the greatest
ground disturbance will have the greatest potential effect on cultural and paleontological
resources. Some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites, important Native American
resources, and scientifically important paleontological resources may be affected by the
proposed action.
Multipurpose Reactor. Total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors
would be 931 and 691 acres, respectively. NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites,
Native American resources, and paleontological resources occurring in deeply buried lava
tubes or blisters may occur within these acreages and may be affected by the construction
of a multipurpose reactor. In general, impacts to prehistoric and historic resources,
Native American resources, and paleontological resources would be similar to, but
potentially greater than, those described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at INEL. Any
impacts to prehistoric and historic resources from these missions would be independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Land disturbance for construction of the proposed tritium
facilities (section 3.4) would range from 360 acres for the MHTGR to 173 acres for the APT
(section 4.2.3.1). Acreages for the HWR and ALWR would be 260 and 350, respectively.
Acreage required by the recycling facilities would be an additional 196 acres. Some
NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites are expected to occur within the acreages
that would be disturbed during construction. The prehistoric sites could include
residential bases, campsites, and limited activity locations. The historic sites could
include homesteads, trash scatters, cattle camps, and ditches or canals. NRHP-eligible
resources will be identified through project-specific inventories and evaluations, and any
project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Operation of new
facilities would not involve additional ground disturbance or increased activity;
therefore, prehistoric and historic sites would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to prehistoric and historic resources
would be expected from operating the HWR at reduced capacity. Impacts for the MHTGR or
ALWR would also not change from those described for the baseline requirement because the
MHTGR or ALWR would not be a reduced size or operate at reduced capacity.
Construction and operation of the Phased APT would not change the expected impacts from
the Full APT since the disturbed area would be the same in both scenarios.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible sites cannot be avoided through project
design or siting, and would result in an adverse effect, then a Memorandum of Agreement
may need to be negotiated between DOE, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation describing and implementing
intensive inventory and evaluation studies, data recovery plans, site treatments, and
monitoring programs. The appropriate level of data recovery for mitigation would be
determined through consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Mitigation measures for specific NRHP-eligible sites would be identified during tiered
NEPA documentation.
Native American Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at INEL. Any
impacts to Native American resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Some Native American resources may occur within the acreages
which would be disturbed during construction of the tritium facilities. Native American
resources may include rock art and burials. Operation of facilities may create audio or
visual intrusions on Native American sacred sites in the vicinity. Specific concerns about
the presence, type, and locations of Native American resources would be identified through
consultation with the potentially affected tribes, and any project-related effects would
be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to Native American resources would not change due
to less than baseline tritium operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR. Construction and
operation of a Phased APT would have similar impacts on Native American resources as those
described for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If Native American resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to lessen the effect on
these resources would be determined in consultation with all potentially affected Native
American groups. In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, such mitigations may include, but not
be limited to, appropriate relocation of human remains and planting vegetation screens to
reduce visual and audio intrusion. However, impacts to some Native American resources such
as rock art sites may be mitigated as appropriate.
Paleontological Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at NTS. Any
impacts to paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Surface exposures of fossiliferous formations do not occur
within areas designated for the proposed TSS. However, deep project-related excavation
could encounter buried lava tubes or blisters which may have served as faunal traps. The
only tritium supply technologies that would require excavations exceeding 50 feet would be
the MHTGR and APT. In such a case, monitoring could be an appropriate mitigation. A
certified paleontologist would be onsite during excavation to document any findings.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to paleontological resources would be
expected due to reduced operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or construction of a Phased
APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because scientifically important buried paleontological
materials could be affected, paleontological monitoring of construction activities and
data recovery of fossil remains would be appropriate mitigation measures.

4.2.3.8 Socioeconomics
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling facilities at INEL
would affect socioeconomics in the region. Section 3.2 provides descriptions for No
Action, the tritium supply technologies, and tritium recycling. Siting tritium supply
technology with or without a recycling facility at INEL would create changes in some of
the communities in both the ROI and the regional economic area. The in-migrating
population could increase the demand for housing units. Additionally, there would be an
associated increased burden on community infrastructure and subsequent effects on the
public finances of local governments in the ROI. The increase of population could also
burden transportation routes in the ROI.
During the construction period, the greater changes in socioeconomic characteristics would
result from the ALWR and APT. During operation, the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would exhibit
similar characteristics. The APT would result in the smallest changes during operation.
None of these tritium supply technologies with a recycling facility would increase
population, the need for additional housing, or local government spending in the ROI
beyond 9 percent over No Action during peak construction or operation. Although the
greatest percent increases in employment, population and housing, and public finance
during construction and operation occur in the peak years of 2005 and 2010, respectively,
the annual average increases over the construction period (2001to2005) are between less
than 1 percent and 4 percent average growth annually, and 1 percent or less average annual
growth during operation (2010to2050). From peak construction to full operation (2005 to
2010), annual average increases vary from decreases of 1 percent to increases of 1percent.
The effects of locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling
facilities at INEL are summarized in section 4.2.3. The following sections describe the
effects that locating one of these technologies would have on the local region's economy
and employment, population, housing, public finances, and local transportation.
Employment and Local Economy
Changes in employment and levels of economic activity in the 13-county regional economic
area from the proposed action at INEL are described in this section. Although specialized
personnel, materials, and services required for construction and operation would be
imported from outside the area, a significant portion of these requirements would be
available in this regional economic area. Figures 4.2.3.8-1 and 4.2.3.8-2 present the
potential changes in employment and local economy that would occur with each of the
technologies.
No Action. Under No Action, employment at INEL decreased to approximately 10,100 persons
in 1994. This is a decrease of about 1,000 persons from the 1990 employment. INEL
employment is projected to total almost 10,100 persons in 2010 and remain at this level
through 2020. Historical and future employment projections at INEL are presented in
appendix table D.2.1-1. The total INEL payroll was approximately $436 million in 1994 and
is expected to remain at this level through 2010 (IN ISU 1994a).
Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow less than 1 percent
annually between 2001 and 2009 reaching 143,700 persons. Between 2010 and 2020, employment
is expected to decrease annually by much less than 1 percent reaching 140,800 persons. The
unemployment rate in the regional economic area is expected to remain at 6.4 percent
between 2001 and 2020. Per capita income is projected to increase from $17,800 to $20,900
during this 20-year period. No Action estimates are presented in appendix table D.3-2.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would begin between 2001 and 2003
and would be completed between 2007 and 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation
of the new facilities would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue
at this level into the future.
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies with a recycling facility at INEL would
create new jobs (direct) at the site. Indirect job opportunities, such as community
support services, would also be created in the regional economic area as a result of these
new jobs. The total new jobs (direct and indirect) created would reduce unemployment and
increase income in the economic region surrounding INEL during both the construction and
operation periods of the proposed action.
Construction. Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling facility at INEL would
require a total of approximately 7,400 to 13,600 worker-years of activity over a 5- to
9-year construction period. This construction-related employment would indirectly create
other jobs in the regional economic area and total employment would grow at an annual
average rate of 2 to 3 percent until the peak year of 2005. Between peak construction
(2005) and full operation (2010) average annual growth in employment would decrease by
less than 1 percent under the ALWR and APT. Under the HWR and MHTGR, employment growth
would be flat between 2005 and 2010. Figure 4.2.3.8-1 gives the estimates of total jobs
(direct and indirect) that would be created during peak construction (year 2005) for
each of the tritium supply technologies with recycling and the recycling facility's
contribution to employment growth.
As employment opportunities grow in the regional economic area due to the proposed action,
the unemployment rate would be reduced from the No Action estimate of 6.4 percent.
Figure 4.2.3.8-2 presents a comparison of unemployment rates for the different tritium
supply technologies with recycling during peak construction in 2005. During the project's
peak construction phase, the unemployment rate would be 4.5 percent, for any of the
tritium supply technologies collocated with recycling. The contribution to the
unemployment rate resulting from the tritium recycling facility is also indicated.
Income in the regional economic area would also increase, particularly during peak
construction as shown in Figure 4.2.3.8-2. Per capita income is expected to increase at an
annual average of 1to2percent until the peak year of construction, 2005. Between 2005 and
2010 annual average growth in per capita income is expected to increase by 1 percent for
all of the tritium supply technologies with recycling. In comparison, under No Action, per
capita income is expected to increase 1 percent annually during both periods.
Operation. Siting of tritium supply and recycling facilities would help offset the
employment and income losses at INEL from the approximate 1,000jobs lost between 1990 and
1994. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as construction neared
completion and construction-related employment began phasing out. It is expected that full
operation employment would peak in 2010 and continue at this level into the future. Figure
4.2.3.8-1 presents the total project-related jobs projections (direct and indirect) for
each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities for 2010. However, the
addition of these new project-related jobs would not dramatically affect future employ-
ment growth in the regional economic area. Overall employment growth is expected to be
flat from 2010 through 2020.
Creation of additional job opportunities would reduce the unemployment rate to below that
projected for No Action. Figure 4.2.3.8-2 presents the differences in unemployment rates
during the first year of full operation employment (2010) for each of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. From 2010 to 2020, unemployment would be reduced
from the No Action projection of 6.4 percent to a range of 4.6 to 4.9 percent for all of
the technologies.
Income would also increase slightly in the regional economic area as a result of the
proposed action. Per capita income differences for tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities for 2010 are given in Figure 4.2.3.8-2. Per capita income annual
average increases would be about 1 percent between 2010 and 2020 for all of the tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities considered for location at INEL. The No
Action projected annual average increase during the same period would also be
approximately 1 percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Construction of the tritium supply technologies without recycling
facilities would begin between 2001 and 2003 and would be completed between 2007 and 2009.
Employment for the operation of the facility would begin in 2007 and reach full employment
by 2010. Locating any of the tritium supply technologies at INEL would create new jobs at
the site and indirectly create other jobs in the region. However, this job creation and
the additional economic effects would be less than the effects that would occur with the
collocation of the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities.
Figure (Page 4-73)
Figure 4.2.3.8-1.-Total Project-Related Employment (Direct and Indirect) and Percentage
Increase Over No Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-74)
Figure 4.2.3.8-2.-Unemployment Rate, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Increase from
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Regional Economic Area.
Construction. Construction of a tritium supply technology alone would require a total of
approximately 6,380 to 12,700 worker-years of activity over a 5- to 9-year period. New
jobs would be created at annual average rates ranging from 1percent to 3 percent until the
peak year of construction, 2005. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would generally
decrease by less than one percent annually for the four technologies, however, the rates
would be greater than the No Action estimates. Appendix table D.3-3 presents the
estimates of employment that would be created during peak construction in 2005, or the
number of new jobs can be calculated by subtracting tritium recycling contribution from
tritium supply technologies and recycling in Figure 4.2.3.8-1.
Although the construction of the tritium supply technology alone would create new jobs,
the effects of constructing this facility would not be enough to greatly affect the
unemployment rate projected for No Action. Additionally, per capita income in the region
would rise only slightly above that estimated for No Action. Estimates of unemployment
rate and per capita income are presented in appendix table D.3-3, or can be derived for
tritium supply alternatives by subtracting tritium recycling contribution in Figure
4.2.3.8-2.
Operation. Operation employment for the tritium supply technologies alone would begin
phasing in at the end of the construction period and be at full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Estimates for full
employment in 2010 are presented in appendix table D.3-3. Total project related jobs
created by the tritium supply technologies alone can be calculated by subtracting the
tritium recycling contribution in Figure 4.2.3.8-1.
The addition of new jobs during operation would reduce the unemployment rate below the
projection for No Action. The unemployment rate for 2010, the first year of full operation
employment, is presented in appendix table D.3-3, or can be derived by subtracting
tritium recycling contribution in Figure 4.2.3.8-2. Unemployment would be reduced from the
No Action projection of 6.4 percent to a range of 5.4 to 5.6 percent from 2010 to 2020
depending upon the technology selected.
The creation of new jobs as a result of tritium supply operation would also increase
income slightly over the No Action estimates. Appendix table D.3-3 presents the per capita
income for the facility for 2010. From 2010 to 2020, per capita income annual increases
would be 1 percent, the same annual increase projected under No Action.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Tritium supply technologies that provide less than the
baseline tritium requirement are described in section 3.1. These options may or may not be
collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The options include lowering the power
in the HWR, using fewer target rods in the MHTGR and ALWR, and the phased approach for the
APT.
Construction. The less than baseline operations case for the HWR, ALWR, and MHTGR would
have the same construction workforce requirements as discussed in the tritium supply and
recycling and tritium supply only sections. Therefore, employment and economic effects in
the region would be the same.
The Phased APT would require the same total number of construction workers as the Full
APT, but the construction period would span from 1999 to 2008 instead of from 2003 to
2007. Additionally, peak construction would occur in 2003 instead of 2005. The effects
on the regional economic area's employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income as a
result of constructing the Phased APT are presented in appendix table D.3-3. Appendix
table D.3-4 presents the effects on employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income
for constructing the Phased APT with tritium recycling facilities. Generally, average
annual increases in employment and income are similar to those for the Full APT, but these
increases are over a longer period of time. These increases are between less than 1
percent and 2percent.
Operation. Operation workforce requirements for the less than baseline tritium case for
the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and the Phased APT would be the same as those described in the
tritium supply and recycling and tritium supply only sections. Thus, regional employment
and economic effects would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. Construction activities for the multipurpose reactor would begin in
2001 and would be completed by 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation of the
multipurpose reactor would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue at
that level into the future. Because this option would perform three processes, it would
result in greater changes in employment and local economy characteristics than any of the
four tritium supply technologies.
Construction. Siting the multipurpose reactor and a recycling facility at INEL would
require 19,140worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. The multipurpose reactor
alone would require 18,150worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. Employment
characteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during con-
struction of the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-3a and D.3-4a, respectively. From the first year of
construction to the peak year (2005), annual average increases in employment and per
capita income would range from 2 to 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would
decrease annually at an average rate of less than 1percent and per capita income would
increase on an annual average of 1 percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction
for this option with or without a recycling facility would be 4.5 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the multipurpose reactor would begin phasing in
toward the end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment char-
acteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of
the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in
appendix tables D.3-3a and D.3-4a, respectively. During operation annual employment growth
would be flat and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than 1 percent.
The unemployment rate for the multipurpose reactor alone and with a recycling facility
would be 5.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Construction activities for the APT power
plant would begin in 2003 and would be completed by 2007. Phasing in of employment for the
operation of the APT power plant would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at that level into the future. This option is similar to the APT with an addition
of a gas-power plant. The changes in employment and local economy would be similar, but
greater than those resulting from the APT.
Construction. Siting this option with a recycling facility at INEL would require 7,600
worker-years of activity over a 5-year period. The APT power plant alone would require
6,600 worker-years of activity of a 5-year period. Employment characteristics, unem-
ployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of this option
alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-3a and
D.3-4a, respectively. From the first year of construction to the peak year (2005), annual
average increases in employment and per capita income would range from 2 to 3 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, employment would decrease annually at an average rate of less than
1percent and per capita income would increase on an annual average of 1 percent. The
unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with or without a recycling
facility would be 4.3 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the APT power plant would begin phasing in toward the
end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full employment is
expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of the APT
power plant alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables
D.3-3a and D.3-4a, respectively. During operation annual employment growth would be flat
and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than 1 percent. The
unemployment rate for the APT power plant alone and with a recycling facility would be 5.6
percent and 4.8 percent, respectively.
Population and Housing
Changes to ROI population and housing expected from the proposed action at INEL are
described in this section. Additional population could be expected to in-migrate to the
INEL region and these people would be expected to reside in cities and counties within the
ROI in the same relative proportion as the existing population. Increases to popula-
tion could lead to a demand for additional housing units beyond existing vacant housing
available during construction or operation phases of the proposed action. Figures4.2.3.8-3
and 4.2.3.8-4 present changes in population and housing for all of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Population and housing annual average increases between 2001 and 2005 are
projected to be less than 1 percent. Annual average increases are also projected to be
less than 1 percent between 2005 and 2010. Population in the ROI is estimated to reach
207,300 in 2010 and 215,200 in 2020. Total housing units in the ROI are estimated to reach
75,400 in 2010 and 78,300 in 2020. No Action estimates are given in appendix tables D.3-5
and D.3-8.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. It is expected that the greatest increase caused by the
proposed action would increase population and housing demands in the ROI by 9 percent over
No Action projections during peak construction. The effects are expected to be fewer (2
percent) during the operation phase of the proposed action.
Construction. Construction activities would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period. Figure
4.2.3.8-3 illustrates that during peak construction (2005), the ALWR and APT would create
the largest population and housing demand increases over No Action, and the HWR and MHTGR
would have the fewest effects. The increase in population could require some additional
housing units beyond what is currently available in the existing housing mix. However, any
requirements for additional housing units in the ROI would be at annual average increases
of 3 percent in the first 3 years of construction of the ALWR and the APT, followed by an
approximately 1percent annual decrease until peak operation. The other tritium supply
technologies would have annual average population and housing demand growth of 2percent or
less. Therefore, there would not be any major effects on any of the ROI communities.
Operation. Operation of any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities is
expected to reach full employment by 2010. In-migrating population is expected to demand
housing units similar to the existing housing mix in the ROI. Figure4.2.3.8-4 shows that
population increases and potential demand for additional housing units over No Action
projections is less than 2 percent for the ROI in this peak year. Given that the
operations of the proposed action would be phased in over a 4-year period, it is expected
that existing vacancies would absorb much of this new demand and that No Action
requirements would be exceeded by very few units.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating a tritium supply technology alone at INEL would not
increase population or housing demands in the ROI more than 8percent over No Action
projections during the construction period or 1 percent during operation.
Construction. Construction activities for the tritium supply technologies alone would be
lower than if collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The greatest increase in
population and housing demand would occur during peak construction in 2005. Appendix
tables D.3-6 and D.3-9 show that available vacancies in the existing housing mix would
probably accommodate the expected population growth.
Operation. Full employment levels for any of the tritium supply technologies alone would
be reached by 2010. In-migrating population would be expected to require housing units
similar to the existing mix in the ROI. These requirements would be lower than those of
the tritium supply technologies collocated with the recycling facilities. Potential
demand for housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full employment
as illustrated in appendix table D.3-9. It is expected that existing vacancies would
absorb most of this new demand as employment would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Population increases and housing demands would be the same
or lower during construction and operation of tritium supply technologies operated at less
than baseline tritium requirements than the alternatives discussed in the tritium supply
and recycling and tritium supply only sections.
Construction. Population increases and housing demands would be the same as those given in
Figure4.2.3.8-3 for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The Phased APT would increase population and
housing demand during construction to the same level as the Full APT, but this would occur
over a longer construction period with lower average annual increases (1 percent or less).
Also, the peak construction year would be 2003 instead of 2005. The effects of the
Phased APT on population and housing are presented in appendix tables D.3-6 and D.3-9,
respectively. Appendix tables D.3-7 and D.3-10 present the results of constructing the
Phased APT with the tritium recycling facilities.
Figure (Page 4-78)
Figure 4.2.3.8-3.-Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action During Peak
Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-79)
Figure 4.2.3.8-4.-Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action at Full
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Region of Influence, 2010.
Operation. The effects on population and housing of operating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR and
Phased APT at less than baseline tritium requirements would be the same as those given in
Figure 4.2.3.8-4.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a recycling
facility at INEL would not increase population and housing demands more than 12 percent
over No Action projections during the construction period and 5 percent during operation.
Construction. Because this option would perform three processes, it would result in
greater changes in population and housing characteristics than any of the four tritium
supply technologies. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
multipurpose reactor with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix
tables D.3-6a, D.3-7a, D.3-9a, and D.3-10a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would
be at an annual average rate of 3 percent until 2005 and less than 1percent between 2005
and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the multipurpose reactor would be reached by 2010.
As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-6a, D.3-7a, D.3-9a, and D.3-10a, potential demand
for housing units would be less than 5 percent in the first year of full employment. It is
expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment
would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a recycling facility at INEL would not increase population and housing demands
more than 7 percent over No Action projections during the construction period and 2
percent during operation.
Construction. This option is similar to the APT with the addition of a gas power plant.
The changes in population and housing demands would be similar, but greater than those
resulting from the APT. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
the APT power plant with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix tables
D.3-6a, D.3-7a, D.3-9a, and D.3-10a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be at
an annual average rate of 3 percent until 2005 and less than 1percent between 2005 and
2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the APT power plant would be reached by 2010. As
illustrated in appendix tables D.3-6a, D.3-7a, D.3-9a, and D.3-10a, potential demand for
housing units would be less than 2 percent in the first year of full employment. It is
expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment would
be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Public Finance
Fiscal changes could occur in some ROI local jurisdictions from the proposed action.
Factors influencing these changes include residence of project-related employees and
their dependents, cost and duration of construction, and economic conditions in the ROI
once the new facilities are operational.
Adding the proposed action to INEL would increase population, resulting in more revenues
for ROI local jurisdictions. Additional population would also increase public service
expenditures. Figures 4.2.3.8-5 through 4.2.3.8-8 present the potential fiscal changes
that would occur with the different tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. No Action is the reference condition against which tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities are compared. Appendix tables D.3-11 and D.3-12 present the 1992
public finance characteristics for local ROI jurisdictions. Appendix tables D.3-13 through
D.3-20 present the impacts from tritium supply technologies alone or collocated with
recycling facilities compared to No Action during construction and operation for the local
counties, cities, and school districts. Between 2001 and 2005, ROI counties, cities, and
school districts are projected to increase total revenues on an annual average of less
than 1 percent. Total expenditures are also projected to increase on an annual average of
less than 1 percent for ROI counties, cities, and school districts between 2001 and 2005.
Between the peak year of construction (2005) and full operation (2010), total revenues and
expenditures are also expected to increase by less than 1 percent.
Between 2010 and 2020, projected annual average increases in total revenues are less than
1 percent for counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI. Total expenditures are
also projected to increase on an average by less than 1 percent for ROI jurisdictions
between 2010 and 2020.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at INEL would create some fiscal
benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI. Some local government finances would be
affected during the construction and operation phases of the proposed action. Con-
struction-related effects on revenues and expenditures could span a period of 5 to 9
years with the peak occurring in 2005. The effects of the operation phase would peak in
2010 and remain at this level throughout the life of the proposed action.
Construction. The public finances of counties, cities, and school districts within the ROI
would be affected by the construction-related activities associated with the proposed
action. Initially, there would be slight increases to some local government jurisdictions'
revenues and expenditures which would peak in 2005 and then decline as construction neared
completion. Figures 4.2.3.8-5 and 4.2.3.8-7 give the revenue and expenditure changes of
ROI local government jurisdictions over No Action during peak construction for the four
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. Under the ALWR, revenues and
expenditures would increase annually between 4 percent to less than 1 percent in the
first 3 years of construction. After the peak construction year, there would be decreases
of less than 1 to 2 percent annually until 2010. Under the HWR, MHTGR, and APT revenues
and expenditures would increase annually between 2and less than 1 percent between 2002 and
2005 and then growth would be flat until 2010. Under the No Action estimates, local
government revenues and expenditures would increase on an annual average of less than 1
percent.
Operation. The effects on the ROI local government finances of phasing in operation
together with phasing out construction would be fewer than the effects at peak or full
operation (2010). The effects that the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would have on county, city, and school district revenues and expenditures are
presented in figures 4.2.3.8-6 and 4.2.3.8-8. Between 2010 and 2020, revenues are expected
to increase slightly but at an average annual rate of less than 1 percent for all juris-
dictions. Expenditures would also increase slightly to 2020 at an annual average of less
than 1 percent. No Action local government revenues and expenditures would also increase
at an average annual rate of less than 1percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating the tritium supply without the recycling facilities at INEL
would create some fiscal benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI, but these effects
would be less than the effect of collocation with tritium recycling.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and 2005, revenues and expenditures
would increase annually between less than 1 percent and 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2010,
revenues and expenditures would decrease annually between less than 1 percent and 2
percent. Appendix tables D.3-13 and D.3-15 present the revenue and expenditure changes of
ROI local governments over No Action during peak construction of the tritium supply
technologies alone.
Operation. The operation phase of the tritium supply technologies alone would affect the
public finances of counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI, but these effects
would be less than those resulting from operating the tritium supply technologies with the
recycling facilities. Appendix tables D.3-14 and D.3-16 present the effects that operation
would have on these local jurisdictions in 2010. During 2010 to 2020, revenues and
expenditures are expected to increase annually by less than 1 percent. In comparison, No
Action local government revenues and expenditures would increase at an average annual rate
of 1 percent.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The fiscal benefits that local jurisdictions would accrue
from the location of a tritium supply technology alone or collocated with recycling
would be the same or less if the tritium supply technologies is operated at less than
baseline tritium requirements.
Figure (Page 4-82)
Figure 4.2.3.8-5.-City and County Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over
No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-83)
Figure 4.2.3.8-6.-County and City Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over
No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Region of Influence, 2010.
Figure (Page 4-84)
Figure 4.2.3.8-7.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over
No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-85)
Figure 4.2.3.8-8.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over
No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Region of Influence, 2010.
Construction. Increases in local jurisdictions' revenues and expenditures would be the
same as those given in figures 4.2.3.8-5 and 4.2.3.8-7 if the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR are
built. If the Phased APT is constructed, the effects would peak in 2003 instead of 2005,
and the annual average increases would be lower (2 percent or less). Appendix tables
D.3-13 through D.3-16 present the revenue and expenditure changes as a result of
constructing the Phased APT for all ROI jurisdictions. Revenue and expenditure changes
resulting from the construction of the Phased APT with tritium recycling are presented in
appendix tables D.3-17 through D.3-20.
Operation. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and Phased APT at less than baseline tritium
requirements would have the same effects on local jurisdictions' finances as those
presented in figures4.2.3.8-6 and 4.2.3.8-8.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a tritium
recycling facility at INEL would create greater changes in public finance characteristics
than the four tritium supply technologies because this option would perform three pro-
cesses. Public finance characteristics for the multipurpose reactor with and without a
recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-13a through D.3-20a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year (2005), revenues
and expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 5
percent. Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would decrease annually between
less than 1 and 2 percent.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to be flat for most cities, counties, and school
districts.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a tritium recycling facility at INEL would create similar, but greater changes in
public finance characteristics than the APT tritium supply technology. Public finance
characteristics for the APT power plant with and without a recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-13a through D.3-20a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 2 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would decrease annually by less than 1
percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to be flat for most cities, counties, and school
districts.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Adding new missions to INEL would create new jobs and generally benefit the local economy
through increased earnings in the ROI. Some mitigation measures may be required, such as
Federal aid to local school districts where additional school age children would attend as
a result of the proposed action. These new missions at INEL would increase population and
the demand for additional housing units. Temporary housing units and mobile homes would
help to alleviate the demand for new housing during the construction phase of the proposed
action. Generally, construction would be phased over a 5-to9-year period with peak
construction occurring in 2005. Phasing the start of operation employment and training
between 2005 and 2010 would reduce the annual level of housing demand and smooth the peak
and valley effect that would occur between peak construction and full operation.
Local Transportation
The following is a description of the effects on local transportation resulting from
locating new missions at INEL. Construction and operation of tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities are expected to increase traffic volume and flow on site access
routes.
No Action. Under No Action, the worker population at INEL would not increase. Therefore,
any increases in traffic would not be the result of DOE-related activities at INEL.
Segments providing access to INEL include U.S. Route 20/26, State Route 33, and State
Route 22/23. Traffic conditions on site access roads would remain as described in section
4.2.2.8.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at INEL would result in increases,
depending on the tritium supply technology, of worker population at the site. Traffic
volume on site access roads leading to and from INEL would increase due to the addi-
tional workforce. The primary access route to INEL is U.S. Route 20/26. This route would
carry the greatest increase in traffic from site development. Currently this route and
secondary branches leading to the various internal areas of INEL are congested during peak
travel time. Locating the MHTGR or ALWR at INEL would have the greatest effect on traffic
volume and flow.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating a tritium supply technology without the recycling facility
at INEL would result in increased worker population, thereby increasing traffic on site
access roads. However, the effects on traffic would be less than siting the tritium
recycling facility with any one of the supply technologies.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The effects on traffic flow rates would be the same whether
or not the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR were operated at baseline or less than baseline tritium
requirements. Construction of the Phased APT instead of the Full APT would have reduced
traffic volume and flow rates during the construction phase.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation of traffic conditions may be necessary due to
the proposed action at INEL. Potential mitigation of impacts to the local transportation
network could include widening and extension of U.S. Route 20/26, the primary access route
to INEL, as well as possible realignment of roadways and construction of interchanges at
roadway intersections overburdened by increased vehicle traffic and congestion. In
addition, internal access routes connecting U.S. Route 20/26 with the project area could
be upgraded to carry the increased load.

4.2.3.9 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents
This section describes the impacts of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
resulting from either normal operation or accidents at facilities involved with the
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at INEL. The section first describes
the impacts from normal operation followed by a description of impacts from facility
accidents.
During normal operation at INEL, all tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities
would result in impacts that are within regulatory limits. The risk of adverse health
effects to the public and to workers would be small.
For facility accident impacts, the results indicate that for all technologies, the risk of
fatal cancers (taking into account both the probability of the accident and its
consequences) from an accidental release of radioactive or hazardous chemical substances
at INEL is low when compared to fatal cancers from all causes, even for a severe accident.
The impact methodology is described in section 4.1.9. Summaries of the radiological and
chemical impacts associated with normal operation are presented in tables 4.2.3.9-1 and
4.2.3.9-2, respectively. Summaries of impacts associated with postulated accidents are
given in tables 4.2.3.9-3 and 4.2.3.9-4. Detailed results are presented in appendix E for
normal operation and in appendix F for accidents.
Normal Operation
No Action. The current missions at INEL are described in section 3.3.1. Site
representatives have identified those facilities that will continue to operate and others,
if any, that will become operational by 2010. Based on that information, the radiological
and chemical releases for 2010 and beyond were developed and used in the impacts
assessments.
Radiological Impacts. As shown in table 4.2.3.9-1, No Action would result in a calculated
annual dose of 6.0x10-3 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public, which projects
to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 1.2x10-7 from 40 years of total site operation. This
annual dose is within radiological limits and is1.7x10-3 percent of the natural background
radiation dose received by the average person living near INEL.
Table 4.2.3.9-1.-Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting from
Normal Operation of Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory
- No Action Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Tritium
Recycling
- - HWR MHTGR Large Small Full APT Phased -
ALWR ALWR APT
- - - - - - Helium-3 SILC Helium-3 -
Target Target Target
System System System
Affected Environment
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Dose (mrem/yr) 6.0x10-3 0.29 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11
Percent of natural background 1.7x10-3 0.084 0.053 0.10 0.10 0.032 0.047 0.032 0.031
40-year fatal cancer risk 1.2x10-7 5.9x10-6 3.8x10-6 7.3x10-6 7.3x10-6 2.3x10-6 3.3x10-6 2.3x10-6 2.2x10-6
Population Within 50 Miles
Year 2030
Dose (person-rem) 0.037 53 37 73 71 23 32 23 22
Percent of natural backgroundd 7.0x10-5 0.1 0.069 0.14 0.13 0.042 0.060 0.042 0.041
40-year fatal cancers 7.4x10-4 1.1 0.73 1.5 1.4 0.45 0.64 0.45 0.44
Worker Onsite
Average site worker dosec 30 33 31 49 41 33 33 33 4
(mrem/yr)
40-year fatal cancer risk 4.8x10-4 5.2x10-4 5.0x10-4 7.9x10-4 6.6x10-4 5.2x10-4 5.2x10-4 5.2x10-4 6.4x10-5
Total site workforce dose 220 261 250 392 322 260 262 260 1.6
(person-rem/yr)
40-year fatal cancers 3.5 4.2 4.0 6.3 5.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 0.026
The population dose from total site operation in 2030 was calculated to be 0.037
person-rem, which projects to an estimated 7.4x10-4 fatal cancers over 40 years of total
site operation. This population dose would be approximately 7.0x10-5 percent of the annual
dose received by the surrounding population from natural background radiation.
The annual average dose to a site worker from No Action would be 30 mrem, which projects
to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 4.8x10-4 from 40 years of site operation. The annual
dose to the total site workforce would be 220 person-rem, which projects to an estimated
3.5 fatal cancers from 40 years of total site operation. These estimated worker doses are
based on the measured doses at INEL from 1989 to 1992 and the projected employment for
2010.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. No Action at INEL would result in a calculated HI of 1.7x10-4
and no cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public. The worker HI and cancer
risk were calculated to be 0.021 and 0, respectively. These values are within the
acceptable regulatory health limits.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. There would be no radiological releases during the
construction of new tritium recycling facilities or new facilities that are associated
with tritium supply technologies under consideration. Limited hazardous chemical releases
are anticipated as a result of construction activities. However, concentrations would be
within the regulated exposure limits and would not result in any adverse health effects.
During normal operation, there would be both radiological and hazardous chemical releases
to the environment and also direct in-plant exposures. The impacts from radiological and
hazardous chemicals from each tritium supply technology considered are the summations of
the impacts from the various facilities in operation for that technology. The resulting
doses and potential health effects to the public and workers from each tritium supply
technology are described below.
Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from normal operation
from various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at INEL are listed in
table 4.2.3.9-1. The supporting analysis is provided in appendix section E.2.4.2.
The doses to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual site operation at INEL
range from 0.11 mrem for both the Full and the Phased APT with the helium-3 target option
to 0.36 mrem for both the Large and Small ALWRs. From 40 years of operation, the
corresponding risks of fatal cancer to this individual would range from 2.3x10-6 to
7.3x10-6. As a result of total site operation in the year 2030, the population doses would
range from 23 person-rem for the Full and Phased APT to 73person-rem for the Large ALWR.
The corresponding numbers of fatal cancers in this population from 40years of operation
would range from 0.45 to 1.5.
The annual dose to the total site workforce would range from 250 person-rem for the MHTGR
to 392person-rem for the Large ALWR. The corresponding annual average doses to a site
worker would be 31mrem for the MHTGR and 49mrem for the Large ALWR. The risks and numbers
of fatal cancers among workers from 40years of operation are included in table 4.2.3.9-1.
Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation as described above, all
of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are acceptable for siting at
INEL. All resulting doses are within radiological limits and are well below levels of
natural background radiation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. The HIs to the maximally exposed individual of the public
range from 1.8x10-4 (MHTGR and APT) to 4.5x10-4 (ALWR), whereas a cancer risk of 0 was
calculated for all tritium supply technologies (table 4.2.3.9-2). The worker HIs range
from 0.031 for HWR and 0.021 for MHTGR and APT to 0.11 for ALWR. There was no cancer risk
for any other technology. All values are within the acceptable regulatory health limits.
For details on the derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix tables E.3.4-2
through E.3.4-5 and summary table E.3.4-7.
Tritium Supply Alone
Radiological Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the
tritium supply, the annual dose to the maximally exposed individual would be 0.11 mrem
lower than from operation of both supply and recycling. This is 0.031 percent of the dose
from natural background radiation received by the average person near INEL. The estimated
risk of fatal cancer to this individual would decrease by 2.2x10-6 over 40 years of total
site operation. Not collocating the tritium recycling processes at INEL would result in a
decrease of 22 person-rem to the population within 50 miles in 2030, and 0.44 less fatal
cancers over 40 years of operation.
Table 4.2.3.9-2.-Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting
from Normal Operation at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Health Impact No Action Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling, Tritium
Recycling
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT -
Maximally Exposed Individual
(Public)
Hazard Index 1.7x10-4 2.1x10-4 1.8x10-4 4.5x10-4 1.8x10-4 5.4x10-7
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker Onsite
Health Index 0.021 0.031 0.021 0.11 0.021 4.9x10-5
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the tritium supply, the total
annual workforce dose would decrease by 1.6 person-rem, resulting in 0.026 less fatal
cancers over the 40 years.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the
supply technologies at INEL, the cancer risk would not change since there is no cancer
risk resulting from any option. The HIs to the public would be reduced by 0.3 percent or
less and the HIs for the workers would be reduced by 0.23 percent or less. Based on the
hazardous chemical impacts associated with normal operation at INEL, all values are within
regulatory health limits.
Less Than Baseline Operations
Normal Operation. The normal operation radiological impacts for the HWR operating at
reduced tritium production capacity to meet a less than baseline operation requirement
would be proportional to the level of operation (approximately 50 percent of baseline).
The MHTGR or ALWR normal operation radiological impacts would not change because the
reactor would maintain power requirements to produce steam or electricity.
The Phased APT is already less than baseline tritium requirement and thus the impacts are
as presently given in this PEIS.
Multipurpose Normal Operations
Potential Mitigation Measures. Radioactive and hazardous chemical airborne emissions to
the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing
the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public
exposure from emissions, improved methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the
releases to the environment. Similarly, the use of remote, automated and robotic
production methods are examples of techniques that are being developed which would reduce
worker exposure. Substitution of less toxic/noncancer causing solvents would result in
reductions of the HI and possible complete elimination of the cancer risk.
Facility Accidents
No Action. The Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is being phased out and there are no other
DOE defense program facilities in operation at INEL. As a result, under No Action, the
risk of accidents at INEL would be unchanged from that reported in safety documentation
for existing facilities.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at INEL has the potential for accidents
that may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The potential for and
associated consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents have been assessed for each
tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at INEL and are summarized in this
section and described in more detail in appendixF. The methodology used in the assessment
is described in section 4.1.9.
The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high consequence/low probability to low
consequence/high probability events, have been evaluated in terms of the number of
cancer fatalities that may result. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated
to provide an overall measure of an accident's impacts and is calculated by multiplying
the accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number
of cancer fatalities).
The analyses of postulated accidents for the tritium supply technology and recycling
facilities at INEL indicate that, for the high consequence accident, the estimated risk of
cancer fatalities to the public within 50 miles of the site would be 1.4x10-5 cancer
fatalities per year (table 4.2.3.9-3). This accident risk, which corresponds with the
HWR technology, is low when compared to the risk of cancer fatalities each year to the
same population from all other causes.
Details on the range of accidents for the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities at INEL are presented in appendix F. Each of the technologies has been analyzed
from the standpoint of identifying the consequences of design-basis/operational accidents
(using the GENII Code) and beyond design-basis, or severe accidents (using the MACCS
computer code). The severe accident consequences products may have to be destroyed; the
supply of drinking water may be reduced; recreational areas may be closed; industrial
parks may suffer economic losses; historic sites may have to be closed to visitors; and
endangered species may move closer to extinction.
Table 4.2.3.9-3.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling High Consequence/Low
Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
- Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full/Phased Full APT Tritium Target Tritium
ALWRb, ALWRb,d APT Extraction Recycling
Facility Facility
Parameter Helium-3 SILC - -
Target Target
System, Systemb,,
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 7.1x10-4 5.9x10-5 2.3x10-3 2.3x10-3 6.2x10-9 1.3x10-7 6.9x10-6 2.4x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 6.5x10-9 9.4x10-10 3.5x10-10 3.6x10-10 4.4x10-15 9.2x10-14 6.9x10-12 2.4x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 1.6 0.18 0.36 4.1 1.0x10-5 9.4x10-5 0.012 0.04
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.4x10-5 2.9x10-6 5.5x10-8 6.4x10-7 7.4x10-12 6.7x10-11 1.2x10-8 4.0x10-8
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.034 6.7x10-3 0.033 0.094 6.1x10-7 9.4x10-6 6.8x10-4 2.4x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 3.2x10-7 1.1x10-7 5.0x10-9 1.5x10-8 4.4x10-13 6.7x10-12 6.8x10-10 2.4x10-9
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.017 2.3x10-3 0.019 0.047 2.3x10-7 3.8x10-6 2.5x10-4 8.8x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.6x10-7 3.7x10-8 2.9x10-9 7.3x10-9 1.6x10-13 2.7x10-12 2.5x10-10 8.8x10-10
In the region of the INEL, the natural background level of radiation (excluding radon) is
113 mrem per year. For a hypothetical design basis accidental release, the radiation
levels exceeding 113 mrem per year would be well within the site boundary. The size of the
area in which exposure levels would exceed exposures from natural background radiation is
6.7x107 square meters (16,556 are shown in table 4.2.3.9-3 for each technology. The table
also shows the consequences of each accident for the population within 50 miles of the
site and for an individual who may be located at the site boundary. The results of the
analysis indicate that the tritium technology with the highest severe accident risk is the
HWR. The technology with the lowest accident risk is the APT with the helium-3 target
system. These results take into account accidents that may occur in the tritium production
system as well as the tritium extraction and recycling facilities. The tritium extraction
and recycling facilities are common to all tritium supply technologies but, except for the
APT, the consequences and risk are dominated by reactor accidents. The APT accident
consequences and risks are lower than the tritium extraction facility's accident
consequences.
Figure 4.2.3.9-1 shows the number of latent cancer fatalities that may result for each
technology, including tritium extraction and recycling, if a high consequence accident
would occur. Specifically, each curve in the figure shows the annual probability (vertical
axis) that the number of cancer fatalities (horizontal axis) will be exceeded if the
accident occurred. The curves reflect that probability of the accident.
The secondary impacts of accidents affect elements of the environment other than humans.
For example, a radiological release may contaminate farmland, surface and underground
water, recreational areas, industrial parks, historical sites, or the habitat of an
endangered species. As a result, farm products may have to be destroyed; the supply of
drinking water may be reduced; recreational areas may be closed; industrial parks may
suffer economic losses; historic sites may have to be closed to visitors; and endangered
species may move closer to extinction. In the region of the INEL, the natural background
level of radiation (excluding radon) is 113 mrem per year. For a hypothetical
design-basis accident release, the radiation levels exceeding 113 mrem per year would be
well within the site boundary. The size of the area in which exposure levels would exceed
exposures from natural background radiation is 6.7x107 square meters (16,566 acres).
Additional information on secondary impacts is provided in appendix section F.3.
Tritium Supply Alone. The analyses of reasonably foreseeable high consequence accidents
for the tritium supply facilities at INEL are presented below.
Heavy Water Reactor. A set of five high consequence accident sequences were postulated for
the HWR. These are described in appendix section F.2.1.1. In the event any of these
accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 1.6 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 7.1x10-4 to
an individual located at the site boundary and 0.034 to a worker located at 1,000 meters
from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the accidents
into account, is 1.4x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table4.2.3.9-3).
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident
sequences were postulated for the MHTGR. These are described in appendix section F.2.1.2.
In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.18
cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer
fatality of 5.9x10-5 to an individual located at the site boundary and 6.7x10-3 to a
worker located at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes
the probability of the accidents into account, is 2.9x10-6 cancer fatalities per year
(table4.2.3.9-3).
Advanced Light Water Reactor. A range of high consequence, low probability accidents
with various release categories was selected to represent the accident consequences for
both the Large and Small ALWRs (appendix section F.2.1.3). In the event of such an
accident, there would be an estimated 0.36cancer fatalities for a Large ALWR and 4.1cancer
fatalities for a Small ALWR in the population within 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 2.3x10-3 for a Large ALWR and 2.3x10-3 for a Small ALWR
to an individual located at the site boundary and 0.033 for a Large ALWR and 0.094 for a
Small ALWR to a worker located at 1,000meters from the accident. The risk to the pop-
ulation, that takes the probability of the accidents into account, is 5.5x10-8 cancer
fatalities per year for a Large ALWR and 6.4x10-7 cancer fatalities per year for a Small
ALWR (table4.2.3.9-3).
Figure (Page 4-93)
Figure 4.2.3.9-1.-High Consequence Accident-Cancer Fatalities Complementary Cumulative
Distribution Functions for Tritium Supply and Recycling Severe Accidents for Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory.
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Helium-3 Target System. The large break loss of
coolant accident with the total loss of the active emergency cooling system and the heat
sink with and without confinement were postulated as the high consequence accidents for
this APT and target option. In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there
would be an estimated 1.0x10-5 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and
an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 6.2x10-9 to an individual located at the
site boundary and 6.1x10-7 to a worker located at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk
to the population, that takes the probability of the accidents into account, is on the
order of 7.4x10-12 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.2.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Spallation-Induced Lithium Conversion Target
System. The large break loss of coolant accident with a successful beam trip and the total
loss of the active emergency cooling system with and without confinement were postulated
as the high consequence accident for this APT and target option. In the event that any of
these accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 9.4x10-5 cancer fatalities in
the population within 50miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.3x10-7
to an individual located at the site boundary and 9.4x10-6 to a worker located at
1,000meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of
the accident into account, is on the order of 2.7x10-12 cancer fatalities per year
(table4.2.3.9-3).
Tritium Extraction and Recycling. The tritium extraction facility is required to support
all tritium supply technologies except the APT technology with the helium-3 target system.
The tritium recycling facility is required to support all tritium supply technologies.
The analyses of postulated high consequence accidents for the tritium extraction and
recycling facilities at INEL are presented below.
Tritium Target Extraction Facility. An earthquake and release of process vessel tritium
inventory was postulated as the high consequence accident. In the event that this accident
were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.012 cancer fatalities in the population
within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 6.9x10-6 to an
individual located at the site boundary and 6.8x10-4 to a worker located at 1,000meters
from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the accident
into account, is on the order of 1.2x10-8 cancer fatalities per year.
Tritium Recycling Facility. An earthquake induced leak/ignition and fire in the unloading
station carousel reservoir was postulated as the high consequence accident for the
tritium recycling facility. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be
an estimated 0.04 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 2.4x10-5 to an individual located at the site boundary
and 2.4x10-3 to a worker located at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the pop-
ulation, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the order of
4.0x10-8 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.2.3.9-3).
For comparison purposes, with high consequence tritium supply facility accidents,
including extraction and recycling, for the same total population of 150,000 in 2050 in
all sectors within 50 miles of the site, there is a risk of 300 cancer fatalities per year
from all other natural causes.
The analysis of facility accidents for tritium supply at INEL shows that for high
consequence accidents analyzed using the MACCS computer code, the HWR has the highest risk
and the APT has the lowest risk. The risk of accidents for any of the tritium supply
alternatives, tritium extraction, and tritium recycling facilities common to all
alternatives is low when compared to the human risk of cancer fatalities from all other
causes.
Design-Basis Accidents. The consequences of operational basis or design-basis accidents
for the tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at INEL are shown in table
4.2.3.9-4. The results in table 4.2.3.9-4 should not be compared with the severe accident
analysis results in table 4.2.3.9-3 because different computer codes using different
calculational approaches were used. A more detailed description of design-basis
accidents is included in appendix F.2.2.
Table 4.2.3.9-4.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Low-to-Moderate Consequence/
High Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory
- Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full/Phased Tritium Target Tritium Recycling
ALWRb, ALWRb,d APT Extraction Facility
Facilityb
Parameter SILC - -
Target
Systemb,
Accident
Description Fuel assembly failure Moderate break in Fuel handling Fuel handling Large break loss of Deflagration Hydride Bed
during charge and primary system coolant Rupture
discharge operations piping accident
Frequency (per year) 1.0x10-3 0.025 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-3 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 8.1x10-6 5.1x10-9 5.0x10-6 6.8x10-6 Negligible 5.0x10-5 2.1x10-7
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 8.1x10-9 1.3x10-10 5.0x10-11 6.8x10-11 Negligible 1.0x10-9 4.2x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesi 0.074 2.0x10-5 0.038 0.062 Negligible 0.45 2.1x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 7.4x10-5 5.0x10-7 3.8x10-7 6.2x10-7 Negligible 9.0x10-6 4.2x10-7
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 1.1x10-4 1.3x10-7 1.0x10-4 1.3x10-4 Negligible 1.7x10-3 7.2x10-10
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.1x10-7 3.3x10-9 1.0x10-9 1.3x10-9 Negligible 3.4x10-8 1.4x10-13
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 3.5x10-5 4.2x10-8 3.6x10-5 4.5x10-5 Negligible 5.6x10-4 2.4x10-10
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 3.5x10-8 1.1x10-9 3.6x10-10 4.5x10-10 Negligible 1.1x10-8 4.8x10-14
Less Than Baseline Operations
Facility Accidents. Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change
to the current accident analyses consequences for the HWR unless the baseline HWR core
design was downsized. The baseline HWR configuration would adjust to the reduced target
through-put requirements by reducing the time that the reactor is required to operate at
100percent power. It is not anticipated that the overall risk from operating the reactor
in this mode would decrease significantly. Accident analyses have not been performed to
address accident sequences and initiating events when the reactor is in the cold shut down
mode. In addition, operator error has a significant effect on facility risk and if the
reactor is shutdown a high percentage of the time, operator error may actually increase
when the reactor is at power.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the current
accident analyses consequences for the ALWR. The reactor surplus capacity would be used to
generate steam for electric power production.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no change to the MHTGR accident analyses
because the analyses assumed that only one of the reactor modules would be involved in the
accident.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the APT accident
analyses consequences. The accident consequences for Full and Phased APT accidents with
low to moderate consequences were negligible. For the beyond design basis accident,
there was no difference in the Full and the Phased accident consequences. Review of the
source terms is identical for both accidents. Review of the MACCS computer code output
data for each accident analysis indicated that the tritium component of the source term
dominated the dose calculation results. The impact of the other source term isotopes on
the dose calculation results is negligible.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The accidents postulated for tritium supply technologies
and recycling are based on operations and safety analyses that have been performed at
similar facilities. One of the major design goals for tritium supply and recycling facili-
ties is to achieve a reduced risk to facility personnel and to public health and safety to
as low as reasonably achievable.
Current estimates are that there would be no collocated workers within 2,000 meters from
an accident's location. There would be approximately 4,500 collocated workers beyond
2,000 meters from an accident. Involved workers that are associated with the proposed
action would be located in an around the facility.
Worker exposures that may result from the accidental release of radioactive material will
be minimized through design features and administrative procedures that will be defined
in conjunction with the facility design process. The radiological impacts to individual
workers from accidents could not be quantitatively estimated for this PEIS because the
facility design information needed to support the estimate has not yet been developed. The
impacts on individual and collocated workers from accidents will be analyzed as part of
subsequent project-specific NEPA documentation and in detailed safety analysis docu-
mentation that are prepared in conjunction with the facility design process.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to comply with current
Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and industrial codes and standards. This would
provide facilities that are highly resistant to the effects of severe natural phenomena,
including earthquake, flood, tornado, high wind, as well as credible events as appropriate
to the site, such as fire and explosions, and man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity for containing materials.
The tritium supply and recycling facility would be designed to resist the effects of
severe natural phenomena as well as the effects of man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity. It also would be designed to provide containment of the tritium
inventory at all times through the use of multiple, high quality confinement barriers to
prevent the accidental release of tritium to the environment. It also would be designed to
produce a lower quantity of waste materials as compared to the tritium facilities of the
existing weapons complex.
In addition, DOE orders specify the requirements for emergency preparedness at DOE
facilities. INEL has comprehensive emergency plans to protect life and property within the
facility and the health and welfare of surrounding areas. The emergency plans would be
revised to incorporate future DOE requirements and expanded to incorporate the addition of
tritium supply and recycling facilities to INEL. Section 4.2.2.9 provides additional
information on emergency preparedness and emergency plans at INEL.

4.2.3.10 Waste Management
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities would impact
existing INEL waste management operations by increasing the generation of low-level,
mixed low-level, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and spent nuclear fuel. There are no
high-level or TRU wastes associated with the proposed action. As part of their design, all
reactor technologies would provide stabilization and storage of spent fuel for the life of
the facility. Spent nuclear fuel would be managed in accordance with DOE's decisions
identified in the ROD of the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Manage-
ment and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Programs Final EIS. The impacts of using existing waste management facilities
would range from filling 0.6 acres per year of LLW disposal area, utilizing 100percent of
the capacity of the liquid LLW treatment facilities, increasing the generation of mixed
LLW by a rate that would fill existing facilities in 84 percent of their planned lifetime,
and producing solid sanitary wastes at a rate that would require additional landfill
capacity. The worst case for solid hazardous waste generation increases the No Action
volume by one-third, and would most likely require additional RCRA-permitted storage
facilities where the waste could be staged for shipment to a RCRA-permitted disposal
facility. All the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would produce
liquid sanitary wastes that would require new treatment facilities because INEL does not
have central facilities for this waste and there are no surface or subsurface discharge
options. This section provides a description of the waste generation, treatment, storage
and disposal requirements for the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities and
the potential impacts on waste management at INEL.
No Action. Under No Action, INEL has no weapons program mission; however, INEL would
continue to receive and manage naval reactor fuel and nonaluminum clad fuels and would
manage high-level, TRU, low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes from the
missions described in section 3.3.1. Table 4.2.3.10-1 lists the projected waste
generation rates; and treatment, storage, and disposal capacities under No Action.
Projections were derived from 1992 environmental data with appropriate adjustments made
for those changing operational requirements where the volume of wastes generated are
identifiable. The projection does not include wastes from future, yet uncharacterized,
environmental restoration activities. At the time that the new tritium supply and
recycling facilities would be expected to commence operations (in 2010), much of the
existing wastes at INEL would have been treated and disposed of or stored in compliance
with existing regulations. The waste treatment activities that are planned to be still in
operation are the calcination of liquid HLW and LLW after completion of the processing
of special fuels and residuals at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, the retrieval and
repackaging of buried TRU waste, and stabilization of spent nuclear fuel for long-term
storage. Spent nuclear fuel would be managed in accordance with DOE's decisions identified
in the ROD from the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs Final EIS. As reflected in this ROD, the DOE estimated inventory of spent nuclear
fuel in 2035 is 2,742 metric tons. For comparison purposes, the commercial spent nuclear
fuel inventory in 2030, assuming no reprocessing or new orders, is projected to be 85,700
metric tons of heavy metal (DOE 1994d:16). TRU waste already packaged to WIPP waste
acceptance criteria would either be stored or would have been shipped. Mixed waste would
have been treated and disposed of according to the INEL Site Treatment Plan, which was
developed to comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, and all other wastes
currently identified would have been disposed of. The processing of these legacy wastes
would require new facilities, since treatment, storage, and disposal facilities either do
not exist or are nearing capacity.
Table 4.2.3.10-1.-Projected Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management for No Action at Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory [Page 1 of 2]
Category Annual Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Rate Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear Fuel None Stabilization Being designed Pools, dry, casks Planned Planned - Federal NA
(offsite receipts repository
as result of
ROD)
High-Level
Liquid 981 Calcine 1,308 Tanks 16,101 None None
(198,162 gal) (264,216 GPY) (3,252,000 gal)
Solid 1,439 Under To be designed Bins 9,267 Planned - Federal NA
development repository
Transuranic
Liquid None None None None None NA NA
Solid < 1 Planned Planned TRU storage Planned Planned - Federal NA
facility repository
Low-Level
Liquid None Evaporation, 14,376 Tanks 47,160 NA NA
fractionation (2,904,000 GPY)
Solid 5,101 Incineration, 64,910 None None Subsurface 235,345
compact disposal
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid None Incineration, 64,910 Facility 65,580 None None
stabilize (13,110,000 GPY) (13,245,000 gal)
Solid 655 Incineration, 64,910 Facility 147,759 LLW burial 235,345
stabilize
Hazardous
Liquid None Incineration 64,910 Drums, 127 None None
(13,110,000 GPY) RCRA facility (25,650 gal)
Solid 308 Incineration 64,910 RCRA facility 119 RCRA facility Planneda
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid Included in solid Evaporation Planned Ponds Planned None None
Solid 68,000 None Planned None None Landfill Planneda
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None NA NA NA NA NA
Solid Included in sanitary None NA None None Onsite landfill Planneda
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Tritium supply and recycling facilities that would support
the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements (both new and existing facilities) would treat
and package all waste generated in support of this activity into forms that would enable
long-term storage and/or disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and
other relevant statutes as outlined in chapter 5 and in appendix section H.1.2. The
resultant waste effluents are shown in section 3.4. Waste generated during construction
would consist of wastewater, nonhazardous solids, and hazardous waste. The nonhazard-
ous wastes would be disposed of as part of the construction project by the contractor, and
the hazardous wastes would be shipped to a RCRApermitted treatment and disposal
facility. Operation of the three reactor-based tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would generate spent fuel, and all four technologies would generate low-level,
mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes. The volume of the waste streams from
tritium supply would vary according to the technology chosen. Table 4.2.3.10-2 lists the
total estimated waste volumes projected to be generated at INEL as a result of tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities. The incremental waste volumes from the
tritium supply and recycling facilities that were added to the No Action projection can be
found in appendix section A.2. Requirements for LLW disposal that would result from each
of the tritium supply technologies assume the effluents listed in this appendix section
and in section 3.4. Table 4.2.3.10-3 lists potential waste management impacts at INEL
projected at the time of initial operation of the tritium facilities. Spent nuclear fuel
storage for the life of the reactors is provided for in the reactor designs (appendix
section A.2.1). Because spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is not planned, no HLW would be
generated. Without plutonium production, no TRU waste would be generated. The treatment,
storage, and disposal of mixed LLW would be in accordance with the INEL Site Treatment
Plan which is currently being developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act of
1992.
Heavy Water Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of 7 yd3 per year.
This would add 0.3 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent nuclear fuel
inventory. The HWR would be designed to provide the necessary stabilization and storage of
the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid LLW generated by the
HWR would require treatment facilities to reduce its volume and stabilize the remaining
concentrated radionuclides and prepare the solidified waste for disposal onsite. The
generation of solid LLW would be increased to a rate that is more than twice the No Action
volume. Assuming a 3,300 yd3 per acre LLW disposal usage factor, this would require
approximately 0.6 acres per year for onsite LLW disposal. There would be a small amount
of liquid mixed LLW generated. Existing and planned treatment facilities could manage this
small quantity. The solid mixed LLW volume would increase 19 percent over No Action,
resulting in a proportional increase in the volume to be treated and stored at INEL.
Hazardous waste would increase by 13 percent more than the No Action volume treated and
stored. This would require a RCRA-permitted storage facility where the waste could be
packaged for shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid
sanitary wastes generated by the HWR would require new treatment facilities since INEL
does not have centralized facilities for these wastes. The volume of solid sanitary wastes
would increase the amount to be disposed of by 22 percent more than No Action. This could
reduce the remaining useful life of the landfill or require an expansion.
Siting an HWR without tritium recycling facilities at INEL would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described above. Liquid
mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All remaining waste
stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes would not
change from those described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required
for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 22 percent to
11 percent; thus proportionately decreasing the impact to the landfill.
Table 4.2.3.10-2.-Estimated Annual Generated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes for
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Category No Action HWR MHTGR ALWR/Large ALWR/Small APT
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear None (offsite receipts 7 80 55 36 None
Fuel as a result of ROD)
Low-Level
Liquid None 10,400 2,600 24,800 3,910 None
(2,100,000 gal) (525,000 gal) (5,000,000 gal) (790,000 gal)
Solid 5,100 10,700 6,750 6,160 6,110 5,990
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid None 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
(6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal)
Solid 655 777 658 663 663 664
Hazardous
Liquid None Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid None
Solid 308 349 409 344 344 312
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid Included in solid 309,000 219,000 516,000 318,000 1,290,000
(62,300,000 gal) (44,300,000 gal) (104,000,000 gal) (64,300,000 gal) (260,000,000 gal)
Solid 68,000 83,000 82,800 82,300 79,600 76,600
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary
Solid Included in sanitary 12,900 12,800g 12,200g 9,900g 6,400g
Table 4.2.3.10-3.-Potential Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Impacts from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory [Page 1 of 2]
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT
- Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact
from from from from from
No Action No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Spent Nuclear New New storage New New storage New New storage New New storage None None
Fuel facility facility facility facility
Low-Level
Liquid New May be able New May be able New New New May be able None None
to use to use treatment to use
existing existing facility existing
facility facility required facility
Solid +109 0.6 acres/ +32 0.2 acres/ +21 0.2 acres/ +20 0.1 acres/ +18 0.1 acres/
year of year of year of year of year of
LLW LLW LLW LLW LLW
disposal disposal disposal disposal disposal
required required required required required
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid New None New None New None New None New None
Solid +19 Additional +<1 None +1 None +1 None +1 None
or
expansion
of
treatment
and
storage
facilities
may be
required
Hazardous
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +13 Use of +33 Use of +12 Use of +12 Use of +1 Use of
existing existing existing existing existing
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
feasible feasible feasible feasible feasible
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid New New New New New New New New New New
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
required required required required required
Solid +22 Landfill life +22 Landfill life +21 Landfill life +17 Landfill life +13 Landfill life
reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or
expansion expansion expansion expansion expansion
required required required required required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +19 percent None- +19 percent None- +18 percent None- +15 percent None- +9 percent of None-
of sanitary Project of sanitary Project of sanitary Project of sanitary Project sanitary Project
wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are
recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the rate of
80 yd3 per year. This would add 0.24 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The MHTGR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition.
There would be liquid LLW generation, requiring a treatment facility. Solid LLW generation
at INEL would increase to a rate 32 percent greater than No Action. It would be treated
and disposed of onsite, requiring 0.2 acres per year of LLW disposal. There would be some
liquid mixed LLW generation from tritium recycling, and the solid mixed LLW generation
would cause the rate to increase by less than 1percent above No Action. Thus, there would
be a minor impact from this waste stream. The MHTGR would generate hazardous waste,
increasing the volume to by 33 percent more than that under No Action. This would require
a permitted storage facility where the waste could be staged for shipment to a
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid sanitary wastes generated by the
MHTGR would require new treatment facilities since INEL does not have centralized
facilities for these wastes. The volume of solid sanitary wastes disposed of at INEL would
be increased by 22 percent more than No Action. This could reduce the remaining life of
the landfill or require an expansion.
Siting an MHTGR without tritium recycling facilities at INEL would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All
remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid
mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes
would not change from those described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area
required for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase
in generation rate for No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 22 percent
to 11 percent, thus proportionately decreasing the impact to the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
55 yd3 per year. This would add 105 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Large ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage for the spent fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid
LLW generated by the ALWR would require new treatment facilities to reduce its volume and
stabilize the remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare the waste for disposal
onsite. The volume of these wastes from the Large ALWR is the largest of all the
technologies and exceeds the capacity of the Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility (appendix
table H.2.1-5). The solid LLW volume would increase the rate disposed of at INEL by 21
percent more than the No Action volume. This would require 0.2 acres per year of onsite
LLW disposal. There would be a small amount of liquid mixed LLW generated. The ALWR solid
mixed LLW generation would cause the rate at INEL to increase only 1 percent above No
Action, so there would be a small impact from this waste stream. Hazardous waste
generation would increase by 12percent over No Action. This would require a RCRA-permitted
facility to prepare the waste for shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal
facility. Liquid sanitary wastes generated by the Large ALWR, are larger in volume than
the other technologies, and would require new treatment facilities since INEL does not
have centralized facilities for these wastes. The solid sanitary wastes generated by the
ALWR would increase the disposal at INEL by 21 percent more than No Action generation.
This could reduce the remaining useful life of the landfill or require an expansion.
Siting a Large ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at INEL would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All
remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid
mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes
would not change from those described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area
required for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 1 acre per year. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 21 to 10
percent, thus proportionately decreasing the impact to the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
36 yd3 per year. This would add 68 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Small ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage for the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generated by the ALWR would require treatment facilities to reduce its volume
and stabilize the remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare the waste for disposal
onsite. The solid LLW volume would require 0.1 acres per year of onsite LLW disposal.
There would be a small amount of liquid mixed LLW generated. The ALWR solid mixed LLW
generation would cause the rate at INEL to increase by only 1 percent above No Action, so
there would be a small impact from this waste stream. Hazardous waste generation would
increase by 12percent over No Action. This would require a RCRA-permitted facility to
prepare the waste for shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid
sanitary wastes generated would require new treatment and disposal facilities because INEL
does not have centralized facilities for these wastes. The solid sanitary wastes generated
would increase by 17 percent more than No Action generation. This could reduce the
remaining useful life of the landfill or require an expansion.
Siting a Small ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at INEL would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All
remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid
mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes
would not change from those described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area
required for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase
in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 17 to 6
percent; thus proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of the
landfill.
Accelerator Production of Tritium. The APT does not generate spent nuclear fuel. Any
liquid LLW can be solidified at the point of generation. The APT-generated solid LLW
would increase the volume disposed of at INEL by 18 percent more than No Action. This
would require 0.1 acres per year of onsite LLW disposal. Liquid and solid mixed LLW would
be 1 percent of No Action, having a small impact. Hazardous waste generation would also
increase by 1 percent more than No Action, resulting in a small impact. Existing/planned
RCRA-permitted facilities where it could be staged for shipment to an onsite commercial
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility would be adequate. Liquid sanitary wastes
generated by the APT would require new treatment facilities since INEL does not have
centralized facilities for these wastes. The generation of solid sanitary wastes would
increase by 13percent. This could reduce the remaining useful life of the landfill or
require an expansion.
Siting an APT without tritium recycling facilities at INEL would not affect the generation
of or change the impacts from liquid LLW as described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3.
Liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining waste stream generation rates
would decrease; however, the impacts from solid nonhazardous wastes would not change from
those described above and in table 4.2.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required for solid
LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in generation rate
over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 13 to less than 2 percent.
Therefore, without tritium recycling facilities, there is minimal impact to the landfill.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event of a reduced baseline tritium requirement the
waste volumes shown in table 4.2.3.10-2 would not appreciably change as a result of the
HWR operating at less power, and the MHTGR and ALWR irradiating fewer target rods. In the
case of a Phased APT using the helium-3 target, the waste volumes with the exception of
cooling tower blowdown, which decreases by 36 percent (86 MGY), are approximately the same
as the Full APT using the helium-3 target.
Multipurpose Reactor
Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. The volume of spent nuclear
fuel generated by the six-reactor module multipurpose MHTGR would be approximately double
the spent nuclear fuel from the three-reactor module tritium supply MHTGR. Similar to the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, the plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time before dry storage, the spent nuclear fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the three-reactor module tritium
supply MHTGR. No increases in waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due
to the change from uraniumoxide reactor fuel to plutonium-oxide reactor fuel. However,
there would be increases in waste generation for all waste categories due to operation
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes from both the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility and the fabrication of
plutonium-oxide fuel. These increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.2.3.10-2
for the tritium supply MHTGR. Table 4.8.3.1-8 provides the quantity of waste effluents
from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility.
In addition, approximately 385 yd3 of mixed TRU and TRU wastes would result from the
fabrication of plutonium-oxide fuel. The 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and TRU wastes would require
transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available) after they have been
processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria. INEL has existing and planned TRU
waste handling facilities that could be used. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU
wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per year, 18regular train shipments per
year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. One hundred gallons of liquid and 0.2 yd3
of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in accordance with the INEL Site Treatment
Plan. Approximately 0.003 acres per year of LLW disposal area would be required to dispose
of the 10 yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging capacity exists to accumulate the 1,000
gallons of liquid and 1yd3 of solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to a
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An additional 87 yd3 of solid non-
hazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary landfill. Additional liquid
sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be required if the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility is not collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Multipurpose Advanced Light Water Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the same rate
with approximately the same amount of residual heavy metal content as the tritium supply
ALWR. The decay heat in the mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could be 10to20percent greater
than the heat in spent uranium-oxide fuel assemblies. The increased decay heat load could
reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool and dry storage casks or
increase fuel pool dwell time before dry storage. No increases in waste generation rates
or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to
mixed-oxide reactor fuel. However, there would be increases in waste generation for all
waste categories due to operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU wastes. These
increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.2.3.10-2 for the Large and Small
tritium supply ALWR. As shown in table 4.8.3.1-4, approximately 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available)
after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
INEL has existing and planned waste handling facilities that could be used. The
transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require 35truck shipments per
year, 18 regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. Two
hundred gallons of liquid and 13 yd3 of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in
accordance with the INEL Site Treatment Plan. Approximately 0.16 acres per year of LLW
disposal area would be required to dispose of the 524 yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging
capacity exists to accumulate the 200 gallons of liquid and 13 yd3 of solid hazardous
wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An
additional 3,920 yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary
landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may
be required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility is
not collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Each tritium supply technology and recycling facility would
be designed to process its own waste into forms suitable for storage or disposal and would
use proven waste minimization and pollution prevention technologies to the extent
possible. Some facility designs would produce waste quantities or waste forms that could
undergo additional reductions by utilizing emerging technologies, thereby further
reducing or mitigating impacts. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would be major
factors in determining the final design of any facility constructed as part of the
proposed action at INEL. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would also be
analyzed as part of the site-specific analyses and tiered NEPA documents.
Utilization of existing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities described in sections
4.2.2.10 and appendix section H.2.1 could further reduce impacts. For instance, the liquid
LLW processing facilities at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant have capacity exceeding
the generation rate of the HWR, and may have the potential to process those wastes.
Similarly, the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility may have the capacity to treat LLW,
mixed LLW, and hazardous wastes from the new tritium supply and recycling facilities. The
use of existing incineration at INEL could reduce the volume of solid LLW to be disposed
by a factor of up to 80. It would be possible to utilize centralized disposal facilities
for solid LLW and solid sanitary, and industrial nonhazardous wastes. Utilization of these
facilities would require site-specific engineering studies and NEPA analysis.

4.3 Nevada Test Site
NTS was established in 1950 and currently occupies approximately 864,000 acres located 65
miles northwest of Las Vegas, NV. The site has conducted underground testing of nuclear
weapons and evaluation of the effects of nuclear weapons on military communications
systems, electronics, satellites, sensors, and other materials. In October 1992, under-
ground nuclear testing was halted, yet the site maintains the capability to resume testing
if authorized by the President. Section 3.3.3 provides a description of all the DOE
missions and support facilities at NTS. The location of NTS within the State of Nevada is
illustrated in figure 4.3-1.

4.3.1 Description of Alternatives
Under the proposed action, any one of the four tritium supply technologies (HWR, MHTGR,
ALWR, or APT) alone or collocated with a new tritium recycling facility could be sited at
NTS. Section 3.4.2 provides a description of the tritium supply technologies and section

3.4.3.1 describes the tritium recycling facility. Figure 4.3.1-1 shows the location of
existing facilities within NTS and the proposedTSS.
Under No Action, NTS would continue its current and planned missions as described in
section 3.3.3. Even though a moratorium has been placed on all underground nuclear
testing, NTS will still be required to maintain the capability to resume such testing in
the event it is again required for national security. No facilities at NTS would be phased
out as a result of any of the proposed action alternatives discussed in this PEIS.

4.3.2 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the affected environment at NTS for land resources, air
quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, cultural and
paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. In addition, NTS's infrastructure,
radiation and hazardous chemical environment, and the waste management conditions are
described.

4.3.2.1 Land Resources
The discussion of land resources at NTS includes land use and visual resources.
Land Use. NTS occupies approximately 864,000acres in southern Nye County in southern
Nevada, with the southwestern boundary located approximately 10 miles from California. The
town of Indian Springs and Indian Springs Air Force Base, in northeast Clark County, NV,
are 24 miles southeast of the closest NTS boundary. All of the land within NTS is owned by
the Federal government and is administrated, managed, and controlled by DOE. NTS is also
entirely bordered by Federal land; the land on the west, north, and east consists of the
Nellis Air Force Range. The Federal land to the south is administered by the Bureau of
Land Management.
Generalized land uses at NTS and its vicinity are shown on figure 4.3.2.1-1. NTS is
divided into three major regions consisting of 26 areas. The north region is the
underground nuclear weapons test area. Nuclear test ranges are located at Yucca Flats,
Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, and Buckboard Mesa. The southwest region, Area 25, provides
support for nonweapons and nonnuclear weapons programs, such as the proposed high-level
waste repository at Yucca Mountain Project Site, and for short-term activities such as the
Nuclear Weapons Accident Exercises conducted by the Nuclear Emergency Search Team. The
southeast region, Area 5, is the nonnuclear explosives test area and primary
administrative and support area of NTS.
Land not used for missions or other purposes has been designated in the NTS Site
Development Plan as reserve areas, available for future development. Approximately 100,000
acres of reserve areas are present within Areas 5 and 6, located in Frenchman and Yucca
Flats, respectively.
As shown on figure 4.3.2.1-1, the proposed 600-acre TSS would be located within the
northwest portion of Frenchman Flat. This is currently an undeveloped reserved area, with
the exception of the closed Cane Spring Test Range and the combined Device Assembly
Facility. The Device Assembly Facility, undergoing final construction, is designed to
conduct all nuclear assembly operations at NTS in support of the Nuclear Weapons Test
Program. Other nearby facilities are the DOD Test Area, Explosives Disposal Area,
Radioactive Waste Management Site, and Liquid Gaseous Fuel Spill Test facility.
Figure (Page 4-108)
Figure 4.3-1.-Nevada Test Site, Nevada, and Region.
Figure (Page 4-109)
Figure 4.3.1-1.-Primary Facilities, Proposed Tritium Supply Site, and Testing Areas at
Nevada Test Site.
Figure (Page 4-110)
Figure 4.3.2.1-1.-Generalized Land Use at Nevada Test Site and Vicinity.
In l992, DOE designated all but approximately 67,800 acres of NTS as a National
Environmental Research Park. The National Environmental Research Park is used by the
national scientific community as an outdoor laboratory for research on the effects of
human activities on the desert ecosystem. There is no prime farmland present on NTS.
Past agricultural activities consisted of the EPA Farm in Area 15, an agricultural crop
and animal radiological research facility, which closed in l981. Offsite agricultural
activity occurs on the south side of U.S. Route 95, consisting of a cattle allotment
granted by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Timber Mountain Caldera National Natural Landmark is located approximately 8 miles
northnorthwest of the proposed TSS, separated by mountains to the west. A Wilderness
Study Area located within the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, which has been recommended
for inclusion into the National Wilderness System, is approximately 6miles east of the
proposed TSS. This part of the refuge is also a part of the Nellis Air Force Range; it is
jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and USFWS. Public entry to this portion of the
refuge is generally prohibited by the U.S. Air Force.
The closest offsite residence to the NTS boundary is 1.3 miles south, at the
unincorporated town of Amargosa Valley.
Visual Resources. The low-lying valleys and flats of NTS are surrounded by mountains
typical of the Basin and Range Province. The vegetation is typical of the Great Basin
Desert. The visible facilities of NTS are scattered in this desert setting.
Public viewpoints of NTS are located in the Amargosa Valley and Mercury Valley along U.S.
Route 95, the principal highway between Tonopah and Las Vegas. The principal viewpoint in
the Mercury Valley is a roadside turnoff containing Nevada Historical Marker No. 165 of
the Nevada State Park System, entitled "Nevada Test Site." NTS facilities within 5 miles
are visible from this viewpoint. The testing areas of NTS, including the proposed TSS,
are not visible from the road because of mountainous terrain and distance. The main base
camp at Mercury (approximately 4 miles away) is well defined at night by facility
lighting, surrounded by the dark desert and night sky. The mix of industrial use and
open desert is consistent with the Bureau of Land Management's VRM Class 4 designation.
There are viewpoints of the proposed TSS from Buried Hills, Frenchman Flat, Spotted Range,
Ranger Mountains, and Mercury Ridge in the Wilderness Study Area of Desert National
Wildlife Refuge. Access to this area of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge is controlled
by the U.S. Air Force. The views from this Wilderness Study Area are typical of the Basin
and Range Province. Land disturbances from human activity can be seen but are not evident
and do not attract attention consistent with a VRM Class 2 designation.

4.3.2.2 Site Infrastructure
As shown in figure 4.3.2.1-1, activities at NTS are concentrated in facilities in several
general areas. Section 3.3.3 describes the current missions. To support these missions an
infrastructure exists as shown in table 4.3.2.2-1. Of critical importance to the proposed
action is the electrical power infrastructure at the proposed TSS. NTS is located in the
Western Systems Coordinating Council region and draws its power from the
California-Southern Nevada Power Area subregion. Characteristics of this subregion are
listed in table 4.3.2.2-2.
Table 4.3.2.2-1.- Baseline Characteristics for Nevada Test Site
Current Characteristics Value
Land
Area (acres) 864,000
Roads (miles) 400
Railroads (miles) 0
Electrical
Energy consumption (MWh/yr) 168,500
Peak load (MWe) 28
Fuel
Natural gas (ft3/yr) 0
Oil (GPY) 1,510,000
Coal (ton/yr) 0
Steam (lb/hr) 0
Source: NTS 1993a:4.
Table 4.3.2.2-2.-Subregional Power Pool Electrical Summary for Nevada Test Site
Type Fuel Production
(percent)
Coal 14
Nuclear 15
Hydro/geothermal 19
Oil/gas 22
Other 30
Total Annual Production: 246,012,000 MWh
Total Annual Load: 293,262,000 MWh
Energy Imported Annually: 45,400,000 MWh
Generating Capacity: 61,681 MWe
Peak Demand: 57,028 MWe
Capacity Margin: 11,809 MWe

4.3.2.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
The following describes the existing air quality andacoustics at NTS, and includes a
review of meteorology and climatology and atmospheric dispersion characteristics in the
vicinity of NTS. More detailed discussions of air quality and acoustics methodologies and
input data are presented in appendix section B.1.3.3.
Meteorology and Climatology. The climate at NTS and in the surrounding region is
characterized by limited precipitation, low humidity, and large diurnal temperature
ranges. The lower elevations are characterized by hot summers and mild winters which are
typical of other Great Basin desert areas. As elevation increases, precipitation amounts
increase and temperatures decrease (NT DOE 1986b:3-46).
The average daily temperatures, based upon the mean of the daily minimum and maximum
temperature, range from 44.5 F in January to 89.8 F in July. The annual average
temperature calculated from these average daily temperatures is 66 F. The average annual
precipitation ranges from 6 to 9 inches (NTDOC 1968a). Prevailing winds vary by location.
Additional information related to meteorology and climatology is presented in appendix
section B.1.3.3.
Ambient Air Quality. NTS is located within the Nevada AQCR 147. The region is in
attainment with respect to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 50). Applicable
NAAQS and Nevada State ambient air quality standards are presented in appendix table
B.1.3.1-1.
Two Prevention of Significant Deterioration ClassI areas in the vicinity of NTS are Grand
Canyon National Park, approximately 120 miles to the southeast, and Sequoia National
Park, California, approximately 105 miles to the west-southwest.
The primary emission sources of criteria air pollutants include particulates from
construction and other surface disturbances, fugitive dust from unpaved roads, various
pollutants from fuel burning equipment, incineration, open burning, and volatile
organics from fuel storage facilities. A summary of emission estimates for sources at NTS
is presented in appendix table B.1.3.3-2.
Table 4.3.2.3-1 shows the site baseline ambient air concentrations for criteria pollutants
and other pollutants of concern. With the exception of the 24-hour PM10 standard,
baseline concentrations are in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations.
The 24-hour PM10 standard is exceeded due to moderate background concentrations and
contributions from operations at the site. The nearest ambient air quality monitor
operated by the State of Nevada is in Nye County (appendix table B.1.3.3-1). Elevated
levels of ozone (O3) or particulates (PM10 and TSP) may occur occasionally because of
pollutants transported into the area by wind or because of local sources of fugitive
particulates (NT DOE 1983a:30). Concentrations of other criteria pollutants (SO2,NO2, CO,
and lead (Pb)) are low because there are no large emission sources nearby. The nearest
significant emission source for criteria pollutants is the Las Vegas area, which is about
65 miles southeast of NTS.
Table 4.3.2.3-1.-Comparison of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at Nevada Test Site, 1990-1992
Pollutant Averaging Time Most Stringent Regulation Baseline
or Guideline Concentration
(mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 2,290
1-hour 40,000a 2,748
Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5a -
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100a b
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 b
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50a 8.4
24-hour 150a 172.6
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80a 6.9
24-hour 365a 117
3-hour 1,300a 660.6
Mandated by Nevada
Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 112 e
Hazardous and Other Toxic Compounds
No sources e e e
Acoustic Conditions. Major noise emission sources within NTS include various industrial
facilities, equipment and machines, and aircraft operations. Noise survey data are
unavailable. At the site boundary, away from most of the industrial facilities, noise
emitted from the site is barely distinguishable from background noise levels.
The acoustic environment around NTS can be classified as either uninhabited desert or
small rural communities. Wind is the predominant source of noise. Except for the
prohibition of nuisance noise, neither the State of Nevada nor its local governments have
established specific numerical environmental noise standards applicable to NTS.

4.3.2.4 Water Resources
This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources at NTS.
Surface Water. There are no continuously flowing streams on NTS. The most noticeable
natural hydrologic features are the playas (lake beds) which collect stormwater runoff.
Runoff in the eastern half of the site ultimately collects in the playas of Frenchman and
Yucca Flats. In the northeastern portion the runoff drains outside the test site and onto
the Nellis Air Force Range Complex. In the western half and southernmost part, runoff is
carried offsite towards the Armagosa Desert. Figure 4.3.1-1 shows the location of the
playas and flats. A few natural springs can be found at NTS. Surface water is not used at
NTS (NT DOE 1992d).
Because there are no continuously flowing surface waters there are no studies to assess
500-year floodplain boundaries, although a 100-year flood analysis has been conducted.
This analysis showed that the runoff from a 100-year storm could potentially flow through
Jackass Flats, which is well south and west of the proposed TSS (NT SAIC 1991a). However,
the proposed TSS is in a region where flooding occurs due to locally isolated intense
convection storms. These storms create flash floods which normally last less than 6 hours.
Surface Water Quality. There are no NPDES permits for the site as there are no wastewater
discharges to onsite or offsite surface waters. However, the state has issued sewage
discharge permits for sewage lagoons and ponds for NTS facilities. Because there are no
surface waters at or near the proposed TSS, and because there will be no withdrawal or
discharge to natural surface waters, the assessment of surface water quality is not
applicable.
Surface Water Rights and Permits. Surface water rights are not an issue because NTS
facilities do not withdraw surface water for use, nor do they discharge effluents directly
to natural surface waters.
Groundwater. NTS is located within three groundwater subbasins of the Death Valley
Groundwater Basin (NT USGS 1975a). Groundwater beneath the eastern portion of NTS is
located in the Ash Meadows Subbasin; the western portion is located in the Alkali Flat
Furnace Creek Ranch Subbasin; and a small part of the northwestern corner is located in
the Oasis Valley Subbasin (figure 4.3.2.4-1). The proposed TSS is situated above the Ash
Meadows Subbasin. Three primary aquifers are present within the Ash Meadows Subbasin: the
Lower Carbonate (the deepest), the Volcanic, and the Valley-Fill (the shallowest) (NT DOE
1992d). Other aquifers are present to a limited extent under the area, but their
water-bearing potential has not been thoroughly investigated. Limited aquifers may occur
in other volcanic units, including lava flows and bedded tuffs.
The Lower Carbonate is the regional aquifer and is comprised of carbonate rocks of Middle
Cambrian through Devonian age. The saturated thickness ranges from a few hundred to
several thousand feet. This aquifer drains in a south-southwest direction, under Frenchman
and Yucca Flats, toward Ash Meadows (NT USGS 1975a). The Volcanic and Valley-Fill aquifers
range in thickness from 0 to about 2,000 feet and are confined to their respective
drainage basin (i.e., Frenchman and Yucca Flats) (NT DOE 1992d).
Depth to groundwater at NTS ranges from 500 to 2,400 feet. It is approximately 1,600 feet
at Yucca Flat, 820 feet at Frenchman Flat, and over 2,000 feet at Pahute Mesa. There are,
however, areas of perched water that lie at considerably shallower depths. A study by the
U.S. Geological Survey (Harrill and others, 1988) balanced the amount of recharge and
discharge throughout the Great Basin and estimated a total of 32BGY recharge for the
entire Death Valley system. Of this total, about 11BGY flowed through or near Frenchman
Flat into the Ash Meadows discharge area to the south. A study by the Desert Research
Institute (Sadler and others, 1992) modeled groundwater flow through discrete areas of the
Death Valley system and concluded that of 16BGY total system recharge, about 7BGY flowed
through Frenchman Flat. These differences in estimates of flow exemplify common variations
among authors of a factor of 2 or 3 but rarely of as much as a factor of 10. All authors rely on similar
methodologies and assumptions, so the
uncertainty in recharge and discharge
estimates is based upon a lack of
complete data and different initial
assumptions.
Devil's Hole is a water-filled cavern near Ash Meadows approximately 30 miles southwest of
the NTS. Groundwater pumping at Ash Meadows was curtailed by order of the U.S. Supreme
Court in order to protect the endangered pupfish by maintaining water levels at Devil's
Hole. Studies show that historical pumping on NTS at rates that exceed current rates was
probably unrelated to observed declines at Devil's Hole (Avon and Durbin, 1994). Springs
at Ash Meadows nearby contain a large concentration of rare, endangered, and threatened
indigenous species which depend upon adequate spring flow for their survival.
Substantially increased pumping at NTS is unlikely to lower spring levels but might reduce
spring discharge rates.
Groundwater Quality. Currently, aquifers beneath NTS have not been classified by EPA.
However, during an independent study (NT DOE 1989a) the aquifers beneath NTS were
classified as Class IIa and Class IIb (groundwater currently used for drinking water). In
1972, the Nevada Operations Office instituted a Long Term Hydrological Monitoring
Program to be operated by the EPA under an Interagency Agreement. Groundwater is monitored
on and around NTS, at seven sites in other states, and at two off-NTS sites in Nevada.
Only wells drilled previously for water supply or exploratory purposes are being used in
the existing monitoring program. In compliance with the SDWA and a State of Nevada
drinking water supply system permit, drinking water wells and industrial use distribution
systems are sampled and analyzed on a monthly basis. Groundwater samples collected are
analyzed for a standard suite of parameters and constituents, including radioactive
materials, nonradioactive materials, and other field parameters (pH and total dissolved
solids).
Figure (Page 4-115)
Figure 4.3.2.4-1.-Groundwater Hydrologic Units at Nevada Test Site and Vicinity.
Groundwater under portions of NTS has been affected as a result of nuclear testing
activities conducted during the last 43 years. Additionally, several tests, comprising
approximately 20 percent of the total, have been conducted below the water table or have
been close enough that effects have extended below it. Table 4.3.2.4-1 shows the
groundwater quality in the vicinity of the proposed TSS.
Table 4.3.2.4-1.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data at Nevada Test Site, 1991-1992
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Well Well Well
Measure Criteria and No.4, No.4ab, No.C-1b,
Standards
Alkalinity mg/l NA 126 138 478
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 4 g 6
Arsenic mg/l 0.05f 0.007 0.004 0.006
Barium mg/l 2.0f 0.00 0.01 0.11
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 6 g 11
Chromium mg/l 0.1f < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Copper mg/l 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lead mg/l 0.015f < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Nitrate mg/l 10f 18.2 14.3 0.3
pH pH units 6.5 to 8.5 8.13 8.22 7.63
Sodium mg/l NA 50 55 125
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500 283 283 640
Tritium pCi/l 20,000f g g 32
Due to the past nuclear testing activities, radionuclide monitoring has been an important
component of the groundwater monitoring program at the site. Because the water table lies
at considerable depth, most radionuclides are absorbed before they can reach the
groundwater. In general, tritium is the only radionuclide that appears in sampled water.
Recent samples show tritium concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed TSS to be 32
picocuries per liter (pCi/l) and decreasing. Subsurface migration of tritium to offsite
areas is possible, but the probability of tritium reaching offsite wells or springs is
minimal. It is also thought that the Lower and Upper Carbonate aquifers would most likely
be the aquifers in which tritium might migrate to offsite areas (LLNL 1976a).
Groundwater Availability, Use, and Rights. Groundwater is the only local source of
industrial and drinking water supply in the NTS area. Numerous production wells are
located on NTS and distributed among various areas of the site. Figure 4.3.2.4-1 shows how
the water system has been divided into four water service areas (A, B, C, and D) based on
the location of the water supply system and support facilities. Water usage on NTS is
largely for potable, construction, and dust control purposes. Water supply wells at NTS
draw water from the Lower and Upper Carbonate, the Volcanic, and the Valley-Fill aquifers.
The total water usage in 1990 was 633 MGY, of which 335 MGY were withdrawn from the Ash
Meadows Subbasin and 298 MGY were withdrawn from the Alkali Flat Furnace Creek Ranch
Subbasin (figure 4.3.2.4-1). The pumping capacity for all the water supply wells at NTS is
estimated at 3.9 BGY (NTS 1993a:6).
The State of Nevada strictly controls all groundwater and surface water withdrawals. The
Appropriation Doctrine governs the acquisition and use of water rights. However, it is an
established principle that when land is withdrawn from public use and reserved for a
Federal purpose, the Government's right to appurtenant water may be implied. NTS has
been withdrawn from public use and thus possesses an unquantified water right sufficient
to meet the purposes of NTS land withdrawal, subject to water rights that existed at the
time land for NTS was withdrawn.
Since the Federal Government has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to
Nevada's well drilling laws, it is not subject to these requirements. While DOE is not
legally required to follow Nevada water appropriation and well drilling requirements,
there is no objection to responding to requests for information and cooperating in other
respects with the Nevada Division of Water Resources as a matter of comity.

4.3.2.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. NTS is located in the southern part of the Great Basin section of the Basin and
Range Province in an intermediate position between the high, topographically closed
basins in central Nevada and the low, connected basins of the Amargosa Desert-Death Valley
region to the southwest. NTS consists of three flats (Yucca, Jackass, and Frenchman)
surrounded by mountains (NT DOE 1988a).
The general region has been tectonically active in the near past and has numerous faults.
NTS lies in an area of moderate historic seismicity on the southern margin of the Southern
Nevada East-West Seismic Belt in Seismic Zones 2 and 3 (figure 4.3.2.5-1). Since about
1848, more than 4,000 earthquakes have been recorded within a 150-mile radius of NTS. Most
of these were minor events with Richter magnitudes of less than 5.5. The largest event
on record, which took place 100 miles west in Owens Valley, CA, had an estimated magnitude
of 8.3. In 1992, an earthquake of magnitude 5.6 occurred in the southwest corner of the
site under Little Skull Mountain. The maximum acceleration from this earthquake was
approximately 0.21g at Amargosa Valley.
The Yucca and Carpetbag faults were active during the Late Quarternary and both are
considered to be capable faults within the definition of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A. The Yucca
fault has undergone surface rupture within the past few thousand to tens of thousands of
years. Some earthquakes can be directly associated with the fault trace and also beyond
the south end of the mapped section in the Yucca Pass, suggesting that the fault may
continue in that direction. No significant vertical surface displacement has occurred on
the Carpetbag fault system during the past 150,000 years, but there is evidence of
episodes of fracturing and possible minor faulting from 30,000 to 240,000 years ago with
average recurrence interval at about 25,000 years, for the last 125,000 years. The
Carpetbag fault has been mapped in the subsurface beyond the southern end of Yucca Basin
and may project to the northeast of the proposed TSS. Possible magnitude, intensity, and
acceleration of earthquakes along the Yucca and Carpetbag faults have not been estimated.
The Cane Spring fault, which lies approximately 5miles southeast of the proposed TSS, does
not show Holocene displacement but is thought to have been the source of a magnitude 4.3
earthquake in 1971. The maximum credible earthquake associated with the Cane Spring fault
is expected to produce a peak acceleration of 0.67g with a 6.7 magnitude (NTLANL
1983a:1-202, 1-205). The recurrence interval is estimated at 10,000 to 30,000 years.
The most recent volcanic activity in the immediate area was 3.7 million years ago, and the
likelihood for renewed activity in the next 10,000 years is slight (NT LANL 1983a). NTS
lies approximately 150miles southeast of the Long Valley area of California, an area of
potential volcanic eruption of the Mount St. Helens type.
Figure (Page 4-118)
Figure 4.3.2.5-1.-Major Fault Systems and Historic Earthquakes in Nevada Test Site Region.
Soils. Soil studies have been performed at NTS. Studies in adjacent areas have divided
soils into three major types: shallow soils developed in the uplands and mountains; soils
on valley fill and nearly level to moderately sloping outwash plains, alluvial fans, and
fan aprons; and playas and soils on nearly level flats and basins. Possible erosion
hazards range from slight-to-severe while the shrink-swell potential ranges from
low-to-high for these soils. The potential for wind erosion and shrink-swell increases
into the playas and basins. The potential for water erosion increases with increasing
slope. The soils at NTS are considered acceptable for standard construction techniques.

4.3.2.6 Biotic Resources
The following describes biotic resources at NTS including terrestrial resources, wetlands,
aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. Within each biotic resource area
the discussion focuses first on NTS as a whole and then on the proposed TSS. Scientific
names of species identified in the text are presented in appendix C. Also presented in
appendix C is a list of threatened and endangered species that may be found on the site or
in the vicinity of NTS.
Terrestrial Resources. NTS lies in a transition area between the Mojave and Great Basin
deserts. As a result, flora and fauna characteristic of both deserts are found within the
site boundaries (NT ERDA1976a:34). Approximately 13 square miles of NTS have been
developed, which represents less than 1 percent of the site; thus, natural plant
communities are found across most of NTS (NT DOE1988d:3,4, 6,7). The site has been divided
into nine major communities as shown in figure 4.3.2.6-1.
Of the communities present onsite, the mountains, hills and mesas, sagebrush, creosote
bush, and hopsage-desert thorn communities are the most extensive. Saltbush and desert
thorn communities occupy more limited areas adjacent to the playas in Frenchman and Yucca
Flats. Introduced plants such as red brome, cheatgrass, and Russian thistle have become
important species in some areas. These plants rapidly invade disturbed areas and delay
revegetation of areas by native species. A total of 711 taxa of vascular plants have
been identified on or near NTS.
Terrestrial wildlife found on NTS includes 33 species of reptiles, 220 species of birds,
and 49 species of mammals. Species common to NTS include the sideblotched lizard,
western shovel-nosed snake, blackthroated sparrow, red-tailed hawk, Merriam's kangaroo
rat, and Great Basin pocket mouse. Water holes, both natural and man-made, are important
to many species of wildlife, including game animals such as pronghorn and mule deer (NT
Greger nda). Hunting is not permitted anywhere on NTS. Raptors and carnivores are two
ecologically important groups and are represented by species such as the turkey vulture
and rough-legged hawk, and long-tailed weasel and bobcat, respectively (NT ERDA
1976a:53,58). A variety of migratory birds has been found onsite. Migratory birds, their
nests and eggs are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eagles are similarly
protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Vegetative communities within the proposed TSS include: creosote bush, hopsage-desert
thorn, and mountains, hills, and mesas (figure 4.3.2.6-1). Fauna found in the proposed TSS
is expected to be closely associated with Mojave desert fauna and species could include
the banded gecko, desert iguana, Gambel's quail, roadrunner, round-tailed ground squirrel,
and coyote (NT ERDA 1976a:47,48,56).
Wetlands. National Wetland Inventory maps have not been prepared, nor have wetlands been
delineated on the site. However, small wetland areas (less than 1 acre) may be associated
with site springs (NTS1992a:5). There are no known wetlands in the proposed TSS.
Aquatic Resources. Potential aquatic habitat includes surface drainages, playas, springs,
and man-made reservoirs. There are no continuously flowing streams on the site and
permanent surface water sources are limited to a few small springs. These surface
drainages, playas, and springs are unable to support permanent fish populations (NT ERDA
1976a:47). Man-made construction water reservoirs located throughout the site support
three introduced species of fish: bluegill, goldfish, and golden shiners (NTS 1992a:6).
There are no known aquatic resources in the proposed TSS.
Figure (Page 4-120)
Figure 4.3.2.6-1.-Distribution of Plant Communities at Nevada Test Site.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Twenty-four Federal- and state-listed threatened,
endangered, and other special status species have been identified in the vicinity of NTS
(appendix table C-3). Seventeen have been observed on NTS (table 4.3.2.6-1). The remaining
species, listed in appendix C, are transient species which may occur during migration. No
critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, as defined in the Endangered
Species Act (50CFR17.11; 50 CFR 17.12), exists on NTS.
Table 4.3.2.6-1.-Federal- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special
Status Species That May Be Found On the Site or In the Vicinity of the Proposed Tritium
Supply Site at Nevada Test Site
Species Status Known or Potential Habitat/Location
- Federal State -
Birds
Ferruginous hawk C2 NL Woodland/grassland
Loggerhead shrike C2 NL Most habitats
Mountain plover C2 NL Semi-arid plains, grasslands, plateaus
Peregrine falcon E E Open country, cliffs
Western snowy plover C2 NL Sand flats
White-faced ibis C2 NL Migrant visitor to ponds
Reptiles
Desert tortoise T T Mojave desert biome
Fish
Devils Hole pupfishb, E E Deep limestone pool, Devil's Hole
Plants
Beardtongue C2 NL Open area, loose soil
Beatley milkvetch C1 CE Shallow gravelly soil in open flat volcanic bedrock
Beatley phacelia C2 NL Gravel/volcanic tuff, canyon washes, steep barren
slopes
Black wooly-pod C2 NL Unstable, steep gravelly slopes of volcanic tuff
Camissonia megalantha C2 NL Shad scale, disturbed soil
Green-gentian C2 NL Gravelly slopes and valley bottoms
Kingston bedstraw C2 NL Ravines, gulleys
Mojave fishhook cactus NL CY Yucca Mountain area
White bear desert-poppy C2 NL Shallow gravelly soil, limestone outcrop
Figure (Page 4-122)
Figure 4.3.2.6-2.-Distribution of Desert Tortoise at Nevada Test Site.
The peregrine falcon has been recorded, but the threatened desert tortoise is the only
resident species known to inhabit NTS that is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The range of the desert tortoise lies in the southern third of NTS. These tortoises are
most commonly found in the areas shown on figure 4.3.2.6-1. Further surveys may reveal
other areas of concentration. The abundance of tortoises is considered low to very low
relative to other areas within this species' geographic range. The proposed TSS is located
near one of the areas having the highest relative number of desert tortoise on NTS. Both
tortoise remains and scat have been observed in the proposed site area (NT EG&G
1991a:14,15,31). Densities of tortoises range from 0 to 45 individuals per square mile,
with most habitats probably having densities of 0 to 20 individuals per square mile (NT
DOE 1991b:3-23).
The only known population of the Devil's Hole pupfish lives in a single, spring-fed
sinkhole pool in Ash Meadows, approximately 34 miles southwest of the proposed TSS. There
is concern over the survival of the pupfish and other sensitive species found in the Ash
Meadows area due to the threat of declining water levels (NT DOI 1991a; NT
ERDA1977a:2-134,2-135,4-28,4-29). Twenty-nine sensitive plant species also have been
identified. Eight of these species are Federal candidates for listing (table 4.3.2.6-1).
Five Federal candidate animal species have been recorded on NTS. The loggerhead shrike is
a permanent resident that breeds on NTS. The ferruginous hawk is a winter resident species
observed onsite in recent years. The white-faced ibis, mountain plover, and western snowy
plover have also been observed onsite. Occurrence of these species in the proposed TSS is
unknown.

4.3.2.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric site types identified on NTS include habitation sites
with wood and brush structures, windbreaks, rock rings, or cleared areas; rockshelters;
petroglyphs (rock art); hunting blinds; rock alignments; quarries; temporary camps;
milling stations; roasting ovens or pits; water caches; and limited activity locations.
Approximately 4percent of NTS has been inventoried for cultural resources. This includes
all lands managed through a Memorandum of Agreement with Nellis Air Force Base. Excluding
sites in the Yucca Mountain project area, 916prehistoric sites and 34
prehistoric/historic sites have been recorded and recommended as eligible for inclusion
in the NRHP. The Nevada SHPO has concurred that 82prehistoric sites and
1prehistoric/historic site are eligible.
Cultural resources surveys and site evaluations have been conducted in the vicinity of the
proposed TSS. Numerous prehistoric sites have been recorded including lithic scatters,
temporary camps, and milling stations. Milling stations are especially prevalent in
proximity to the Yucca Lake playa margins. Several prehistoric rockshelters have been
identified on Hogback Ridge. Additional prehistoric sites may occur in unsurveyed portions
of the proposed TSS. These sites have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Historic Resources. Historic site types include mines and prospects, trash dumps,
settlements, campsites, ranches, homesteads, spring developments, trails, and roads.
Nuclear test site structures and associated debris, including instrumentation stands and
temporary storage bunkers, are also located within NTS. The test site area at Frenchman
Flat, which includes the remains of many of these structures, has been recommended to the
SHPO as a historic district. Excluding the Yucca Mountain project area, 32historic sites
have been recorded and recommended as eligible for the NRHP. The Nevada SHPO concurred
that two historic sites are eligible. The only site currently listed on the NRHP is the
Sedan Crater. The crater, located in Yucca Flat, was created in 1962 as part of the
Plowshare Program, whose aim was to identify peaceful uses for nuclear explosions.
In the vicinity of the proposed TSS, some historic sites have been recorded including
refuse scatters. Additional historic sites may occur in unsurveyed portions. These sites
have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Native American Resources. At the time of Euro-American contact, southern Nevada was
inhabited by the Western Shoshone and Southern Pahute. Families foraged in small groups
from the spring through the fall. During winter, relatively stable villages of several
families were established in relatively warm places, close to caches of pine nuts, seeds,
and dried meats.
Native American resources include burials, ceremonial sites, musical stones, medicine
rocks, petroglyphs, and traditional use areas. Local plants important in ritual and
ceremonial activities include jimsonweed, juniper, greasewood, creosote, Indian tobacco,
pion pine, buckbush, and scrub oak. Concern has been expressed about the availability and
accessibility of such resources. It is worth noting that many natural resources at NTS are
viewed as cultural resources by Native Americans. As one example, sagebrush is used as a
tool, and for clothing and medicinal purposes.
Consultation with Native American cultural and religious leaders has been conducted for
other projects at or near NTS to identify traditional cultural resources that may be
affected by Federal actions, and to obtain Native American recommendations for mitigating
potential adverse impacts on traditional cultural resources. DOE has established ongoing
consultation with 13 Native American tribes and one pan-tribal organization (the Owens
Valley Board of Trustees) with cultural ties to NTS.
Paleontological Resources. The surface geology of NTS is characterized by alluvium-filled
valleys surrounded by ranges composed of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and Tertiary
volcanic tuffs and lavas. The Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic rocks at NTS represent relict
deposits made in shallow water at the submerged edge of a continental platform which ran
from Mexico to Alaska and existed throughout most of the Paleozoic. Although the
Pre-Cambrian sedimentary deposits contain no fossils or only a few poorly-preserved
fossils, the Paleozoic marine limestones are moderately to abundantly fossiliferous.
Marine fossils found in the same Paleozoic formations on Nellis Air Force Range,
adjacent to NTS to the north, include trilobites, conodonts, ostracods, solitary and
colonial corals, brachiopods, algae, gastropods, and archaic fish. These fossils,
however, are relatively common and have low research potential.
Tertiary volcanic deposits are not expected to contain fossils; however, the Late
Pleistocene terrestrial vertebrate fossils of the Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age could be
expected in the Quaternary deposits. The possibility of finding mammoth, horse, camel, and
bison remains might be expected because such fossils have been found at Tule Springs, 35
miles from the southern edge of NTS and in Nye Canyon. Fossils found at Tule Springs
include bison, deer, a small donkey-like horse, camel, Columbia mammoth, ground sloth,
giant jaguar, bobcat, coyote, muskrat, and a variety of rabbits, rodents, and birds. This
paleontological assemblage has high research potential. Although Quaternary deposits with
paleontological materials may occur on NTS, no known fossil localities have been
recorded to date.
Other Pleistocene resources include pack rat middens, which are studied by scientists at
the University of Nevada, Reno, the Desert Research Institute, and New Mexico Tech, to
investigate paleoclimatic regimes. Pack rat middens would not be expected to be found at
the proposed TSS, which is located on an alluvial fan.

4.3.2.8 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic characteristics addressed at NTS include employment and local economy,
population, housing, public finance, and local transportation. Statistics for economy
characteristics are presented for the regional economic area that encompasses 4counties
around NTS (appendix table D.2.1-2). The regional economic area is a broad labor and
product market-based region linked by trade among economic sectors within the region.
Statistics for population and housing, public finance, and local transportation are
presented for the ROI, a 2-county area in which 97 percent of all NTS employees reside:
Clark County (82 percent) and Nye County (15 percent). (See figure 4.3-1 for a map of
counties and cities.) Fiscal characteristics of the jurisdictions in the ROI are presented
in the public finance section in appendix tables D.3-31 and D.3-32. The school districts
most likely to be affected by the proposed action include those in Clark County and Nye
County. Assumptions, assessment methodologies, and supporting data are presented in
appendix D.
Regional Economy Characteristics. Employment and local economy statistics for the NTS
regional economic area are presented in appendix table D.3-22, and summarized in figure
4.3.2.8-1. Between 1970 and 1990, the civilian labor force in the regional economic area
increased 220 percent. The unemployment rate in the regional economic area in 1990 was
approximately the same as the state rate. The 1990 per capita income in the regional
economic area was also approximately the same as the State of Nevada.
As shown in figure 4.3.2.8-1, the percentage of total employment involving farming,
governmental activities, and nonfarm private sector activities of manufacturing,
retail trade, and services was similar in the regional economic area and the state.
In 1990, NTS employed 8,019 persons (2.1 percent of the total regional economic area
employment), increasing from 6,840 persons in 1970. Historical and future employment at
NTS and the distribution of NTS employees by place of residence in the ROI are presented
in appendix tables D.2.1-1 and D.3-21, respectively.
Population and Housing. Population and housing distribution in the ROI is presented in
appendix tables D.3-25 and D.3-28, and summarized in figure4.3.2.8-2. The percent increase
in population in the ROI from 1970 to 1990 was 26 percent greater than that of the state
except for the city of Henderson which experienced a 300-percent increase. The percent
increase in housing units between 1970 and 1990 was approximately 50 percent greater than
the percent increase for the state, with the exception of the city of Henderson
(400-percent increase). Homeowner and rental vacancy rates in the ROI in 1990 were similar
to those experienced by the state.
Figure (Page 4-125)
Figure 4.3.2.8-1.-Economy for Nevada Test Site Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-126)
Figure 4.3.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Nevada Test Site Region of Influence [Page 1
of 2].
Figure (Page 4-127)
Figure 4.3.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Nevada Test Site Region of Influence [Page 2
of 2]. Trends in Housing for NTS ROI and Counties, 1970-1990a
Public Finance. Financial characteristics of the local jurisdictions in the ROI that are
most likely to be affected by the proposed action are presented in this section. The data
reflect total revenues and expenditures of each jurisdiction's general fund, special
revenue funds, and, as applicable, debt service, capital project, and expendable trust
funds. School district boundaries may or may not coincide with county or city boundaries,
but the districts are presented under the county where they primarily provide services.
Major revenue and expenditure fund categories for counties, cities, and school districts
are presented in appendix tables D.3-31 and D.3-32, and figure 4.3.2.8-3 summarizes local
government's revenues less its expenditures.
Local Transportation. Vehicular access to NTS is provided by U.S. Route 95 (divided
highway) to the south with off-road access to the northeast provided via State Route 373
(figure 4.3-1). Road segments providing access to NTS traffic experience little traffic
congestion outside of the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Traffic on U.S. Route 95 generally
experiences greater congestion than traffic on State Route 373. Minor congestion may occur
due to accidents and maintenance activities. No major improvements are scheduled for those
segments providing immediate access to NTS (figure 4.3.1-1) (NT DOT 1992a).
Although there is no public transportation system serving NTS, a contract bus service is
available for all workers at a nominal cost. The major railroad in the ROI is the Union
Pacific Railroad located approximately 50 miles east of NTS near the city of Las Vegas.
A 9-mile, standard gauge railroad serves Area25 of NTS but does not connect with the Union
Pacific Railroad (NT ERDA 1977a). There are no navigable waterways within the ROI.
McCarran International Airport located in the city of Las Vegas provides jet air passenger
and cargo service from both national and local carriers. Numerous smaller private airports
are located throughout the ROI (DOT 1991a).

4.3.2.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
The following provides a description of the radiation and hazardous chemical environment
at NTS. Also included are discussions of health effects studies, emergency preparedness
considerations, and an accident history.
Radiation Environment. Major sources of background radiation exposure to individuals in
the vicinity of NTS are shown in table 4.3.2.9-1. All annual doses to individuals from
background radiation are expected to remain constant over time. Accordingly, the
incremental total dose to the population would result only from changes in the size of
the population. Background radiation doses are unrelated to NTS operations.
Releases of radionuclides to the environment from NTS operations provide another source of
radiation exposure to individuals in the vicinity of NTS. The radionuclides and quantities
released from NTS operations in 1992 are listed in the U.S. Department of Energy Nevada
Operations Office Annual Site Environment Report-1992 (DOE/NV/10630-66). The doses to
the public resulting from these releases are presented in tables 4.3.2.9-2. These doses
fall within radiological limits (DOE Order 5400.5) and are small in comparison to
background radiation. The releases listed in the 1992 report were used in the development
of the reference environment (No Action) radiological releases at NTS in 2010
(section4.3.3.9).
Table 4.3.2.9-1.-Sources of Radiation Exposure to Individuals in the Vicinity, Unrelated
to Nevada Test Site Operations
Source Committed
Effective Dose
Equivalent
(mrem/yr)
Natural Background Radiation
Cosmic and external terrestrial 78
radiation
Internal terrestrial radiation 39
Radon in homes (inhaled)b 200
Other Background Radiationb
Diagnostic x-rays and nuclear 53
medicine
Weapons test fallout <1
Air travel 1
Consumer and industrial 10
products
Total 382
Figure (Page 4-129)
Figure 4.3.2.8-3.-1992 Local Government Public Finance for Nevada Test Site Region of
Influence.
Based on a risk estimator of 500 cancer deaths per 1million person-rem to the public
(appendix sectionE.2), the fatal cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the
public due to radiological releases from NTS operations in 1992 is estimated to be
approximately 1.3x10-8. That is, the estimated probability of this person dying of cancer
at some point in the future from radiation exposure associated with 1year of NTS
operations is about 13 chances in 1billion. (Note that it takes several to many years
from the time of exposure to radiation for a cancer to manifest itself.)
Approximately 1.5x10-5 excess fatal cancers were estimated from normal operations in 1992
to the population living within 50 miles of NTS. To place this number into perspective,
it can be compared with the number of fatal cancers expected in this population from all
causes. The 1990 mortality rate associated with cancer for the entire U.S. population was
0.2percent per year (Almanac 1993a). Based on this national rate, the number of fatal
cancers from all causes expected during 1992 in the population living within 50 miles of
NTS was 43.5. This number of expected fatal cancers is much higher than the estimated
1.5x10-5 fatal cancers that could result from NTS operations in 1992.
Table 4.3.2.9-2.-Doses to the General Public from Normal Operation at Nevada Test Site,
1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Atmospheric Liquid Releases Total
Releases
Affected Environment Standard Actual Standarda Actualb Standarda Actual
Maximally exposed individual (mrem) 10 0.026 4 0.0 100 0.026
Population within 50 miles (person-rem) None 0.029 None 0.0 100 0.029
Average individual within 50 miles (mrem) None 0.0013 None 0.0 None 0.0013
Workers at NTS receive the same dose as the general public from background radiation, but
also receive an additional dose from working in the facilities. Table 4.3.2.9-2 includes
the average, maximum, and total occupational doses to NTS workers from operations in 1992.
These doses fall within radiological limits (10 CFR 835). Based on a risk estimator of 400
fatal cancers per 1 million person-rem among workers (appendix section E.2), the number of
excess fatal cancers to NTS workers from operations in 1992 is estimated to be 0.0008.
A more detailed presentation of the radiation environment, including background
exposures and radiological releases and doses, is presented in the U.S. Department of
Energy Nevada Operations Office Annual Site Environment Report-1992 (DOE/NV/10630-66). The
concentrations of radioactivity in various environmental media (e.g., air and water) and
in animal tissue in the site region (onsite and offsite) are also presented in the same
reference. NTS operations contribute negligible radioactivity to these media.
Table 4.3.2.9-3.-Doses to the Worker Onsite from Normal Operation at Nevada Test Site,
1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Onsite Releases
and Direct
Radiation
Affected Environment Standard Actual
Average worker (mrem) None 2.6
Maximally exposed worker (mrem) 5,000 750
Total workers (person-rem) None 2
Chemical Environment. The background chemical environment important to human health
consists of: the atmosphere, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be inhaled;
drinking water, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be ingested; and other
environmental media with which people may come in contact (e.g., soil through direct
contact or via the food pathway). The baseline data for assessing potential health impacts
from the chemical environment are those presented in sections 4.3.2.3 and 4.3.2.4.
Health impacts to the public can be minimized through effective administrative and design
controls for decreasing pollutant releases to the environment and achieving compliance
with permit requirements. The effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use
of monitoring information and inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts to the
public may occur during normal operations via inhalation of air containing pollutants
released to the atmosphere by NTS operations. Risks to public health from other possible
pathways such as ingestion of contaminated drinking water or direct exposure are low
relative to the inhalation pathway.
Baseline air emission concentrations for hazardous/toxic air pollutants and their
applicable standards are presented in section 4.3.2.3. These concentrations are
estimates of the highest existing offsite concentrations and represent the highest
concentrations to which members of the public could be exposed. These concentrations are
in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. Information about estimating
health impacts from hazardous/toxic chemicals is presented in appendix section E.3, with
risk assessment specific for NTS presented in appendix tables E.3.4-9, E.3.4-11,
E.3.4-12, and summary table E.3.4-14.
Health impacts to workers during normal operation may include those from: inhalation of
the workplace atmosphere, drinking NTS potable water, and possible other contact with
hazardous materials associated with work assignments. The potential for health impacts
varies from facility to facility and from worker to worker, and available information is
not sufficient to allow a meaningful estimation and summation of these impacts. However,
workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through appropriate training,
protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. NTS workers are also protected
by adherence to occupational standards that limit atmospheric and drinking water
concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Monitoring ensures that these standards
are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements (DOEOrder 3790.1B) ensure that conditions
in the workplace are as free as possible from recognized hazards that cause or are likely
to cause illness or physical harm. Therefore, worker health conditions at NTS are expected
to be substantially better than required by standards.
Health Effects Studies. The epidemiologic studies surrounding NTS have concentrated on
health effects in soldiers and children associated with nuclear testing rather than
operation emissions. Results are contradictory regarding the observed leukemia incidence
and deaths in exposed children, with some studies reporting excess whereas others report
no excess. There were questions raised about the analytical methods used in some of
these studies. For soldiers, the results regarding leukemia and polycythemia vera were
different between two studies relating to nuclear test explosions, but reanalyses showed
leukemia, respiratory, and other cancers to be associated only with exposure to higher
doses (e.g.,more than 300 mrem for leukemia cases). For a more detailed description of the
study findings reviewed, refer to appendix section E.4.3.
Accident History. Nuclear testing began at NTS in 1951. There were some 100 atmospheric
nuclear explosions before the Limited Test Ban Treaty was implemented in 1963. Since then,
all nuclear tests have been conducted underground (appendix section A.1.2).
Since 1970, there were 126 nuclear tests which resulted in a release to the atmosphere of
approximately 54,000 Ci of radioactivity. Of this amount, 11,500 Ci were accidental due
to containment failure (massive releases or seeps) and late-time seeps (seeps are small
releases after a test when gases diffuse through pore spaces of the overlying rock). The
remaining 42,500 Ci were operational releases. From the perspective of human health risk,
if the same person had been standing at the boundary of NTS in the area of maximum
concentration of radioactivity for every test since 1970, that person's total exposure
would be equivalent to 32 extra minutes of normal background exposure or the equivalent of
one-thousandth of a single chest x-ray (OTA 1989a).
Emergency Preparedness. In the event of an accident, each DOE site has established an
emergency management program. This program has been developed and maintained to ensure
adequate response for most accident conditions and to provide response efforts for
accidents not specifically considered. The emergency management program incorporates
activities associated with emergency planning, preparedness, and response. Section 4.1.9
provides a description of DOE's emergency preparedness program.
The NTS Emergency Preparedness Plan is designed to minimize or mitigate the impact of any
emergency upon the health and safety of employees and the public. The plan integrates all
emergency planning into a single entity to minimize overlap and duplication, and to
ensure proper responses to emergencies not covered by a plan or directive. The manager of
the Nevada Operations Office has the responsibility to manage, counter, and recover from
an emergency occurring at NTS.
The plan provides for identification and notification of personnel for any emergency that
may develop during operational and nonoperational hours. The Nevada Operations Office
receives warnings, weather advisories, and any other communications that provide advance
warning of a possible emergency. The plan is based upon current Nevada Operations
Office vulnerability assessments, resources, and capabilities regarding emergency
preparedness.

4.3.2.10 Waste Management
This section outlines the major environmental regulatory structure and ongoing waste
management activities for NTS. A more detailed discussion of the ongoing waste
management operations is provided in appendix section H.2.2. Table 4.3.2.10-1 presents a
summary of waste management at NTS for 1991.
The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address
compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at NTS. The Department
is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compli-
ance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for
achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for
nonachievement of agreed upon milestones.
DOE has decided that underground testing areas should be governed pursuant to the
provisions of CERCLA. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation reports and a Hazardous
Ranking System package were provided to EPA for their use in determining whether NTS
should be included on the NPL. In May 1993, the State of Nevada issued a letter to DOE
indicating it did not appear that EPA would make a decision on the NPL status of NTS in
the near future. EPA is also drafting a two-party agreement between the State of Nevada
and DOE. The State of Nevada and DOE are negotiating a Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement addressing environmental restoration and waste management on NTS. An Agreement
in Principle has been signed with the State of Nevada to provide oversight of
environmental, safety, and health activities, including environmental restoration.
However, the Agreement in Principle is not a legally binding document and does not provide
mandates or drivers to accomplish environmental restoration.
For 1991, the Nevada Operations Office completed a Waste Minimization Plan for NTS and
created an organization with the mission to promote waste minimization and pollution
prevention and to ensure compliance with DOE requirements. NTS currently generates waste
from ongoing operations and remediation associated with past activities, and receives
waste from other DOE facilities. NTS manages the following waste categories: TRU, LLW,
mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous. A discussion of the waste management operations
associated with each of these categories follows.
Table 4.3.2.10-1.-Waste Management at Nevada Test Site
Category 1991 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3)
Transuranic None None None Containers on 10,850 None-WIPP NA
asphalt pads in the future
Mixed None None None Included in TRU Included in TRU None-WIPP NA
Transuranica in the future
Low-level
Liquid Included in solid Evaporation/ 29,700 Double-lined 5,500d NA None
solidification (6,000,000 GPY) holding tanks (1,100,000 gal)
Solid 12,914 None None None None Shallow burial 643,300
Mixed Low-level
Liquid None Evaporation/ 29,700d Double-lined 5,500d NA None
solidification (6,000,000 GPY) holding tanks (1,100,000 gal)
and offsite
incineration
Solid None None None None None Pit 155,530
Hazardous
Liquid Included in solid None Planned NA None NA NA
Solid 124 None None 90-day pad 388 Contracted offsite NA
Nonhazardous 10,200 None None None None Landfill (onsite) Expandable as
(Sanitary) required as of
November 1994,
600,000 yd3
available
Nonhazardous 108,253 None None None None Landfill (onsite) Expandable as
(Other) required
Spent Nuclear Fuel. NTS does not generate or manage spent nuclear fuel.
High Level Waste. NTS does not generate or manage HLW.
Transuranic Waste. From 1974 to 1990, 800 yd3 of mixed TRU waste was received from LLNL
and is stored at Area 5 of NTS (NT DOE 1993f:37). DOE and the State of Nevada signed a
Settlement Agreement on July 23, 1992, allowing the Nevada Operations Office to retain
this inventory of mixed TRU waste subject to an appropriate permitting process. Since that
time, TRU waste has been characterized and repackaged and the mixed TRU waste has been
placed in a RCRA-permitted storage area. However, these wastes were repackaged before RCRA
characterization requirements were imposed on NTS. None of these waste packages are WIPP
certified. They would be recertified prior to shipment to WIPP. These wastes will continue
to be stored at this area until WIPP is determined to be a suitable disposal facility
pursuant to the requirements of 40CFR 191 and 40 CFR 268, or another suitable repository
is found. If WIPP is suitable, no further treatment is required prior to disposal. NTS has
areas of plutonium-contaminated soil, for which treatment technology is being developed.
This activity probably would produce additional volumes of TRU or mixed TRU waste.
Low-Level Waste. LLW has been generated and disposed of in eight areas at NTS, but
currently only Areas 3 and 5 are active for treatment, storage, and disposal. Bulk waste
is disposed of in Area 3, and packaged classified and unclassified waste is disposed of in
Area 5. Disposal of onsite waste began in 1971 and in 1978 operations expanded to receive
wastes generated offsite. The offsite generators are currently revising their procedures
to meet NTS waste acceptance criteria. As of December 1993, approximately 276,000 yd3 of
LLW have been disposed of in Area 3 (NT DOE 1993f:C-3) and approximately 219,900 yd3 in
Area 5 (NT REECO 1994a:12). Standard shallow land burial techniques have been employed.
Mixed Low-Level Waste. Disposal of mixed LLW received from Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site (formerly known as the Rocky Flats Plant) has taken place at NTS. This
mixed waste disposal at NTS ceased pending issuance by the State of Nevada of a RCRA Part
B permit for NTS. Environmental restoration could generate additional volumes of mixed
wastes which will require some form of treatment. The Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection provides RCRA oversight for NTS. The 1992 revised RCRA Part B permit
application to include a separate mixed waste storage and disposal unit at NTS, in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, has been
submitted to the State of Nevada.
Hazardous Waste. Hazardous wastes result from ongoing operations that utilize solvents,
lubricants, fuel, lead, metals, motor oil, and acids. Hazardous wastes are accumulated at
satellite areas and shipped offsite to a commercial RCRA-permitted facility. Additional
accumulation areas are planned, and new equipment is planned to prevent the possibility
of cross contamination with radioactive wastes (creating mixed wastes) in handling these
materials. Hazardous wastes generation is decreasing as the result of an aggressive waste
minimization program and will substantially decrease in the future due to the present
moratorium on nuclear testing.
Nonhazardous Waste. Nonhazardous sanitary wastes are expected to be generated at the
current rate for several years into the future, then decline assuming the present
moratorium on underground weapons testing continues. Liquid nonhazardous wastes are
disposed of in septic tanks, sumps, or in resulted in some decreases in waste quantities.

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts of constructing and operating various
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at NTS which are described in
sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.1. It begins by describing potential impacts to existing and
planned facilities at NTS, followed by descriptions of potential impacts and the
environmental impacts of the proposed action on potentially affected environmental
resources. The section concludes by describing the potential impacts of tritium supply and
recycling on human health during normal operation and radiation and hazardous chemical
accidents, and waste management impacts. Each description addresses the effects of No
Action and the potential impacts and environmental impacts of constructing and operating a
tritium supply and collocated recycling facility or a tritium supply facility alone at
NTS.

4.3.3.1 Land Resources
Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at
NTS would affect land resources, including land use and visual resources. Potential
impacts to the land resources are summarized below.
NTS has sufficient land area to accommodate any of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. The nearest offsite boundary to the proposed
600-acre TSS is 3.5miles east and exceeds the requirement of a 1-mile buffer zone between
plant operations and site boundary. The construction and operation of any of the tritium
supply technologies would not change the existing landscape character at NTS. The
following sections present the impacts of the proposed action on land resources.
Land Use
No Action. Under No Action, no additional land use impacts are anticipated at NTS beyond
the effects of existing and future activities which are independent of the proposed
action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Any one of the tritium supply technologies and collocated
tritium recycling facilities (section 3.4) or tritium supply alone could be sited within
the proposed TSS (figure 4.3.2.1-1). Land requirements for the tritium facilities are
presented in table 4.3.3.1-1. The land area affected ranges from 360 acres for the MHTGR
to 173acres for the APT. An additional 196acres would be required if the tritium supply
facility is collocated with a new recycling facility. Construction and operation of the
tritium supply and collocated recycling facilities or the tritium supply alone would be
consistent with the NTS Site Development Plan, and would not affect prime farmland,
grazing allotments, other agricultural activities, or other land uses on the site. Land
requirements during construction and operation would be largest for the MHTGR and the
least for APT.
No tritium facilities would be constructed offsite, so offsite land use would not be
directly affected. Land is available within the region and could be converted to
residential developments to house workers. Such developments would be subject to local
land use controls and zoning ordinances, which vary by jurisdiction.
Table 4.3.3.1-1.-Potential Changes to Land Use Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies
and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Indicator Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Land requirements (acres) 260 360 350 173 196
Available land, (percent) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity to
meet a tritium supply requirement less than baseline, or the construction and operation of
a Phased APT would not change potential baseline tritium requirement land use impacts.
Land requirements would be the same in both operation scenarios.
Multipurpose Reactor. The land requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR (sections
4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3) with recycling would be 925 and 675 acres, respectively. The site
requirements for both the multiurpose MHTGR and ALWR exceed the 600-acre TSS study area;
however, the proposed TSS is in an area where the additional land requirements would not
result in potential conflicts with site land use or development plans. The 925 and 675
acres represent less than 1 percent of the undeveloped available land reserved for
development at NTS. Construction and operation of the mulitpurpose MHTGR or ALWR would not
affect prime farmland, grazing allotments, other agricultural activities, or other land
uses on the site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because proposed facilities would be sited within a
designated development area consistent with the NTS Site Development Plan, no mitigation
measures are proposed.
Visual Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the existing landscape character would remain unchanged, with
the Bureau of Land Management VRM Class2 for the undisturbed desert areas and Class4
(mixed use of industrial and open desert) for the main base.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of any of the proposed tritium
supply technologies collocated with tritium recycling or tritium supply alone would
change the visual baseline of the proposed TSS from VRM Class2 to Class5. Of the tritium
supply technologies, the APT would be less visually obstructive because of the low-profile
buildings and cooling system (figure 3.4.2.4-1). Depending on final siting, the facilities
could be visible from the Wilderness Study Area portion of the Desert National Wildlife
Range (refuge), approximately 10 to 13 miles away. This is a sensitive viewpoint.
Because nonevaporative cooling systems are proposed for all reactor technologies at NTS,
there would be little visual impact from plumes.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline visual impacts would not change due to operation
of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium capacity or the construction and operation
of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures could include siting the facilities so
that views from the Desert National Wildlife Range are blocked by terrain (Massachusetts
Mountain); and the use of architectural and landscape design and materials for the
proposed facilities that would blend with, or complement, the existing landscape. Siting
would be addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.

4.3.3.2 Site Infrastructure
This section discusses site infrastructure for No Action and the modifications needed for
actions due to construction and operation of new tritium supply and recycling facilities.
A primary impact upon NTS due to the additional tritium facilities is the increase
electrical power usage. A comparison of site infrastructure and facilities resource
needs for No Action and the proposed tritium supply alternatives is presented in table
4.3.3.2-1.
No Action. The missions discussed in section 3.3.3 would continue under No Action. As
shown in table4.3.3.2-1, the site infrastructure would continue to adequately maintain the
capability to resume underground nuclear testing in the event it is again required for
national security. Facility improvements around the site would continue in a staged manner
through 2014; however, overall operations would not increase. A 100 MW solar facility will
be constructed as part of the Nevada Solar Enterprise Zone.
Table 4.3.3.2-1.-Modifications to Site Infrastructure for Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Alternative Transportation Electrical Fuel
- Roads Railroads Energy Peak Load Oil Natural Gas Coal
(miles) (miles) (MWh/yr) (MWe) (GPY) (million ft3/yr) (tons/yr)
Current Resources 400 0 168,500 35 1,510,000 0 0
No Action
Total site requirement 400 0 168,500 28 1,510,000 0 0
Change from current resources 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0
Heavy Water Reactor
Total site requirement 402 60 796,500 113 3,267,000 0 0
Change from current resources 2 60 628,000 78 1,757,000 0 0
Modular High Temperature
Gas-Cooled Reactor
Total site requirement 402 60 616,500 90 1,726,500 0 0
Change from current resources 2 60 448,000 55 216,500 0 0
Large Advanced Light Water
Reactor
Total site requirement 402 60 1,356,500 184 1,806,000 0 0
Change from current resources 2 60 1,188,000 149 296,600 0 0
Small Advanced Light Water
Reactor
Total site requirement 402 60 836,500 119 1,716,000 0 0
Change from current resources 2 60 668,000 84 206,000 0 0
Full Accelerator Production of
Tritium
Total site requirement 404 0 3,996,500 594 1,619,200 0 0
Change from current resources 4 0 3,828,000 559 109,200 0 0
Phased Accelerator Production of
Tritium
Total site requirement 404 0 2,656,500 399 1,619,200 0 0
Change from current resources 4 0 2,488,000 364 109,200 0 0
Tritium Supply and Recycling. For those potential tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities that could be sited in the proposed TSS, the electrical power loads
range from 62MWe to 566MWe (table4.3.3.2-2). The power requirements of the HWR, MHTGR,
ALWR, and APT each would require additional high-voltage transmission lines to be run from
Las Vegas, NV, and electrical distribution and transmission equipment onsite. The
alternatives would utilize between 0.53 and 4.79 percent of the California-Southern Nevada
Power Area subregional power pool capacity margin and between 0.21 and 1.95percent of the
Western Systems Coordinating Council Region power pool capacity margin. The additional
power for the MHTGR could be supplied by the local Nevada Power Company. The HWR and ALWR
would require the Nevada Power Company to obtain additional power from the California-
Southern Nevada Power Area Subregion. The APT might require the California-Southern Nevada
Power Area Subregion to import more power from the Region. In all cases, approximately
25miles of new connecting transmission lines from the Mercury area would be needed to
provide power to the TSS. The tritium recycling facility conceptual design uses natural
gas as a fuel source with an annual requirement of 7million ft3. This natural gas
requirement is equivalent to approximately 46,000gallons of fuel oil. Currently, NTS does
not use natural gas; therefore, the equivalent amount of fuel oil is used for
determining fuel impacts.
Table 4.3.3.2-2.- Impacts on Subregional Electrical Power Pool from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Tritium Supply Technology Peak Power Margin Annual Energy Total Electricity
and Recycling Required Capacity Required Production
(MWe) (percent) (MWh) (percent)
Heavy Water Reactor 85 0.72 628,000 0.26
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor 62 0.53 448,000 0.18
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor 156 1.32 1,188,000 0.48
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor 91 0.77 668,000 0.27
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium 566 4.79 3,828,000 1.56
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium 371 3.14 2,488,000 1.01
Source: DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; NTS 1993a:4.
To connect the NTS road network with the TSS, approximately 2 miles of additional
secondary access roads would be required for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The APT would need
approximately 4additional miles of secondary access roads. Interconnection requirements
for the tritium facilities within the TSS are not expected to change appreciably when
specific site adaptations are completed. Should a rail connection be needed, the required
minimum length of new rail and railbed would be approximately 120miles. This would connect
the TSS with a Union Pacific rail line.
Tritium Supply Alone. If any of the tritium supply technologies are sited at the TSS
without collocating tritium recycling, the electrical power loads associated with the
technologies would decrease by 16MWe or 88,000MWh. Even with these smaller electrical
loads, the HWR and ALWR would still require that the Nevada Power Company obtain
additional power from the California-Southern Nevada Power Area. Similarly, the APT would
still require the California-Southern Nevada Power Area to import more power via the
Western Systems Coordinating Council. The fuel oil requirement (including the equivalent
fuel oil requirement attributed to natural gas usage) would decrease by approximately
96,000gallons.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event that only the steady state component of the
baseline tritium requirement is required, the impacts for some tritium supply technologies
on the site infrastructure would change. There would be no appreciable change for the HWR,
MHTGR, and ALWR technologies. The Phased APT would reduce electrical consumption by
approximately 35percent but the fuel, onsite transportation infrastructure, and power line
requirements would not change.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or the ALWR multipurpose reactor option described in
section 4.8.3 could be sited at NTS. The site infrastructure impacts would vary depending
on the technology.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility described in section 4.8.3.1 along with three additional
MHTGR reactor modules. Fabrication of the plutonium oxide fuel could be accomplished
in the fuel fabrication facility already included in the tritium supply MHTGR design.
Operation of this facility along with the six module MHTGR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 373,000MW per year (55 percent)
and the total site fuel requirement by about 651,000 GPY (16 percent) over that for
operation of the three module tritium supply MHTGR.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. Operation of this facility along with the ALWR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 20,000 MWh per year (less than 2
percent) and the total site fuel requirement by about 830,000 GPY (20 percent) over that
for operation of the tritium supply ALWR.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated gas-fired power plant at NTS to
provide the necessary power for the APT could be constructed (see section 4.8.2.2). This
would decrease the annual amount of electricity required to be purchased from commercial
sources by up to 3,740,000 MWh per year for the Full APT and 2,400,000 MWh for the Phased
APT. The planned 100 MWe solar power source at NTS could be expanded to 500 MWe, or a
combination of solar and natural gas plants totalling 500 MWe could be constructed. For
environmental impacts analysis the 500 MWe gas-fired plant requirements are discussed
here. Although NTS now has no natural gas supply, a pipeline could be installed within
existing rights-of-way. This gasfired plant would require 54,200 million ft3 per year of
natural gas to provide the Full APT requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year and 34,800
million ft3 per year of natural gas to provide the Phased APT requirement of 2,400,000 MWh
per year. If the 100 MWe solar power source was expanded to 500 MWe, additional powerlines
would have to be constructed onsite.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Redesign of the tritium recycling facilities to use oil as
a fuel alternative to designs which rely on natural gas and coal would preclude building
new natural gas lines from offsite sources and both onsite and offsite infrastructure
for coal.
Siting of new roads, railroad spurs, and utility infrastructure could follow existing
rights-of-way to minimize impacts to natural resources. Where new rights-of-way would need
to be constructed, alignments should consider existing sensitive habitat (e.g.,wetlands,
streams, and vegetation) to minimize the potential for impacting these resources.

4.3.3.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Construction and operation of a tritium supply and recycling facility at NTS would
generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the potential to exceed Federal
and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. To determine the air quality
impacts, criteria and toxic/hazardous concentrations from each technology have been
compared with Federal and state standards and guidelines. Impacts for radiological
airborne emissions are discussed in section 4.3.3.9.
In general, all of the proposed technologies would emit the same types of air pollutants
during construction. Emissions would typically not exceed Federal, state, or local air
quality regulations or guidelines, except that PM10 concentration may be close to or
exceed the 24-hour PM10 standard during peak construction periods, which is not uncommon
for large construction projects.
During operation, impacts from each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities with respect to the concentrations of toxic/hazardous air pollutants are
predicted to be in compliance with Federal, state, and local air quality regulations or
guidelines. The estimated pollutant concentrations presented in table 4.3.3.3-1 for each
of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities indicate little difference
between technologies with respect to impacts to air quality.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect
ambient air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to
existing sources. Based on the emission rates presented in appendix table B.1.4-2,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for each of the proposed
alternatives at NTS. This may require "offsets," reductions of existing emissions, to
permit any additional or new emission source.
Noise emissions during either construction or operation are expected to be low. Air
quality and acoustic impacts for each technology are described separately. Supporting data
for the air quality and acoustics analysis, including modeling inputs, are presented in
appendix B.
Air Quality
An analysis was conducted of the potential air quality impacts of emissions from each of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. The air quality modeling
analysis used the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model recommended by EPA. The
resulting air quality conditions were evaluated against local and state air quality
regulations, and NAAQS (40 CFR 50). The potential exceedance of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (40 CFR52.21) increments for PM10, SO2, or NO2 was also determined.
No Action. No Action utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations in the year
2010 assuming continuation of site missions as described in section 3.3.2. These data
reflect conservative estimates of criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions at NTS. The
emission rates for the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented
in appendix table B.1.4-2. Table 4.3.3.3-1 presents the No Action concentrations.
Pollutant concentrations are in compliance with all air quality regulations and
guidelines. It is conservatively assumed that PM10 concentrations are equal to TSP
concentrations. The air quality at NTS in 2010 is expected to improve in comparison to the
baseline air quality presented in section 4.3.2.3.
Table 4.3.3.3-1.-Estimated Cumulative Concentrations of Pollutants Resulting from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling Including No Action at Nevada Test Site
Pollutant - Most Stringent - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- Averaging Regulation or 2010 HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Time Guideline No Action (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Recycling
(mg/m3) (ug/m3) (mg/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 2,306 2,343 2,432 2,353 2,321 15
1-hour 40,000 2,816 2,972 3,344 3,012 2,876 61
Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 a a a a a a
Quarter
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 4 5 8 8 4 0.5
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 a a a a a a
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 2 3 2 2 2 0.1
24-hour 150 104 107 106 106 105 1.4
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 2 2 2 2 2 0.01
24-hour 365 59 59 59 60 59 0.1
3-hour 1,300 216 219 218 221 217 0.8
Mandated by Nevada
Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 112 a a a a a a
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds
Acetone 8-hour 42,381 a a a 6.5 a a
Acetylene 8-hour c a 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Ammonia 8-hour 429 a a a 3.4 a a
Ethyl alcohol 8-hour 45,238 a 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Methane 8-hour c a 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Methyl alcohol 8-hour 6,190 a 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Nitric acid 8-hour 119 a 3.9 a 45.2 a a
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8-hour 45,238 a 0.7 0.2 14.9 a a
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 8-hour 18,095 a 27.4 a a a a
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Alternatives for NTS consist of four candidate technologies:
HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT alone or collocated with tritium recycling facilities. Air
pollutants would be emitted during construction of the tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities. The principal sources of such emissions during construction include
the following:
Fugitive dust from land clearing, site preparation, excavation, wind erosion of exposed
ground surfaces, and operation of a concrete batch plant.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, construction equipment, vehicles delivering
construction material, and vehicles carrying construction workers.
PM10 concentration is expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient standard
during the peak construction period. Exceedances would be expected to occur during dry and
windy conditions. Appropriate control measures would be followed, such as watering to
reduce emissions. With the exception of PM10, it is expected that concentrations of all
other pollutants at the NTS boundary would remain within applicable Federal and state
ambient air quality standards.
Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of each of the technologies
include all or part of the following:
Increased operation of existing boilers to generate additional steam for space heating.
Operation of diesel generators and periodic testing of emergency diesel generators.
Recycling operations.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, vehicles delivering supplies and bringing employees
to work.
Appendix table B.1.4-2 presents emissions from each of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. There are no gaseous releases associated with the
APT, although emissions are associated with operation of the tritium supply facility
included with the APT and with recycling facilities (SNL 1995a). Emissions from the Large
ALWR were used to determine pollutant concentrations since these represent the maximum
emission rates from either the Large or Small ALWR. Consequences from operation of each
of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at NTS are presented in table
4.3.3.3-1. Pollutant concentrations, combined with No Action concentrations, are in
compliance with Federal and state standards.
Pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of tritium supply technologies alone
(HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT) consist of criteria pollutants from the operation of boilers
and diesel generators and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions from facility processes.
Criteria pollutant emissions from the MHTGR are the highest among the other tritium supply
technologies and would increase existing total site criteria pollutant emissions by
greater than 50percent above No Action emissions. Concentrations of criteria and
toxic/hazardous pollutants, added to No Action concentrations, are in compliance with
Federal and State standards.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Air emissions from the HWR would be reduced slightly when
operated at reduced capacity. However, the reduction would be negligible since most
emissions are attributed to support equipment and facilities that are not related to the
reactor operating level. The MHTGR or ALWR would have no change in air emissions because
it would continue to operate at the same level as the baseline requirement to maintain
power levels for steam or electrical production. The Phased APT construction and operation
emissions and impacts would be the same as the Full APT.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Operation of a 500 to 600 MWe natural gas
electric generating facility (section 4.8.2.2) would generate a substantial amount of
emissions consisting of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These emissions would be controlled using the best available control technology to
minimize impacts and comply with the NAAQS and state mandated emission standards.
Estimated emissions are based upon emission factors for a large controlled gas turbine
(EPA 1995a; SPS 1995a). Table B.1.3.1-3 presents the emission factors and resulting annual
emission rates for a 600 MWe natural gas-fired turbine power plant.
For a natural gas-fired power plant located at NTS, the increase in carbon monoxide
emissions with respect to the 2010 No Action emissions at NTS would be approximately 1,507
percent (75 tons per year); for nitrogen oxides the increase would be approximately 766
percent (314 tons per year); for particulate matter the increase would be approximately
690 percent (179 tons per year); for sulfur dioxide the increase would be approximately
27percent (5 tons per year). In addition, the gas turbine generating facility would
generate 215 tons per year of volatile organic compounds, 126 tons per year of methane, 58
tons per year of ammonia, 29 tons per year of nonmethane hydrocarbons, and 24 tons per
year of formaldehyde.
Any power plant facility constructed to meet the power needs of the APT would be required
to meet the Federal NAAQS and state mandated regulations for toxic/hazardous pollutants.
Appropriate pollution control equipment would be incorporated into the design of that
facility to meet these standards.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures during construction include:
watering to reduce dust emissions; applying non-toxic soil stabilizers to all inactive
construction areas; cover, water, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed piles
(i.e.,gravel, sand, and dirt); suspend all excavation and grading operations when wind
speeds warrant; pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily
trips by construction equipment; and using electricity from power poles rather than
temporary gasoline and diesel power generators. Potential mitigation measures during
operation include incorporating additional HEPA filters to reduce particulate emissions
from processing facilities; substituting cleaning solvents for those which present
health hazards or exceed the applicable standards; and switching from coal or fuel oil,
to produce electricity or steam, to natural gas to reduce criteria pollutants.
Acoustics
The location of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities relative to the
site boundary and sensitive receptors was examined to determine the contribution to noise
levels at these locations and the potential for onsite and offsite impacts.
No Action. The continuation of operations at NTS would result in no appreciable change in
traffic noise and onsite operational noise sources from current levels (section 4.3.2.3).
Sources of nontraffic noise associated with current operations are located at sufficient
distances from offsite noise sensitive receptors that the contribution to offsite noise
levels would continue to be small.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Noise sources during construction may include
heavy-construction equipment and increased traffic. Increased traffic would occur onsite
and along major offsite transportation routes used to bring construction material and
workers to the site.
Most nontraffic noise sources associated with operation of any of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would be located at sufficient distance from offsite
areas and the contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be small. Due to the
size of the site, noise emissions from construction and operation activities would not
be expected to cause annoyance to the public.
Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes would be considered in
tiered NEPA documents. Some nontraffic noise sources associated with construction and
operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities may be located close
enough to offsite noise receptors to cause some increase in noise levels.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline noise impacts would not change due to reactors
operating at reduced capacity or the construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential measures to minimize impacts on workers include
the use of standard silencing packages on construction equipment and providing workers in
noisy environments with appropriate hearing protection devices meeting OSHA standards.
As required, noise levels would be measured in worker areas, and a hearing protection
program would be conducted.

4.3.3.4 Water Resources
Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities at NTS would affect surface water and groundwater
resources. All water required for construction or operation would be supplied from
groundwater. The proposed site for tritium supply and recycling facilities does not lie
within areas historically prone to flooding. There are no continuous-flowing streams
and no designated floodplains. During construction, treated sanitary wastewater would be
discharged to containment and sewage ponds that would be built in accordance with applica-
ble regulations to avoid impact on groundwater. While the potential impacts to surface
waters during the construction phase would be erosion and sedimentation, the relatively
dry climate and application of appropriate controls should preclude adverse impacts. All
excess wastewater would potentially be disposed of in ponds that would be designed to
minimize infiltration to groundwater. No wastewater would be discharged to surface waters
during the operation of tritium facilities; therefore, no impacts to surface water quality
are expected. Stormwater runoff would be collected and treated, if necessary, before
discharge to natural drainage channels.
Table 4.3.3.4-1 presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the
potential changes to water resources resulting from the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. Resource requirements for each tritium supply tech-
nology shown in this table represent the total requirements at the site, including No
Action. Resource requirements for tritium recycling are added to these values to obtain
the water resource requirements for assessing impacts associated with combined tritium
supply and recycling.
Surface Water
No Action. Under No Action, no impacts to surface water resources are anticipated since
there are no surface water withdrawals, liquid discharges to navigable waters, offsite
surface drainage systems, or publicly owned treatment works. A description of the
activities that would continue at NTS is provided in section 3.3.3.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. No surface water would be withdrawn for any construction or
operation activities associated with either the collocated tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities or the tritium supply facilities alone. Consequently, impacts
to surface water availability or surface water quality are not expected. Nonhazardous
wastewater generated during construction and operation would either be recycled or treated
and released to sewage or containment ponds that would be designed to minimize seepage.
The potential impacts to surface waters during construction would be erosion of
distributed land and sedimentation in drainage channels. To minimize soil erosion impacts,
stormwater management and standard erosion control measures would be employed.
In most cases, impacts from runoff would be temporary and manageable. Nonhazardous
wastewater, including sanitary wastewater, generated during the construction of either
the collocated tritium supply and recycling facilities (which ranges from 28.4 MGY for the
Large ALWR to 1.2 MGY for the APT), or the tritium supply facilities alone (which ranges
from 27.5 MGY for the Large ALWR to 0.3MGY for the APT) would be treated, as needed, and
discharged to ponds that would be constructed in accordance with applicable regulations to
prevent infiltration into groundwater.
During operation, no effluents would be discharged to natural surface waters. Utility,
process, and sanitary wastewater from the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would be treated prior to
discharge into lined evaporation ponds. However, cooling system blowdown and sanitary
wastewater from the APT would be treated and recycled for reuse as cooling system makeup.
The treated effluent from the process treatment would be discharged to evaporation ponds.
Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with the NPDES permit and other discharge
requirements. The extent to which treated effluent or stormwater would be recycled for
reuse within the plant would be determined during site-specific studies.
Table 4.3.3.4-1.-Potential Changes to Water Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Affected Resource Indicator - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling -
- No - - Large Small Full Phased Tritium
- Action HWR MHTGR ALWRa ALWRa APT APT Recycling
Construction (2005)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Total water requirement (MGY) 669 690 687 702 689 677 677 1.5
Percent increase in projected water use 0 3 3 5 3 1 1 NA
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters (MGY) or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
groundwater
Percent change in stream flow from wastewaterd NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NPDES permit required NA No No No No No No NA
Operation (2010)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Total water requirement (MGY) 669 717 699 759 719 1,869 1,439 14
Percent Increase in projected water used 0 9 7 16 10 181 117 NA
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters (MGY) or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
groundwater
Percent change in stream flow from wastewater NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NPDES permit required No No No No No No No NA
Floodplain
Actions in 100-year floodplain NA Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain NA
Critical actions in 500-year floodplain NA Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain NA
Floodplain assessment required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Stormwater runoff from either the collocated tritium supply and recycling facilities or
the tritium supply facilities alone would be collected in retention ponds. Runoff from
site support facilities outside the main plant, except those that require onsite
management measures by regulation such as sanitary wastewater plants and landfill areas,
would be discharged directly to natural drainage channels. Uncontaminated runoff would
be released to natural drainage channels. Contaminated stormwater runoff would be
retained, treated in the radioactive waste treatment system, and released.
There are no designated floodplains and the proposed site for the tritium facilities does
not lie within areas historically prone to flooding. Before construction, because these
operations may constitute a critical action, an assessment of the 500-year floodplain
would be made in conjunction with the preparation of site-specific tiered NEPA documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline surface water impacts described above for the
construction and operation phases would not change because of changes in reactor tritium
operating capacity or construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Multipurpose Reactors. The MHTGR or an ALWR multipurpose reactor option at NTS would
require a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility to be constructed in conjunction with the reactors. Water
used for both of the reactors and support facilities would be obtained from groundwater
resources during operation.
Nonhazardous wastewater generated during construction and operation of a multipurpose
MHTGR and ALWR and their support facilities would either be recycled or treated and
released to lined sewage or containment ponds that would be designed to minimize seepage.
No effluents would be discharged to natural surface waters.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT is selected, a dedicated power
plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the technology at NTS. An
estimated 80 MGY of water for operations would be taken from groundwater resources.
During operations, demineralized backwash would be generated. The backwash would contain
dilute concentrations of trace metals, and low-to-moderate amounts of sodium and sulfate.
With appropriate wastewater treatment, no impacts to surface water resources would be
anticipated.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified in addition to
those that could be implemented during construction for erosion and sediment control.
Stormwater measures include stabilization practices that cover soils with materials such
as vegetation, riprap, or mulch, in order to prevent direct exposure of soils to runoff.
Structural controls to divert flow away from disturbed areas include silt fences, dikes,
and sediment traps. The dry climate and application of appropriate management measures
should preclude potential adverse impacts during operation from stormwater runoff.
Groundwater
No Action. Under No Action, an additional 36MGY of groundwater will be required for the
solar thermal electric facilities that will be completed by the year 2005. Potential total
site withdrawal of groundwater (669 MGY) is within the average recharge rate for the
aquifer. No additional impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated beyond the effects
of existing and future activities that are independent of and unaffected by the proposed
action.
Groundwater Availability And Use
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Groundwater required for construction of either a collocated
tritium supply and recycling facility or a tritium supply facilities alone would represent
approximately a 5-percent maximum increase over the projected 2005 groundwater
withdrawal, would be within NTS's allotment, and would not be expected to cause depletion
of the aquifer. Groundwater required for both construction and operation and the percent
increase in projected water use are shown in table 4.3.3.4-1.
As discussed in section 4.3.2.4, some proportion of the estimated flow through Frenchman
Flat (between 7,000 MGY and 11,000 MGY) is available for use. The exact amount available
would have to be determined through site-specific studies to determine any potential
impacts if any on Ash Meadows, Devil's Hole, and on surrounding users. Based on the lower
recharge rate of 7,000 MGY estimated by Sadler and others, total groundwater withdrawals
required for the operation of the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR, would remain below the lower
recharge estimate. Operation of a Full APT (with tritium recycling) at 3/8 capacity, would
require a total site groundwater withdrawal of 1,883MGY that would also not exceed the
lower recharge estimate. This represents approximately 27percent of the estimated recharge
(7,000 MGY). However, the more likely scenario for the Full APT (with tritium recycling)
would be to operate at 3/8level for 5 years (requiring groundwater withdrawals of
1,883MGY), to operate at 3/16 capacity for 30 years (requiring 1,453MGY), and then to not
operate for 5 years. Over the 40-year operating period, the average total site groundwater
withdrawal would be 1,409MGY that would be less than the lower estimated recharge rate of
7,000MGY.
In addition, Harril and others estimated that there is approximately 4 times the required
water in storage as there is in annual recharge. Thus, there is the capacity to minimize
the effects of annual or multiyear droughts through the use and replenishment of stored
water. Substantially more water could be made available by using resources in the Alkali
Flat-Furnace Creek Ranch Subbasin to the west (service area D of figure 4.3.2.4-1). As
discussed in section 4.3.2.4, hydrogeologic evidence suggests that part of the regional
aquifer, located approximately 34 miles downgradient from the site, discharges into
Devil's Hole Cavern. Considering aquifer recharge and the distance between Devil's Hole
and the proposed area, the wells servicing the proposed TSS would likely not impact the
water levels at Devil's Hole (NT DOE 1993b:4-27).
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR at reduced capacity to meet a tritium
supply requirement less than baseline would not change the operating water requirements or
the quantity of water discharges. The MHTGR or ALWR water requirements and discharges
would not change from the baseline; therefore, the potential impacts would remain the
same.
Operation of the Phased APT (with tritium recycling) would require 784MGY
(table4.3.3.4-1), a 117-percent increase over projected No Action water use. This is
approximately two-thirds of the 1,214MGY required by the Full APT (with tritium
recycling). The water requirement for the Phased APT is less than estimated recharge rates
for the aquifer used by NTS and should have no impact on water levels at Devil's Hole. All
other requirements of the Phased APT are identical to those of the Full APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. For the multipurpose MHTGR, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would be constructed and operated to support the six reactors. The construction of the
multipurpose MHTGR and the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would use approximately
24.33 MGY, which would be a 35 percent increase over the groundwater use for the MHTGR
tritium supply facility, and would not exceed the lower recharge rate of 7,000MGY. Water
use during operation of the MHTGR multipurpose reactor (54 MGY) and the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility (10 MGY), would total64 MGY and would be a 113 percent
increase over the groundwater use for the MHTGR tritium supply facility. Total site water
use would not exceed the lower recharge rate of the aquifer.
Nonhazardous waste water generated during construction and operation of a multipurpose
MHTGR and a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would either be recycled or treated and
released to lined sewage or containment ponds that would be designed to minimize seepage.
Water use during construction and operation of an ALWR multipurpose reactor would be the
same as previously discussed for an ALWR tritium supply facility. However, as discussed in
section 4.8.3, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility would
have to be constructed and operated in conjunction with an ALWR multipurpose reactor. A
Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility would use an additional 0.5 MGY of
groundwater during construction, which would be a 1.5 percent increase over the
groundwater use for the ALWR tritium supply facility. Total site groundwater withdrawals
would not exceed the lower recharge rate of 7,000 MGY. During operation, approximately 10
MGY of water would be used, which would be an 11 percent increase over the groundwater use
for the ALWR tritium supply facility. Total site groundwater withdrawals would not exceed
the lower recharge rate of 7,000 MGY.
Nonhazardous wastewater generated during construction and operation of a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility would either be recycled or treated and
released to sewage or containment ponds that would be designed to minimize seepage.
Accelerated Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the
technology at NTS. Water requirements for a natural gas-fired power plant would be
approximately 80 MGY in addition to those groundwater requirements previously discussed.
Operation of the Full APT, tritium recycling, and the dedicated power plant would require
a total site groundwater withdrawal including No Action of 1,963MGY that would be a
4-percent increase over the groundwater requirements for the Full APT and tritium
recycling without the dedicated power plant. Total site groundwater withdrawal of
1,963MGY would not exceed the lower recharge rate of 7,000 MGY and would represent
approximately 28percent of the estimated lower recharge rate.
The demineralized backwash generated, during operation, would contain dilute
concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate. However, with appropriate wastewater
treatment, no impacts to groundwater would be anticipated.
Groundwater Quality
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Under normal construction and operating conditions,
sanitary wastewater disposed into the leach field would be the only discharge that would
have a potential to reach the Valley-Fill aquifer. The wastewater would not have a
measurable effect on groundwater quality because of the combined effects of a deep water
table, low discharge volumes, high evaporation rates, and a composition and concentration
consistent with treated and monitored sanitary wastewater.
Because nonevaporative cooling towers will be used for reactors, salt would not be
released from the cooling tower. There would be some concentration of salt in the blowdown
water; however, this would be treated as part of the blowdown water. The nonevaporative
cooling tower with blowdown recycle would couple reverse osmosis with an evaporator and
crystallizer system that would remove the dissolved solids from blowdown so the water
could be recycled to the cooling tower, and discharge would not require disposal.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Potential groundwater quality impacts described
previously would not change due to changes in reactor tritium operating capacities or the
construction and operations of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Possible mitigation to minimize potential local groundwater
withdrawal impacts could include deepening existing water wells and drilling new wells in
other areas.

4.3.3.5 Geology and Soils
Construction of tritium supply and recycling facilities at NTS would have no impact on
geological resources described in section 4.3.2.5. Although a moderate seismic risk exists
for these facilities, this would be considered in the design of the structures. The
existing seismic risk does not preclude safe construction and operation of the tritium
facilities. The only other geological hazard present is volcanic activity, which is
improbable and is not anticipated to impact the proposed facilities. Construction would
disturb up to a few hundred surface acres of soil, the amount depending on the tritium
supply technology and recycling facilities. Control measures would be used to minimize
soil erosion. Impacts would depend on the specific soil units in the disturbed area, the
extent of land disturbing activities, and the amount of soil disturbed. Potential changes
to geology and soils associated with the construction and operation of tritium supply and
recycling facilities are discussed below.
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue current and planned activities at NTS. Any
impacts to geology and soils from these actions would be independent of and unaffected
by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would not affect geologic
conditions. Design of the facilities would ensure that they would not be adversely
affected by geologic conditions.
There are no known capable faults that cross the proposed TSS. The Cane Spring fault,
located approximately 5 miles south of the Device Assembly Facility, is regarded as the
most probable source for seismic activity in the vicinity of the proposed TSS, although a
number of smaller faults are inferred in the alluvial areas of the site and in the
Massachusetts Mountain area. The Yucca fault, which is located north of the proposed TSS,
is regarded as capable and is also a potential source of seismic activity. The location of
tritium supply and collocated recycling facilities or tritium supply alone would be
evaluated at NTS during site-specific studies so that these capable faults and the
associated potential ground rupture would be considered in facilities design. Ground
shaking is more likely. Intensities of approximately VII on the modified Mercalli scale
are possible at NTS. A peak ground acceleration of 0.67g with a Richter magnitude of 6.7
has been estimated for the Cane Spring fault, with a recurrence interval of 10,000 to
30,000 years. This would affect the integrity of poorly designed or nonreinforced
structures but should not affect newly designed facilities. Based on the seismic history
of the area, a moderate seismic risk exists at NTS but should not preclude safe
construction and operation of tritium supply and collocated recycling facilities or
tritium supply alone. In addition, all facilities would be designed for
earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE Order 5480.28 and
accompanying safety guides.
Although there is a history of past volcanism in the NTS area, volcanic eruptions are
improbable (section4.3.2.5). The most likely danger is from possible ash fall eruptions
from the Long Valley area, 150 miles to the west-northwest. Lava extrusion from sources at
NTS could recur but is highly unlikely. Precursors, such as shallow earthquakes, fumarole
activity, and higher groundwater temperatures, provide advance warning of most
eruptions; no such activity is currently indicated at NTS or the immediate vicinity.
It is highly unlikely that landslides, sinkhole development, or other nontectonic events
would affect project activities. Slopes and underlying foundation materials are stable.
Properties and conditions of the soils underlying the proposed site have no limitations on
construction. Soils would be impacted by construction and operation of the facilities. The
amount of acreage that would be potentially disturbed by the tritium supply technologies
is shown in table 4.3.3.1-1 and tritium recycling facilities is 202 acres. Therefore,
soils would not adversely effect the safe operation of project activities.
The soil disturbance from construction of new facilities could be as much as 562 acres
for a MHTGR collocated with recycling facilities. Disturbance would occur at building,
parking, and construction laydown areas, destroying the soil profile, and leading to a
possible temporary increase in erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action.
Soil losses would depend on frequency of storms; wind velocities; size and location of the
facilities with respect to drainage and wind patterns; slopes, shape, and area of the
tracts of ground disturbed; and, particularly during the construction period, when soil is
bare. Construction of both the MHTGR and the APT would also necessitate deep excavations
to accommodate reactor modules and an accelerator tunnel, respectively (see sections
3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.4). A considerable volume of soil would be removed as a result of
excavations. Most of the material removed would be alluvial fan sediment and could be
stockpiled for use as fill. Some of this material could be used to cover the accelerator
tunnel of the APT. Detailed site-specific NEPA studies will evaluate impacts to geology
and soils resulting from deep excavations required for the MHTGR and APT and would
identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Net soil disturbance during operation would be less than for construction, because areas
temporarily used for laydown would be restored. Although erosion from stormwater runoff
and wind action could occur occasionally during operation, it is anticipated to be
minimal.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures would be used to minimize soil loss.
Wind erosion is likely to occur on an intermittent basis, depending on wind velocities,
the amount of soil exposed, and the effectiveness of control measures.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Under the less than baseline operations, geology and soil
impacts would not change for the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR technologies. Disturbed acreage for
the Phased APT would be the same as the baseline tritium requirement for the Full APT,
therefore impacts would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. The multipurpose MHTGR would disturb an additional 270 acres of land
to accommodate the construction of three additional reactor modules and a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility. The additional land area disturbances would result in the
destruction of the soil profile and potential temporary increase in erosion as a result of
stormwater runoff and wind action. The three additional reactor modules would also
double the excavation requirements over that for the tritium supply MHTGR. The excavated
soil would substantially increase the volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal.
Impacts on ground water resources from the excavation are not expected.
Construction impacts for the multipurpose ALWR would be the same as those described for
the tritium supply ALWR. Additional soil impacts would be expected, however, from the
construction of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
needed to support the multipurpose ALWR. Approximately 129 acres would be disturbed for
the new facility, destroying the soil profile and leading to a possible temporary increase
in erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on
frequency of storms; wind velocity; location of the facility with respect to drainage and
wind pattern; slope, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and the duration
of time the soil is bare.
Soil impacts during operation are expected to be minimal. Appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures would be used to minimize any long-term soil losses.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be required to control erosion
from exposed areas of soil during construction. Potential mitigation measures include
standard practices for erosion, sediment, and dust control from construction sites such as
silt fences, sediment traps, runoff diversion dikes, drainageways, sedimentation ponds,
establishment of ground cover and windbreaks, grading of slopes, and construction of
berms, or other controls appropriate to the sites. Standard control for wind erosion, such
as wetting the surface, would be done on a day-to-day basis. Exposing only small areas for
limited periods of time would also reduce erosional effects. After the construction
period, long-term control measures could include grading, revegetation, or landscaping.

4.3.3.6 Biotic Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at NTS
would affect biotic resources. Impacts resulting from the construction of the HWR,
MHTGR, ALWR, or Full APT to meet the baseline tritium requirement would occur only at the
beginning of the project lifecycle. The less than baseline tritium requirement for the
Phased APT could incur some additional construction-related impact if expansion is needed
to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential impacts would be minor since the
expansion would occur in the already developed main plant site. Impacts to terrestrial
resources would result from the loss of habitat during construction and operation. Impacts
to wetlands and aquatic resources would not occur since these resources are not located on
the proposed TSS. The desert tortoise is the only Federal-listed species on the proposed
TSS. Construction and operation could pose a threat to both individual tortoises and their
habitat. Where potential conflicts could occur, mitigation measures would be developed in
consultation with USFWS. Consultation would be conducted at the site-specific level in
tiered NEPA reviews. Table 4.3.3.6-1 summarizes the potential changes to biotic resources
at NTS resulting from the proposed action. As noted in the table, no major differences in
impacts to biotic resources exist among the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities.
The following discussion of impacts from a multipurpose reactor and a dedicated power
plant for the APT applies to the biotic resources at NTS as a whole. Where potential
impacts to a specific biotic resource are notable for the tritium supply technologies, the
discussion on multipurpose reactors identifies the potential impacts to the same resource.
Table 4.3.3.6-1.-Potential Impacts to Biotic Resources Resulting During Construction and
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Affected Resource Indicator - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- No Action HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Acres of habitat disturbed 0 462 562a 552a 375a 202
Wetlands potentially impacted None None None None None None
Aquatic resources potentially None None None None None None
impacted
Number of threatened and 0/0 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12
endangered species potentially
affected
Multipurpose Reactor. The selection of the multipurpose reactor option could result in
additional impacts to biotic resources at NTS. The MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility and the ALWR Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
would require an additional 129 acres of land. However, it is expected that during the
design phase, land requirements for this facility would be substantially reduced when
integrated into the reactor and recycling facility design. In addition, an MHTGR would
require three additional modules which would displace about 240 acres. Thus, total land
requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors would be 931 and 691 acres,
respectively. In general, impacts to terrestrial resources and threatened and endangered
species would be similar to, but greater than, those described for the tritium supply and
recycling facility. Impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources would not be expected on the
proposed TSS since these resources do not occur on the site.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated natural gas-fired power plant,
similar to that described in section 4.8.2.2, could be an option to support an APT at NTS.
This facility, which would be constructed on the proposed TSS, would occupy 25 acres of
land. Construction of the gas-fired power plant would increase the land disturbance
associated with the APT from 375 to 400 acres. This would result in a slight increase in
impacts to biotic resources over those described for the tritium supply and recycling
facility. Infrastructure requirements, such as parking and laydown areas, would be incor-
porated into and take advantage of similar requirements associated with the APT.
Rights-of-way would be sited to take advantage of existing corridors to the maximum extent
practical.
Terrestrial Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.2 would continue at NTS.
This would result in no change to current terrestrial resource conditions at NTS
described in section 4.3.2.6.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT
and recycling facilities at the proposed TSS would result in the disturbance of
approximately 462, 562, 552, or 375 acres, respectively, of terrestrial resources or less
than 0.07 percent of NTS (table 4.3.3.1-1). These acreages include areas on which
facilities would be constructed, as well as areas revegetated following construction.
Although vegetation within the proposed TSS would be destroyed during land clearing
operations, all of the communities present are well represented on NTS.
Constructing any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would have
some adverse effects on animal populations. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles and
small mammals, within the project area would be destroyed during land clearing activities.
Larger mammals and birds in construction and adjacent areas would be disturbed and would
move to similar habitat nearby. The long-term survival of these animals would depend on
whether the area to which they moved was at or below its carrying capacity. Nests and
young animals living within the proposed TSS could be lost during construction. Areas
disturbed by construction but not occupied by facility structures would be of minimal
value to wildlife because of the difficulty in establishing vegetative cover in a desert
environment.
Activities associated with operation, such as noise and human presence, could affect
wildlife living immediately adjacent to the tritium supply and recycling facilities. These
disturbances may cause some species to move from the area.
A dry cooling design is proposed for all tritium supply technologies at NTS except for the
APT. While there would be no impacts to vegetation from salt drift from an HWR, MHTGR, or
ALWR, this may not be the case for the APT. A total of 10separate cooling towers would be
located along the length of the facility (section 3.4.2.4). Since design parameters for
these towers are not known at this time, it is not possible to estimate impacts. This
would be determined in future tiered NEPA documentation.
Construction and operation of a stand alone tritium supply facility would result in
impacts to terrestrial resources that would be similar to, but less than, those described
for a collocated tritium supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since
202fewer acres of habitat would be disturbed.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction-related impacts of the less than baseline tritium requirement and Phased APT
would be similar to those described above. Some additional construction-related impacts
could occur if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential
impacts would be minor since the expansion activities would occur in the already devel-
oped main plant site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Habitat disturbance would be held to a minimum because of
the difficulty in establishing plant cover in a desert environment. Disturbance to
wildlife living in areas adjacent to any of the facilities may be lessened by preventing
workers from entering undisturbed areas. It may be necessary to survey the proposed TSS
for the nests of migratory birds or eagles prior to construction and/or avoid clearing
operations during breeding seasons.
Wetlands
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.2 would continue at NTS
with no changes to wetlands at NTS.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of any of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would not affect wetlands because there are no
wetlands in the proposed TSS. Construction and operation of a stand alone tritium supply
facility would not affect wetlands because there are no wetlands in the proposed TSS.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have no wetland impact. Construction and operation of a Phased
APT would also not affect wetlands because there are no wetlands in the proposed TSS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are not anticipated.
Aquatic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.2 would continue at NTS.
Impacts to aquatic resources would not occur because of the lack of permanent surface
water at NTS.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of any of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would not affect aquatic resources because there are
no permanent surface water bodies in the proposed TSS. Temporary aquatic habitat may
develop in evaporation and retention ponds, as well as in natural channels in the
immediate vicinity of NPDES permitted outfalls. Construction and operation of a stand
alone tritium supply facility would not affect aquatic resources because there are no
permanent surface water bodies.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would not impact aquatic resources a NTS. Construction and operation
of a Phased APT would also not impact aquatic resource because there are no permanent
surface water bodies in the proposed TSS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are not anticipated.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action. Under No Action, the alternatives described in section 3.3.2 would continue at
NTS. Since underground nuclear testing has been suspended, impacts to threatened and
endangered species are not expected.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The threatened desert tortoise is the only Federal-listed
species that could be affected by construction of tritium supply and recycling facilities
at NTS. During construction, clearing operations, trenches, and excavation could pose a
threat to any tortoises residing within the disturbed area. An increase in vehicle traffic
is an additional hazard to the tortoise. Measures designed to avoid impacts to the desert
tortoise from previous projects at NTS have been implemented as a result of a Biological
Opinion issued by USFWS (NT FWS1992a). Similar measures (see potential mitigation
measures) would be followed if tritium supply and recycling facilities are constructed at
NTS.
Several Federal candidate Category 2 species may also be affected by construction. The
ferruginous hawk could lose foraging habitat and the loggerhead shrike could lose foraging
and breeding habitat. Neither species would, however, be adversely impacted due to the
abundance of nearby suitable habitat. Any plant species included in table 4.3.2.6-1 that
are located within the construction area would be destroyed during land clearing
activities. Pre-activity surveys would be required prior to construction to determine the
occurrence of these species in the area to be disturbed.
During facility operation, vehicle traffic would pose a hazard to the desert tortoise
similar to that of current traffic. Extensive measures are presently being taken to ensure
that drivers on the NTS avoid the tortoise. The ferruginous hawk would be discouraged
from utilizing areas in close proximity to the operating facility but the loggerhead
shrike could take advantage of the bordering fences as perching and hunting sites.
Groundwater levels in Devil's Hole Cavern are not expected to change due to operation of
the tritium supply and recycling facility (section 4.3.3.4); therefore, impacts to the
Devil's Hole pupfish are not expected. Similarly, other rare endemic aquatic species found
in the Ash Meadows area would not be affected.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to threatened and endangered species, but less than those described for a
collocated tritium supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since fewer acres
of habitat would be disturbed.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have similar impacts on the Federal listed desert tortoise and
candidate species as discussed above for the baseline tritium production requirement.
Construction and operation of a Phased APT would also have similar impacts as discussed
above.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Disturbance of threatened, endangered, and special status
species would be avoided where possible and mitigation plans developed as required. A
Biological Opinion concerning the desert tortoise has been issued by the USFWS covering
current projects (NT FWS 1992a). Recommended mitigation measures included surveys for the
desert tortoise and their removal from affected areas, as well as periodic inspections and
eventual backfilling, covering, or installation of tortoise-proof fencing around open
construction trenches and excavations and reducing speed limits on site roadways.
Similar USFWS recommendations would be considered if NTS is selected as the location for
the tritium supply and recycling facilities.
Land clearing activities could be scheduled to avoid the nesting season of the loggerhead
shrike or avoided in areas where sensitive plant species occur. Where appropriate, habitat
restoration or propagation programs would be attempted for plants when their disturbance
is unavoidable. Consultation with USFWS would be required if any threatened or endangered
species would be disturbed. No critical habitat has been designated for the tortoise or
other threatened and endangered species at NTS.

4.3.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance
during construction, building modifications, visual intrusion of the project to the
historic setting or environmental context of historic sites, visual and audio intrusions
to Native American resources, reduced access to traditional use areas, and unauthorized
artifact collecting and vandalism. Intensive cultural resources surveys and site
evaluations have not been conducted for the majority of the proposed TSS. Site-specific
surveys and evaluations would be conducted in conjunction with tiered NEPA documentation.
Although the location and acreage for the proposed tritium supply plant or the combined
tritium supply and recycling facilities will vary, their potential effects on cultural and
paleontological resources are based primarily on the amount of ground disturbance;
therefore, the facilities with the greatest ground disturbance will have the greatest
potential effect on cultural and paleontological resources. Some NRHP-eligible prehis-
toric and historic sites, important Native American resources and scientifically important
paleontological resources may be affected by the proposed action.
Multipurpose Reactor. Total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors
would be 931 and 691 acres, respectively. NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites,
Native American resources, and Late Pleistocene paleontological resources may occur
within these acreages and may be affected by the construction of a multipurpose reactor.
In general, impacts to prehistoric and historic resources, Native American resources, and
paleontological resources would be similar to, but potentially greater than, those
described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
No Action. Under No Action existing and planned missions at NTS would continue. Any
impacts to prehistoric and historic resources from these missions would be independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Land disturbance for the proposed tritium facilities
(section 3.4) would range from 360 acres for the MHTGR to 173 acres for the APT (section
4.3.3.1). Acreages for the HWR and ALWR would be 260 and 350, respectively. Acreage
required by the recycling facilities would be an additional 196 acres. Some NRHP-eligible
prehistoric and historic sites may occur within the acreages that would be disturbed
during construction. The prehistoric sites may include temporary camps, milling stations,
habitation sites, quarries, and limited activity locations. The historic sites may include
mines, campsites, trails, and trash dumps. NRHP-eligible resources will be identified
through project specific inventories and evaluations, and any project related effects
would be addressed in sitespecific tiered NEPA documents. Operation of new facilities
would not involve additional ground disturbance or increased activity; therefore,
prehistoric or historic sites would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to prehistoric and historic resources
would be expected from operating the HWR at reduced capacity. Impacts for the MHTGR or
ALWR would also not change from those described for the baseline requirement because the
MHTGR or ALWR would not be a reduced size or operate at reduced capacity.
Construction and operation of the Phased APT would not change the expected impacts from
the baseline tritium requirement technologies since the disturbed area would be the same.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, and would result in an adverse effect, then a Memorandum of
Agreement would need to be negotiated between DOE, the Nevada SHPO, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation describing and implementing intensive inventory and
evaluation studies, data recovery plans, site treatments, and monitoring programs. The
appropriate level of data recovery for mitigation would be determined through the Nevada
SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in accordance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Native American Resources
No Action. Under No Action existing and planned missions at NTS would continue. Any
impacts to Native American resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Some Native American resources may occur within the acreages
that would be disturbed during construction of the tritium facilities. Native American
resources may include burials, ceremonial sites, petroglyphs (rock art), and traditional
plant gathering areas. Operation of facilities may create audio or visual intrusions on
Native American sacred sites in the vicinity or reduce access to traditional use areas.
Specific concerns about the presence, type, and locations of Native American resources
would be identified through consultation with the potentially affected Native American
tribes, and any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to Native American resources would not change due
to less than baseline operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR. Construction and operation of
a Phased APT would have similar impacts on Native American resources as those described
for the baseline requirement Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If Native American resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to lessen the effect on
these resources would be determined in consultation with all potentially affected Native
American groups. In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act such mitigations may include, but not be
limited to, appropriate relocation of human remains, planting vegetation screens to reduce
visual and noise intrusions, increased access to traditional use areas during operation,
or transplanting or harvesting Native American plant resources. However, impacts to some
Native American resources such as rock art sites may be mitigated, as appropriate.
Paleontological Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at NTS. Any
impacts to paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Some Late Pleistocene paleontological resources may occur
within the acreages that would be disturbed during construction of the tritium
facilities. In such a case, paleontological monitoring of construction activities may be
an appropriate mitigation, since scientifically important paleontological materials may be
affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to paleontological resources would be
expected due to reduced operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or construction of a Phased
APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because scientifically important buried paleontological
materials could be affected, paleontological monitoring of construction activities and
data recovery of fossil remains would be appropriate mitigation measures.

4.3.3.8 Socioeconomics
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling facilities at NTS
would affect socioeconomics in the region. Section 3.2 provides descriptions for No
Action, the tritium supply technologies, and tritium recycling. Siting a tritium supply
technology with or without a recycling facility at NTS would result in changes in some of
the communities in both the ROI and the regional economic area. The in-migrating
population could increase the demand for housing units. Additionally, there would be an
associated increased burden on community infrastructure and subsequent effects on the
public finances of local governments in the ROI. The increase of population could also
burden transportation routes in the ROI.
During the construction period, the greater changes in socioeconomic characteristics would
result from the ALWR and APT. During operation, the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would exhibit
similar characteristics. The APT would result in the smallest changes during operation.
None of these tritium supply technologies with a recycling facility would increase
population, the need for additional housing, or local government spending in the ROI
spending beyond 3 percent over No Action during peak construction or operation. Although
the greatest percent increases in employment, population and housing, and public finance
during construction and operation occur in the peak years of 2005 and 2010, respec-
tively, the annual average increases over the construction period (2001 to 2005) are
between 1 and 5percent average growth annually. Between peak construction and full
operation (2005 to 2010), annual average increases vary from decreases of less than
1percent to increases between 1 and 2 percent. During operation (2010 to 2050), annual
average growth is between 1 and 2 percent.
The effects of locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling
facilities at NTS are summarized in section 4.3.3. The following sections describe the
effects that locating one of these technologies would have on the local region's economy
and employment, population, housing, public finances, and local transportation.
Employment and Local Economy
Changes in employment and levels of economic activity in the 4-county regional economic
area from the proposed action at NTS are described in this section. Although specialized
personnel, materials, and services required for construction and operation would be
imported from outside the area, a significant portion of these requirements would be
available in this regional economic arearegional economic area. Figures 4.3.3.8-1 and
4.3.3.8-2 present the potential changes in employment and local economy that would occur
with each of the technologies.
No Action. Under No Action, employment at NTS decreased to 6,850 persons in 1994. This is
a decrease of approximately 1,170 persons from the 1990 employment. NTS employment is
projected to remain at 6,850 through 2020. Historical and future employment projections at
NTS are found in appendix table D.2.1-1. The total NTS payroll was approximately $276
million in 1994 and is expected to continue at this level through 2010.
Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow 1 percent annually
between 2001 and 2009, reaching 509,500 persons, and less than 1percent annually between
2010 and 2020, reaching 525,900 persons. The unemployment rate in the regional economic
area is expected to remain at 5percent between 2001 and 2020. Per capita income is
projected to increase from $23,600 to $25,100 during this 20-year period. No Action
estimates are presented in appendix table D.3-22.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would begin between 2001 and 2003
and would be completed between 2007 and 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation
of the new facilities would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue
at this level into the future.
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at NTS would
create new jobs (direct) at the site. Indirect job opportunities, such as community
support services, would also be created in the regional economic area as a result of these
new jobs. The total new jobs (direct and indirect) created would reduce unemployment and
increase income in the economic region surrounding NTS during both the construction and
operation periods of the proposed action.
Construction. Siting tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at NTS would
require a total of approximately 7,400 to 13,600 worker-years of activity over a 5- to
9-year construction period. This construction-related employment would indirectly create
other jobs in the regional economic area and total employment would grow at an annual
average rate of 1 to 2 percent until the peak year of 2005. Between 2005 and 2010, annual
growth would increase between 1 and 2 percent. Figure 4.3.3.8-1 gives the estimates of
total jobs (direct and indirect) that would be created during peak construction (2005) for
each of the tritium supply technologies with recycling, and the recycling facility's
contribution to employment growth.
As employment opportunities grow in the regional economic area due to the proposed action,
the unemployment rate would be reduced from the No Action estimate of 5 percent. Figure
4.3.3.8-2 presents a comparison of unemployment rates for the different tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities during peak construction in 2005. During the
project's peak construction phase, the unemployment rate would range from 3.9 to 4 percent
depending on the tritium supply technologies with recycling selected.
Income in the regional economic area would also increase slightly over No Action,
particularly during peak construction as shown in figure 4.3.3.8-2. Per capita income is
expected to increase at an annual average of 1 percent until the peak construction year
(2005). Between 2005 and 2010, per capita income would also increase by 1 percent. The No
Action annual average increase for per capita income is 1percent until 2005 and less than
1 percent between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as construction nears
completion and the construction-related employment begins phasing out. It is expected that
full operation employment would peak in 2010 and continue at this level for the life of
the operation. Figure 4.3.3.8-2 gives the total project-related jobs projections (direct
and indirect) for each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities for
2010. Total employment growth from 2010 to 2020 would be flat.
Creation of additional job opportunities would reduce the unemployment rate below that
projected for No Action. Figure 4.3.3.8-2 presents the differences in unemployment rates
during the first year of full operation employment (2010) for each of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. From 2010 to 2020, unemployment would be reduced
from the No Action projection of 5 percent to between 4.3 and 4.4 percent, depending upon
the technology selected for the proposed action.
Income would also increase slightly over No Action in the regional economic area as a
result of the proposed action. Per capita income differences for tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities for 2010 are given in figure 4.3.3.8-2. Per capita
income annual average increases would be about 1 percent between 2010 and 2020 for all of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities considered for location at NTS.
The No Action projected annual average increase during the same period would also be
approximately 1 percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Construction of the tritium supply technologies without recycling
facilities would begin between 2001 and 2003 and would be completed between 2007 and 2009.
Employment for the operation of the facility would begin in 2007 and reach full employment
by 2010. Locating any of the tritium supply technologies at NTS would create new jobs at
the site and indirectly create other jobs in the region. However, this job creation and
the additional economic effects would be less than the effects that would occur with the
collocation of the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities.
Construction. Construction of the tritium supply technologies only would require between
6,380 and 12,600 worker-years of activity over a 5- to 9-year period. New jobs would be
created at an annual average rate of 2 percent until the peak year of construction,
2005. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would generally increase by one percent annually
for the four technologies. Appendix table D.3-23 presents the estimates of total
employment during peak construction in 2005 resulting from the tritium supply
technologies. The total jobs (direct and indirect) that would be created can be calculated
by subtracting the tritium recycling contribution from the tritium supply technologies and
recycling in figure 4.3.3.8-1.
Figure (Page 4-157)
Figure 4.3.3.8-1.-Total Project-Related Employment (Direct and Indirect) and Percentage
Increase over No Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Nevada Test
Site Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-158)
Figure 4.3.3.8-2.-Unemployment Rate, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Increase over No
Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Nevada Test Site Regional
Economic Area.
Although the construction of the facility would create new jobs, the effects would not be
enough to greatly affect the unemployment rate projected for No Action. Additionally, per
capita income in the region would rise only slightly above that estimated for No Action.
Estimates of unemployment rate and per capita income for the tritium supply technologies
are presented in appendix table D.3-23 or can be derived by subtracting tritium recycling
contributions from the values for the tritium supply technologies and recycling figure
4.3.3.8-2.
Operation. Operation employment for the tritium supply technologies only would begin
phasing in at the end of the construction period, and be at full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Estimates for full
employment in 2010 are presented in appendix table D.3-23. Total project-related jobs
created by the tritium supply technologies alone can be calculated by subtracting the
tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.3.3.8-1.
The addition of new jobs during operation would reduce the unemployment rate below the
projection for No Action. The unemployment rate for 2010, the first year of full operation
employment, is presented in appendix table D.3-23 or can be derived by subtracting
tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.3.3.8-2. Unemployment would be reduced from the
No Action projection of 5 percent to a range of 4.6 to 4.7 percent from 2010 through 2020
depending on the technology selected.
The creation of new jobs as a result of the tritium supply operation would also increase
income slightly over the No Action estimates. Appendix table D.3-23 presents the per
capita income for the tritium extraction and recycling facility for 2010. Per capita
income growth can also be calculated by subtracting tritium recycling contribution in
figure 4.3.3.8-2. From 2010 through 2020, per capita income annual increases would be 1
percent, the same annual increase projected under No Action.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Tritium supply technologies that provide less than the
baseline tritium capacities are described in section 3.1. These options may or may not be
collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The options include lowering the power
in the HWR, using fewer target rods in the MHTGR and ALWR, and the phased approach for the
APT.
Construction. The less than baseline operation case for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would
have the same construction workforce requirements as discussed in the tritium supply and
recycling and tritium supply only sections. Therefore, employment and economic effects in
the region would be the same.
The Phased APT would require the same total number of construction workers as the Full
APT, but the construction period would span from 1999 through 2008 instead of from 2003
through 2007. Additionally, peak construction would occur in 2003 instead of 2005. The
effects on the regional economic area's employment, unemployment rate, and per capita
income as a result of constructing the Phased APT are presented in appendix table D.3-23.
Appendix table D.3-24 presents the effects on employment, unemployment rate, and per
capita income for constructing the Phased APT with tritium recycling facilities.
Generally, average annual increases in employment and income are similar to those for the
Full APT, but these increases are over a longer period of time. These increases are
between 1percent and 2 percent.
Operation. Operation workforce requirements for the less than baseline tritium requirement
case for the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and the Phased APT would be the same as those described in
the tritium supply and recycling and tritium supply only sections. Thus, regional
employment and economic effects would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. Construction activities for the multipurpose reactor would begin in
2001 and would be completed by 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation of the
multipurpose reactor would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue at
that level into the future. Because this option would perform three processes, it would
result in greater changes in employment and local economy characteristics than any of the
four tritium supply technologies.
Construction. Siting the multipurpose reactor and a recycling facility at NTS would
require 19,140worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. The multipurpose reactor
alone would require 18,150worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. Employment
characteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during con-
struction of the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-23a and D.3-24a, respectively. From the first year of
construction to the peak year (2005), annual average increases in employment and per
capita income would range from 1 to 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment and per
capita income would increase on an annual average of 1percent. The unemployment rate
during peak construction for this option with or without a recycling facility would be
3.9 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the multipurpose reactor would begin phasing in
toward the end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment char-
acteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of
the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in
appendix tables D.3-23a and D.3-24a, respectively. During operation, annual employment
growth would be flat and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than 1
percent. The unemployment rate for the multipurpose reactor alone and with a recycling
facility would be 4.3 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Construction activities for the APT power
plant would begin in 2003 and would be completed by 2007. Phasing in of employment for the
operation of the production of tritium power plant would begin in 2007, peak at full
employment by 2010, and continue at that level into the future. This option is similar to
the APT with an addition of a gas power plant. The changes in employment and local economy
would be similar, but greater than those resulting from the APT.
Construction. Siting this option with a recycling facility at NTS would require 7,600
worker-years of activity over a 5-year period. The APT power plant alone would require
6,600 worker-years of activity of a 5-year period. Employment characteristics, unem-
ployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of this option
alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-23 a and
D.3-24a, respectively. From the first year of construction to the peak year (2005), annual
average increases in employment and per capita income would range from 1 to 2 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, employment and per capita income would increase on an annual
average of 1percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with
or without a recycling facility would be 3.8 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the multipurpose power plant would begin phasing in
toward the end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment
characteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during
operation of the APT power plant alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented
in appendix tables D.3-23a and D.3-24a, respectively. During operation annual employment
growth would be flat and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than 1
percent. The unemployment rate for the APT power plant alone and with a recycling facility
would be 4.4 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively.
Population and Housing
Changes to ROI population and housing expected from the proposed action at NTS are
described in this section. Additional population could be expected to in-migrate to the
NTS region and these people would be expected to reside in cities and counties within the
ROI in the same relative proportion as the existing population. Increases to the
population could lead to a demand for additional housing units beyond existing vacant
housing available during construction or operation phases of the proposed action. Figures
4.3.3.8-3 and 4.3.3.8-4 present the changes in population and housing over No Action
with the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Under No Action, population and housing increases between 2001 and 2009 are
projected to be 1 percent. Future annual average increases are also projected to be 1
percent between 2010 and 2020. Population in the ROI is estimated to reach 1,020,900 in
2010 and 1,103,500 in 2020. Total housing units in the ROI are estimated to reach 437,400
in 2010 and 472,800 in 2020. No Action estimates are presented in appendix tables D.3-25
and D.3-28.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. It is expected that the proposed action at NTS would
increase population and housing demands in the ROI slightly (2 percent) over No Action
projections during peak construction. The effects are expected to be fewer (much less than
1 percent) during the operation phase of the proposed action.
Construction. Construction activities would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period. Figure
4.3.3.8-3 illustrates that during peak construction (year 2005), the ALWR and APT would
create the largest population and housing demand increases over No Action, and the HWR
and MHTGR would have the fewest effects. The increase in population could require some
additional housing units beyond what is currently available in the existing housing mix.
However, any requirements for additional housing units would be at annual average
increases of 2percent in the first 3 years of construction of the ALWR and APT, followed
by an approximately 1-percent increase until peak operation. The other tritium supply
technologies would have annual average population and housing demand growth of less than 2
percent. Therefore, there would not be any major effects on any of the ROI communities.
Operation. Operation of any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities is
expected to reach full employment by 2010. In-migrating population is expected to
require housing units similar to the existing housing mix in the ROI. Figure4.3.3.8-4
shows that population increases and potential demand for additional housing units over No
Action projections are almost negligible (less than 1percent) in this peak year. Given
that the operation of the proposed action would be phased in over a 4-year period, it is
expected that existing vacancies would absorb much of this new demand and that No Action
requirements would be exceeded by very few units.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating only a tritium supply technology at NTS would not increase
population or housing demands in the ROI more than 2 percent over No Action projections
during the construction period or 1 percent during operation.
Construction. Construction activities for the tritium supply technologies alone would be
lower than if collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The greatest increase in
population and housing demand would occur during peak construction in 2005. Appendix
tables D.3-26 and D.3-29 show that available vacancies in the existing housing mix would
probably accommodate the expected population growth. Estimated growth in the ROI is less
than 1 percent over the No Action projection.
Operation. Full employment levels for any of the tritium supply technologies alone would
be reached by 2010. In-migrating population would be expected to require housing units
similar to the existing mix in the ROI. These requirements would be lower than those any
of the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities. Potential demand for
housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full employment as
illustrated in appendix tables D.3-26 and D.3-29. It is expected that existing vacancies
would absorb most of this new demand as employment would be phased in from 2007 through
2010.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Population increases and housing demands would be the same
or lower during construction and operation of tritium supply technologies operated at less
than baseline tritium requirements than the alternatives discussed in the tritium supply
and recycling and tritium supply only sections.
Construction. Population increases and housing demands would be the same as those given in
figure 4.3.3.8-3 for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The Phased APT would increase population
and housing demand during construction to the same level as the Full APT, but this would
occur over a longer construction period with lower average annual increases (1 percent).
Also, the peak construction year would be 2003 instead of 2005. The effects of the Phased
APT on population and housing are presented in appendix tables D.3-26 and D.3-29,
respectively. Appendix tables D.3-27 and D.3-30 present the results of constructing the
Phased APT with the tritium recycling facilities.
Figure (Page 4-162)
Figure 4.3.3.8-3.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase over No Action During
Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Nevada Test Site
Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-163)
Figure 4.3.3.8-4.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase over No Action at Full
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Nevada Test Site Region of
Influence, 2010.
Operation. The effects on population and housing of operating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and
the Phased APT at less than baseline tritium requirements would be the same as those
presented in figure 4.3.3.8-4.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a recycling
facility at NTS would not increase population and housing demands more than 3 percent over
No Action projections during the construction period and 1 percent during operation.
Construction. Because this option would perform three processes, it would result in
greater changes in population and housing characteristics than any of the four tritium
supply technologies. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
multipurpose reactor with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix
tables D.3-26a, D.3-27a, D.3-29a, and D.3-30a. Population and housing growth in the ROI
would be at an annual average rate of 2 percent until 2005 and 1 percent between 2005 and
2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the multipurpose reactor would be reached by 2010.
As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-26a, D.3-27a, D.3-29a, and D.3-30a, potential
demand for housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full
employment. It is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as
employment would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a recycling facility at NTS would not increase population and housing demands
more than 1 percent over No Action projections during the construction and operation
periods.
Construction. This option is similar to the APT with an addition of a gas power plant. The
changes in population and housing demands would be similar, but greater than those
resulting from the APT. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
the APT power plant with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix tables
D.3-26a, D.3-27a, D.3-29a, and D.3-30a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be
at an annual average rate of 2 percent until 2005 and 1 percent between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the APT power plant would be reached by 2010. As
illustrated in appendix tables D.3-6a, D.3-7a, D.3-9a, and D.3-10a, potential demand for
housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full employment. It is
expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment would
be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Public Finance
Fiscal changes could occur in some ROI local jurisdictions from the proposed action.
Factors influencing these changes include residence of project-related employees and
their dependents, cost and duration of construction, and economic conditions in the ROI
once the new facilities are operational.
Adding the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities to NTS would increase
population, resulting in more revenues for ROI local jurisdictions. Additional
population would also increase public service expenditures. Figures 4.3.3.8-5 and
4.3.3.8-6 present the potential fiscal changes that would occur with the different tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Appendix tables D.3-31 and D.3-32 present the 1992 public finance
characteristics for local ROI jurisdictions. Appendix tables D.3-33 through D.3-36 present
the impacts from tritium supply technologies alone or collocated with recycling facilities
compared to No Action during construction and operation for the local ROI counties,
cities, and school districts. Between 2001 and 2005, all ROI counties, cities, and school
districts are projected to increase total revenues on an annual average of less than 1 to
5 percent. Total expenditures are also projected to increase on an annual average of 1
to 5 percent for all ROI counties, cities, and school districts between 2001 and 2005.
Between 2005 and 2010, total revenues and expenditures are expected to increase from 1
to 2 percent for all counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI.
Between 2010 and 2020, projected annual average increases in total revenues are less than
1 percent for all counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI. Total expenditures
are also projected to increase on an average by 1 percent or less for ROI jurisdictions
between 2010 and 2020.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at NTS would create some fiscal benefits
to local jurisdictions within the ROI. Some local government finances would be affected
during the construction and operation phases of the proposed action. Con-
struction-related effects on revenues and expenditures could span a 5- to 9-year period
with the peak occurring in 2005. The effects of the operation phase would peak in 2010 and
remain at this level throughout the life of the facilities.
Construction. The public finances of counties, cities, and school districts within the ROI
would be affected by the construction-related activities associated with the proposed
action. Initially, there would be slight increases to some local government jurisdictions'
revenues and expenditures, which would peak in 2005 and then decline as construction
neared completion. Figure 4.3.3.8-5 presents the revenue and expenditure changes of ROI
local government jurisdictions over No Action during peak construction for the four
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. Over the construction phase of the
proposed action, revenues and expenditures would increase slightly over No Action at an
annual average of less than 1 to 4 percent. Under the tritium supply with recycling,
revenues and expenditures would increase between 1 percent and 4 percent in the first
three years of construction. After the peak construction year, there would be increases
of 1 to 2 percent annually until 2010 for most local jurisdictions.
Operation. The effects of phasing in operation together with the phasing out of
construction on ROI local government finances would be fewer than the effects at peak or
full operation (2010). The effects that the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would have on county, city, and school district revenues and expenditures are
presented in figure 4.3.3.8-6. Between 2010 and 2020, revenues are expected to increase at
an average annual rate of 1 percent or less for most jurisdictions. Expenditures are
expected to increase to 2020 at an annual average of 1 percent. No Action local govern-
ment revenues and expenditures would also increase at an average annual rate of 1 percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating the tritium supply without the recycling facilities at NTS
would create some fiscal benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI, but these effects
would be less than the effect of collocation with tritium recycling.
Construction. Construction-related effects from the tritium technologies alone on the
revenues and expenditures of counties, cities, and school districts would be similar but
less than the effects from the tritium supply technologies with recycling facilities.
Appendix table D.3-33 presents the revenue and expenditure changes of ROI local
governments over No Action during peak construction of the tritium supply technologies
alone.
Operation. The operation phase of the tritium supply technologies alone would affect the
public finances of counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI but these effects
would be less than the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities. Appendix
table D.3-34 presents the effects that operation would have on these local jurisdictions
in 2010. From 2010 through 2020, revenues and expenditures are expected to increase less
than 1percent. In comparison, No Action local government revenues and expenditures would
increase at an average annual rate of 1 percent.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The fiscal benefits that local jurisdictions would accrue
from the location of a tritium supply technology alone or collocated with recycling
would be the same or less if the tritium supply technologies is operated at less than
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction. Increases in local jurisdictions' revenues and expenditures would be the
same as those given in figure 4.3.3.8-5 if the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR are built. If the
Phased APT is constructed, the effects would peak in 2003 instead of 2005, and the annual
average increases would be lower (2 percent or less). Appendix tables D.3-33 and D.3-34
present the revenue and expenditure changes as a result of constructing the Phased APT for
all ROI jurisdictions. Revenue and expenditure changes resulting from the construction of
the Phased APT with tritium recycling are presented in appendix tables D.3-35 and D.3-36.
Figure (Page 4-166)
Figure 4.3.3.8-5.-County, City, and School District Total Revenues and Expenditures
Percentage Increase over No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling for Nevada Test Site Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-167)
Figure 4.3.3.8-6.-County, City, and School District Total Revenues and Expenditures
Percentage Increase over No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling for Nevada Test Site Region of Influence, 2010.
Operation. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and Phased APT at less than baseline would
have the same effects on local jurisdictions' finances as those presented in figure
4.3.3.8-6.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a tritium
recycling facility at NTS would create greater changes in public finance characteristics
than the four tritium supply technologies because this option would perform three pro-
cesses. Public finance characteristics for the multipurpose reactor with and without a
recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-33a through D.3-36a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 4 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would generally increase annually by 1
percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to increase by 1 percent annually for most cities,
counties, and school districts.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a tritium recycling facility at NTS would create similar, but greater changes in
public finance characteristics than the APT tritium supply technology. Public finance
characteristics for the APT power plant with and without a recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-33a through D.3-36a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 2 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would increase annually by 1 percent for
most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to increase at an annual average rate of less than 1
percent for most cities, counties, and school districts.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Adding new missions to NTS would create new jobs and generally benefit the local economy
through increased earnings in the ROI. Some mitigation measures may be required, such as
Federal aid to local school districts where additional school age children would attend as
a result of siting the tritium facilities at NTS. These new missions at NTS would increase
population and the demand for additional housing units. Temporary housing units and mobile
homes would help to alleviate the demand for new housing during the construction phase of
the proposed action. Generally, construction would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period
with peak construction occurring in 2005. Phasing the start of operation employment and
training between 2005 and 2010 would reduce the annual level of housing demand and smooth
the peak and valley effect that would occur between peak construction and full operation.
Local Transportation
The following is a description of the effects on local transportation resulting from
constructing and operating tritium supply and recycling facilities at NTS. Construction
and operation of a tritium supply technology with the recycling facilities are expected to
increase traffic flow rates on site access routes.
No Action. Under No Action, the worker population at NTS would not increase. Therefore,
any increases in traffic would not be the result of DOE-related activities at NTS.
Segments providing access to NTS include U.S. Route 95, State Routes 160 and 373. Traffic
conditions on site access roads would remain as described in section 4.3.2.8.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at NTS would result in increases,
depending on the tritium supply technology, of worker population at the site. Traffic
volume on site access roads leading to and from NTS would increase due to the additional
workforce. The primary access route to NTS is U.S. Route 95. This route would carry the
greatest increase in traffic volume from site development. Locating the MHTGR or ALWR at
NTS would have the greatest effect on traffic volume and flow.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating a tritium supply technology without the recycling facility
at NTS would result in increased worker population, thereby increasing traffic on site
access roads. However, the effects on traffic would be fewer than siting the tritium
recycling facility with any one of the tritium supply technologies.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The effects on traffic volume and flow will be the same
whether or not the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR operated at baseline or less than baseline tritium
requirements. Construction of the Phased APT would increase traffic volume flow during the
construction phase but less than the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation of traffic conditions may be necessary due to
the proposed action at NTS. Potential mitigation of impacts to the local transportation
network could include widening and extending U.S. Route 95, as well as possible
realignment of roadways and construction of interchanges at roadway intersections
overburdened by increased vehicle traffic and congestion.

4.3.3.9 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents
This section describes the impacts of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
resulting from either normal operation or accidents associated with tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities at NTS. The section first describes the impacts from
normal operation, followed by a description of impacts from facility accidents.
During normal operation at NTS, all tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities
would result in impacts that are within regulatory limits. The risk of adverse health
effects to the public and to workers would be small.
For facility accident impacts, the results indicate that for all technologies, the risk of
fatal cancers (taking into account both the probability of the accident and its
consequences) from an accidental release of radioactive or hazardous chemical substances
at NTS is low when compared to fatal cancers from all causes, including severe accidents.
The impact assessment methodology is described in section 4.1.9. Summaries of the
radiological and chemical impacts associated with normal operation are presented in tables
4.3.3.9-1 and 4.3.3.9-2, respectively. Summaries of impacts associated with postulated
accidents are given in tables 4.3.3.9-3 and 4.3.3.9-3. Detailed results are presented in
appendixE for normal operation and in appendix F for accidents.
Normal Operation
No Action. The current missions at NTS are described in section 3.3.2. The site has
identified those facilities that will continue to operate and others which will become
operational by 2010. Based on that information, the radiological releases for 2010 and
beyond were developed and used in the impact assessments.
Radiological Impacts. As shown in table 4.3.3.9-1, No Action would result in a calculated
annual dose of 0.04 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public, which projects to
an estimated fatal cancer risk of 8.1x10-7 from 40 years of total site operation. This
annual dose is within radiological limits and is 0.013 percent of the natural background
radiation received by the average person near NTS.
The population dose from total site operation in 2030 was calculated to be 8.2x10-3
person-rem, which projects to an estimated 1.6x10-4 fatal cancers from 40 years of total
site operation. The population dose in 2030 would be approximately 1.4x10-4 percent of the
dose received by the surrounding population from natural background radiation.
The annual average dose to a site worker resulting from No Action would be 5 mrem, which
projects to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 7.8x10-5 from 40years of site operation. The
annual dose to the total site workforce would be 3 person-rem, which projects to an
estimated 0.048 fatal cancers from 40years of total site operation. These estimates are
based on the annual average worker doses at NTS from 1989 to 1992, and projected
employment levels in 2010.
Table 4.3.3.9-1.-Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting from
Normal Operation of Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling -
- No HWR MHTGR Large Small Full APT Phased Tritium
Action ALWR ALWR APT Recycling
Affected Environment - - - - - Helium-3 SILC Helium-3 -
Target Target Target
System System System
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Dose (mrem per year) 0.04 0.31 0.21 0.4 0.4 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.12
Percent of natural background 0.013 0.098 0.065 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.057 0.04 0.038
40-year fatal cancer risk 8.1x10-7 6.2x10-6 4.1x10-6 8.0x10-6 8.0x10-6 2.6x10-6 3.6x10-6 2.6x10-6 2.4x10-6
Population Within 50 Miles
Year 2030
Dose (person-rem) 8.2x10-3 0.2 0.13 0.24 0.25 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.07
Percent of natural backgroundd 1.4x10-4 3.4x10-3 2.2x10-3 4.2x10-3 4.3x10-3 1.4x10-3 1.9x10-3 1.4x10-3 1.2x10-3
40-year fatal cancers 1.6x10-4 4.0x10-3 2.6x10-3 4.9x10-3 5.1x10-3 1.6x10-3 2.3x10-3 1.6x10-3 1.4x10-3
Worker Onsite
Average site worker dosec 5 34 26 140 92 34 36 34 4
(mrem per year)
40-year fatal cancer risk 7.8x10-5 5.4x10-4 4.2x10-4 2.3x10-3 1.5x10-3 5.5x10-4 5.7x10-4 5.5x10-4 6.4x10-5
Total site workforce dose 3 44 33 180 100 43 45 43 1.6
(person-rem per year)
40-year fatal cancers 0.048 0.7 0.53 2.8 1.7 0.69 0.72 0.69 0.026
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. There are no hazardous chemical emissions resulting from No
Action at NTS; therefore, acceptable regulatory health limits are met.
Tritium Supply and Recycling
There will be no radiological releases during the construction of new tritium recycling
facilities that are associated with all tritium supply technologies under consideration.
However, limited hazardous chemical releases are anticipated as a result of construction
activities. The concentration of releases will be well within the regulated exposure
limits and would not result in any adverse health effects. During normal operation, there
would be both radiological and hazardous chemical releases to the environment and also
direct in-plant exposures. The impacts from radiological and hazardous chemicals from each
tritium supply technology considered are the summations of the impacts from the various
facilities in operation for that technology. The resulting doses and potential health
effects to the public and workers from each tritium supply technology are described below.
Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from normal operation
from the tritium supply technology and recycling facilities considered for NTS are listed
in table 4.3.3.9-1. The supporting analysis is provided in appendix section E.2.5.2.
The doses to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual operation at NTS range
from 0.13mrem for both the APT with the helium-3 target option and the Phased APT to 0.4
mrem for both the Large and Small ALWR. From 40 years of operation, the corresponding
risks of fatal cancer to this individual would range from 2.6x10-6 to 8.0x10-6. As a
result of total site operation in 2030, the population doses would range from 0.08
person-rem for the same two APT technologies, to 0.25 person-rem for the Small ALWR. The
corresponding numbers of fatal cancers in this population from 40 years of operation would
range from 1.6x10-3 to 5.1x10-3.
The annual dose to the total site workforce would range from 33 person-rem for the MHTGR
to 180person-rem for the Large ALWR. The annual average dose to a site worker would range
from 26 to 140 mrem for the same two technologies, respectively. The risks and numbers
of fatal cancers among workers from 40 years of operation are included in table 4.3.3.9-1.
Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation as described above, all
of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are acceptable for siting at
NTS. All resulting doses are within radiological limits and are well below levels of
natural background radiation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. As shown in table 4.3.3.9-2, the HIs to the maximally exposed
individual of the public resulting from hazardous chemical emissions at NTS range from
1.8x10-7 for the APT to 7.7x10-5 for the ALWR, whereas a cancer risk of 0 was calculated
for all tritium supply technologies. The worker HIs ranged from 0.038 for the ALWR to
3.4x10-5 for the APT. There was no cancer risk was for any of the tritium supply
technologies. All values are within the acceptable regulatory health limits. For details
on the derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix tables E.3.4-9 through
E.3.4-12 and summary table E.3.4-14.
Tritium Supply Alone
Radiological Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the
tritium supply, the annual dose to the maximally exposed individual would be 0.12 mrem
lower than from operation of both supply and recycling. This is 0.038 percent of the dose
from natural background radiation received by the average person near NTS. The estimated
risk of fatal cancer to this individual would decrease by 2.4x10-6 over 40 years of total
site operation.
Not collocating the tritium recycling processes at NTS would result in a decrease of 0.07
person-rem to the population within 50 miles in year 2030, and 1.4x10-3 fewer fatal
cancers over 40 years of operation.
If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the tritium supply, the total
annual workforce dose would decrease by 1.6 person-rem, resulting in 0.026 fewer fatal
cancers over the 40 years.
Table 4.3.3.9-2.-Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting
from Normal Operation at Nevada Test Site
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling, -
Health Impact No HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Action Recycling
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Hazard Index 0 6.3x10-6 2.2x10-7 7.7x10-5 1.8x10-7 9.1x10-8
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker Onsite
Hazard Index 0 3.2x10-3 3.4x10-5 0.038 3.4x10-5 1.7x10-5
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are eliminated from all of
the supply technologies at NTS, the cancer risks would not change since there is no cancer
risk resulting from any options. The effect on HIs for the public however, could be
reduced as much as 41 to 51percent (MHTGR and APT) or as little as 1.4 to 0.12 percent
(HWR and ALWR); the corresponding effect on HIs for workers would be a reduction of
50percent for MHTGR or APT and 0.5 percent and 0.04 percent for HWR and ALWR,
respectively. Based on the hazardous chemical impacts associated with normal operations at
NTS, all values are within regulatory health limits.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The normal operation radiological impacts for the HWR
operating at the reduced tritium production capacity to meet a less than baseline tritium
operation requirement would be proportional to the level of operation (approximately 50
percent of baseline). The MHTGR or ALWR normal operation radiological impacts would not
change because the reactor would maintain power requirements to produce steam or
electricity.
The Phased APT is already less than the baseline tritium requirement and thus the impacts
are presently given in this PEIS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Radioactive and hazardous chemical airborne emissions to
the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing
the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public
exposure from emissions, improved methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the
releases to the environment. Similarly, the use of remote, automated and robotic
production methods are examples of techniques that are being developed which could reduce
worker exposure. Substitution of less toxic/noncancer-causing solvents would result in
reductions of the HI and possible complete elimination of the cancer risk.
Facility Accidents
No Action. Under No Action, the risk of accidents at NTS would be unchanged from that
reported in plant safety documentation for existing facilities since no additional
activities would be undertaken.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at NTS has the potential for accidents
that may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. This potential for and
associated consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents have been assessed for each
tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at NTS and are summarized in this
section and described in more detail in appendixF. The methodology used in the assessment
is described in section 4.1.9.
The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high consequence/low probability to low
consequence/high probability events, have been evaluated in terms of the number of
cancer fatalities that may result. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated
to provide an overall measure of an accident's impacts and is calculated by multiplying
the accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number
of cancer fatalities).
Analyses of postulated accidents for the tritium supply technology and recycling
facilities at NTS indicate that, for the high consequence accident, the estimated risk of
cancer fatalities to the public within 50 miles of the site is 1.4x10-6 cancer fatalities
per year (table 4.3.3.9-3). This accident risk, which corresponds with the HWR, is low
when compared to the risk of cancer fatalities each year to the same population from all
causes.
Details on the range of accidents for the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities at NTS are presented in appendix F. Each of the technologies has been analyzed
from the standpoint of identifying the consequences of design basis/operational accidents
(using the GENII Code) and beyond design basis, or severe accidents (using the MACCS
computer code). The severe accident consequences are shown in table 4.3.3.9-3 for each
technology. The table also shows the consequences of each accident for the population
within 50 miles of the site and for an individual who may be located at the site boundary.
The results of the analysis indicate that the HWR has the highest severe accident risk.
The technology with the lowest accident risk is the APT with the helium-3 target system.
The results take into account accidents that may occur in the tritium supply system as
well as the tritium recycling and other support facilities. The tritium recycling facility
is common to all tritium supply technologies but, except for the APT, the consequences and
risks are dominated by reactor accidents. The APT accident consequences are lower than the
tritium extraction facility's accident consequences.
Table 4.3.3.9-3.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling High Consequence/Low
Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Nevada Test Site
Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full/Phased Full Tritium Target Tritium
ALWRb, ALWRb,d APT APT Extraction Recycling
Facilityb Facility
Parameter - - - - Helium-3 SILC - -
Target Target
System, Systemb,,
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 2.0x10-3 1.7x10-4 5.5x10-3 6.3x10-3 1.7x10-8 3.3x10-7 1.9x10-5 6.6x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.8x10-8 2.7x10-9 8.3x10-10 9.8x10-10 1.2x10-14 2.3x10-13 1.9x10-11 6.6x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.15 0.017 0.035 0.39 9.9x10-7 9.0x10-6 1.1x10-3 3.9x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.4x10-6 2.8x10-7 5.3x10-9 6.1x10-8 7.0x10-13 6.4x10-12 1.1x10-9 3.9x10-9
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.031 5.0x10-3 0.03 0.087 4.5x10-7 6.7x10-6 5.0x10-4 1.7x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.8x10-7 8.1x10-8 4.5x10-9 1.4x10-8 3.2x10-13 4.8x10-12 5.0x10-10 1.7x10-9
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.015 1.8x10-3 0.018 0.042 1.7x10-7 2.8x10-6 1.9x10-4 6.7x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.4x10-7 3.0x10-8 2.7x10-9 6.6x10-9 1.6x10-13 2.0x10-12 1.9x10-10 6.7x10-10
Figure (Page 4-175)
Figure 4.3.3.9-1.-High Consequence Accident-Cancer Fatalities Complementary Cumulative
Distribution Functions for Tritium Supply and Recycling Severe Accidents at Nevada Test
Site.
Figure 4.3.3.9-1 shows the number of latent cancer fatalities that may result for each
technology, including tritium extraction and recycling, if a high consequence accident
were to occur. Specifically, each curve in the figure shows the annual probability
(vertical axis) that the number of cancer fatalities (horizontal axis) will be exceeded if
the accident occurred. The curves reflect the probability of the accident.
The secondary impacts of accidents affect elements of the environment other than humans.
For example, a radiological release may contaminate farmland, surface and underground
water, recreational areas, industrial parks, historical sites, or the habitat of an
endangered species. As a result, farm products may be destroyed; the supply of drinking
water may be reduced; recreational areas may be closed; industrial parks may suffer
economic losses; historical sites may have to be closed to visitors; and endangered
species may move closer to extinction. In the region of the NTS, the natural background
level of radiation (excluding radon) is 78 mrem per year. For a hypothetical design
basis accidental release, the radiation levels exceeding 78 mrem per year are well within
the site boundary. The size of the area in which exposure levels would exceed exposures
from natural background radiation is 9.1x105 square meters (225 acres).
Tritium Supply Alone. The analyses of reasonably foreseeable high consequence accidents
for the tritium supply facilities at NTS are presented below.
Heavy Water Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident sequences were postulated
for the HWR. These are described in appendix section F.2.1.1. In the event any of these
accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.15 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 2.0x10-3 to
an individual located at the site boundary and 0.031 to a collocated worker located 1,000
meters from the accident. The risk to the population, taking the probability of the
accident into account, is 1.4x10-6 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.3.3.9-3).
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident
sequences were postulated for the MHTGR. These are described in appendix section F.2.1.2.
In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.017
cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of
cancer fatality of 1.7x10-4 to an individual located at the site boundary and 5.0x10-3 to
a collocated worker at 1000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, taking
the probability of the accident into account, is 2.8x10-7 cancer fatalities per year
(table 4.3.3.9-3).
Advanced Light Water Reactor. A range of accident sequences with various release
categories was analyzed for the ALWR. One release category for a Large ALWR and one for a
Small ALWR were selected to represent the accident consequences for an ALWR (appendix
section F.2.1.3). In the event that such an accident were to occur, there would be an
estimated 0.034 for a Large ALWR and 0.39 cancer fatalities for a Small ALWR, in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 5.5x10-3, for
a Large ALWR and 6.3x10-3 for a Small ALWR, to an individual located at the site boundary
and 0.030 for a Large ALWR and 0.087 for a Small ALWR to a collocated worker at 1,000
meters from the accident. The risk to the population, taking the probability of the
accident into account, is 5.3x10-9, cancer fatalities per year for a Large ALWR, and
6.1x10-8, cancer fatalities per year for a Small ALWR (table 4.3.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Helium-3 Target System. The large break loss of
coolant accident with the total loss of the active emergency cooling system and the heat
sink with and without confinement were postulated as the high consequence accidents for
this APT and target option. In the event that these accidents were to occur, there would
be an estimated 9.9x10-7 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an
increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.7x10-8 to an individual located at the site
boundary and 4.5x10-7 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk
to the population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the
order of 7.0x10-13 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.3.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Spallation Induced Lithium Conversion Target
System. The large break loss of coolant accident with a successful beam trip and the total
loss of the active emergency cooling system with and without confinement were postulated
as the high consequence accidents for this APT and target option. In the event that this
accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 9.0x10-6 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 3.3x10-7 to
an individual located at the site boundary and 6.7x10-6 to a collocated worker located
1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of
the accident into account, is on the order of 6.4x10-12 cancer fatalities per year
(table4.3.3.9-3).
Tritium Extraction and Recycling. The tritium extraction facility is required to support
all tritium supply technologies except the APT technology with the helium-3 target system.
The tritium recycling facility is required to support all tritium supply technologies. The
analyses of postulated high consequence accidents for the tritium extraction and recycling
facilities at NTS are presented below.
Tritium Target Extraction Facility. An earthquake and release of process vessel tritium
inventory postulated as the high consequence accident. In the event that this accident
were to occur, there would be an estimated 1.1x10-3 cancer fatalities in the population
within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatalities of 1.9x10-5 to an
individual who may be located at the site boundary. The risk to the population, taking
the probability of an accident into account, is less than 1.1x10-9 cancer fatalities per
year (table 4.3.3.9-3).
Tritium Recycling Facility. An earthquake-induced leak/ignition and fire in the unloading
station carousel reservoir was postulated as the high consequence accident for the
tritium recycling facility. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be
an estimated 3.9x10-3 cancer fatalities in the population with 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 6.6x10-5 to an individual located at the site boundary
during the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the
accident into account, is on the order of 3.9x10-9 cancer fatalities per year
(table4.3.3.9-3).
For comparison purposes with high consequence tritium supply facility accidents, including
extraction and recycling, for the same total population of 18,000 in 2050 within 50 miles
of the site, there is a risk of 36 cancer fatalities per year from all other natural
causes.
The analysis of facility accidents for tritium supply at NTS shows that, for high
consequence accidents analyzed using the MACCS computer code, the HWR has the highest risk
and the APT has the lowest risk. The risk of accidents for any of the tritium supply
technologies, tritium extraction, and tritium recycling facilities common to all
technologies, is low when compared to the human risk of cancer fatalities from all other
causes.
Design-Basis Accidents. The consequences of operational basis or design basis accidents
for the tritium extraction and recycling facilities at NTS are shown in table 4.3.3.9-3.
The results in table 4.3.3.9-3 should not be compared with the severe accident analysis
results in table 4.3.3.9-3 because different computer codes using different calculation
approaches were used. More detailed descriptions of design-basis accidents are included in
appendixF.2.2.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Less than baseline tritium operation would have no
significant change to the current accident analyses consequences for the HWR unless the
baseline HWR core design was downsized. The baseline HWR configuration would adjust to the
reduced target through-put requirements by reducing the time that the reactor is required
to operate at 100 percent power. It is not anticipated that the overall risk from
operating the reactor in this mode would decrease significantly. Accident analyses have
not been performed to address accident sequences and initiating events when the reactor is
in the cold shut down mode. In addition, operator error has a significant effect on
facility risk and if the reactor is shutdown a high percentage of the time, operator error
may actually increase when the reactor is at power.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the current
accident analyses consequences for the MHTGR or ALWR. The reactor surplus capacity would
be used to generate steam for electric power production.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the MHTGR
accident analyses because the analyses assumed that only one of the modules would be
involved in the accident.
Table 4.3.3.9-4.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Low-to-Moderate
Consequence/High Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Nevada
Test Site
Parameter Tritium Supply Technologies
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small APT Tritium Target Tritium Recycling
ALWRb, ALWR Extraction Facility
Facilityb
- - - - - SILC - -
Target
Systemb,
Accident
Description Fuel Assembly Moderate break in Fuel Handling Fuel Handling Large break loss of Deflagration Hybrid Bed
failure during primary system coolant Rupture
charge and piping accident
discharge
operations
Frequency (per year) 1.0x10-3 2.5x10-2 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-3 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 4.2x10-6 2.2x10-9 2.2x10-6 3.0x10-6 negligible 2.2x10-5 9.5x10-8
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 4.2x10-9 5.5x10-11 2.2x10-11 3.0x10-11 negligible 4.4x10-10 1.9x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 1.2x10-3 6.8x10-7 7.3x10-4 1.0x10-3 negligible 7.5x10-3 3.2x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.2x10-6 1.7x10-8 7.3x10-9 1.0x10-8 negligible 1.5x10-7 6.4x10-9
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 2.8x10-5 3.3x10-8 3.1x10-5 3.9x10-5 negligible 5.2x10-8 2.2x10-6
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.8x10-8 8.3x10-10 3.1x10-10 3.9x10-10 negligible 1.0x10-12 4.4x10-10
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 9.8x10-6 1.2x10-8 1.0x10-5 1.3x10-5 negligible 1.7x10-8 7.2x10-7
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 9.8x10-9 3.0x10-10 1.0x10-10 1.3x10-10 negligible 3.4x10-13 1.4x10-10
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the APT accident
analyses consequences. The accident consequences Full and Phased APT accidents with low
to moderate consequences were negligible. For the beyond design basis accident, there
was no difference in the Full and Phased accident sequences. Review of the source terms
for the Full and Phased APT indicated that the tritium component of the source term is
identical for both accidents. Review of the MACCS computer code output data for each
accident analysis indicated that the tritium component of the source term dominated the
dose calculation results. The impact of the other source term isotopes on the dose
calculation results is negligible.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The accidents postulated for tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities are based on operation and safety analyses that have been
performed at similar facilities. One of the major design goals for tritium supply and
recycling facilities is to achieve a reduced risk to facility personnel and to public
health and safety to as low as reasonably achievable.
Current estimates are that there would be no collocated workers within 2,000 meters from
an accident's location. There would be approximately 3,042 collocated workers beyond
2,000 meters from the accident. Involved workers that are associated with the proposed
action would be located in and around the facility.
Worker exposure that may result from the accidental release of radioactive material will
be minimized through design features and administrative procedures that will be defined
in conjunction with the facility design process. The radiological impacts to involved
workers from accidents could not be quantitatively estimated for this PEIS because the
facility design information needed to support the estimate has not yet been developed. The
impacts on workers from accidents will be analyzed as part of subsequent project-specific
NEPA documentation and in detailed safety analysis documentation that are prepared in
conjunction with the facility design process.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to comply with current
Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and industrial codes and standards. This would
provide facilities that are highly resistant to the effects of severe natural phenomena,
including earthquake, flood, tornado, high wind, as well as credible events as appropriate
to the site, such as fire and explosions, and man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity for containing materials.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to resist the effects of
severe natural phenomena as well as the effects of man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity. It also would be designed to provide containment of the tritium
inventory at all times through the use of multiple, high quality confinement barriers to
prevent the accidental release of tritium to the environment. It also would be designed to
produce a lower quantity of waste materials when compared with the tritium facilities of
the existing weapons complex.
In addition, DOE orders specify the requirements for emergency preparedness at DOE
facilities. NTS has comprehensive emergency plans to protect life and property within the
facility and the health and welfare of surrounding areas. The emergency plans would be
revised to incorporate future DOE requirements and expanded to incorporate the addition of
tritium supply and recycling facilities to NTS. See section 4.3.2.9 for emergency
preparedness and emergency plan details at NTS.

4.3.3.10 Waste Management
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities would impact
existing waste management operations, increasing the generation of low-level, mixed
low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes, and initiating the generation of spent
nuclear fuel. There are no high-level or TRU wastes associated with the proposed action.
As part of their design, all reactor technologies would provide stabilization and
storage of spent nuclear fuel for the life of the facility. The impacts range from 0.6
acres per year LLW disposal for the HWR; increasing the quantity of hazardous waste
generated by a factor of 6 for the MHTGR; to producing solid sanitary wastes at a rate
that could require additional landfill capacity. The reactor technologies produce liquid
LLW in quantities requiring new treatment facilities, and all technologies require
treatment facilities for their liquid sanitary wastes. The volumes of mixed LLW for all
technologies is small enough to be handled with the addition of an organic mixed waste
treatment capability by existing and planned facilities as part of the compliance with the
Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. This section provides a description of the waste
generation, treatment, storage, and disposal requirements of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities and the potential impacts on waste management at
NTS.
No Action. Under No Action, mixed TRU, low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and
nonhazardous wastes would continue to be managed from the missions described in section
3.3.2. Receipt of wastes from other DOE sites would also continue. Table 4.3.3.10-1 lists
the projected waste generation rates; and treatment, storage, and disposal capacities
under No Action. Projections for No Action were derived from 1991 environmental data with
appropriate adjustments made for those changing operational requirements where the
volume of wastes generated are identifiable. The projection does not include wastes from
future yet uncharacterized, environmental restoration activities. The disposal of wastes
received from offsite would not involve treatment at NTS, since these wastes must be
treated, packaged, and certified to NTS waste acceptance criteria before they can be
shipped to NTS for disposal. NTS has retrievable storage of TRU wastes awaiting shipment
to a Federal repository. Although there is no generation of TRU waste onsite, mixed TRU
waste from LLNL are presently stored at NTS. A liquid LLW treatment facility is planned
for the treatment of wastewater from soil decontamination. Mixed solid waste is stored
awaiting treatment in a RCRA-permitted commercial offsite facility. Hazardous waste is
accumulated, then shipped offsite for disposal in a commercial RCRA-permitted facility.
Nonhazardous and sanitary wastes are treated and disposed of locally in facilities located
within the separate activity areas onsite.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Tritium supply and recycling facilities that will support
the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements (both new and existing facilities) would treat
and package all waste generated from this activity into forms which would enable long-term
storage and/or disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and other
relevant statutes as outlined in chapter 5 and in appendix H, section H.1.2. The resultant
waste effluents are shown in section 3.4. Waste generated during construction would
consist of wastewater, nonhazardous solids, and hazardous waste. The nonhazardous wastes
would be disposed as part of the construction project by the contractor, and the hazardous
wastes would be shipped to a commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility.
Operation of the three reactor-based tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities
would generate spent nuclear fuel, and all four technologies would generate low-level,
mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes. The volume of the waste streams from
tritium supply would vary according to the technology chosen. Table 4.3.3.10-2 lists the
total estimated waste volumes projected to be generated as a result of various tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities. The incremental waste volumes from the
tritium supply and recycling facilities that were added to the No Action projection can be
found in appendix section A.2. Table 4.3.3.10-3 lists potential waste management impacts
at the time of initial operation of the tritium facilities. Spent nuclear fuel storage for
the life of the reactor is provided for in the reactor designs (appendix section A.2.1).
The DOE estimated inventory of spent nuclear fuel in 2035 is 2,742 metric tons. For com-
parison purposes, the commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory in 2030, assuming no
reprocessing or new orders, is projected to be 85,700 metric tons of heavy metal (DOE
1994d:16). Because spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is not planned, no HLW would be gen-
erated. Without plutonium production, no TRU waste would be generated. The treatment,
storage, and disposal of mixed LLW would be in accordance with the NTS Site Treatment Plan
which is currently being developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act of
1992.
Table 4.3.3.10-1.-Projected Waste Management Under No Action at Nevada Test Site
Category Annual Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
Rate (yd3) (yd3)
(yd3)
Mixed Transuranic None None None Containers on 1,485 To repository NA
asphalt pads
Low-Level
Liquid Dependent on Not determined None Ponds Sized to inventory NA NA
restoration
activities
Solid 42,400 None None None NA Shallow burial 156,741
plus 801,300
reserved for
expansion
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid Included in solid Evaporation, Being designed Ponds Being designed NA NA
filtration,
solidification
Solid 5,460 None NA To be designed To be designed Minimum 222,220
technology
Hazardous
Liquid 38 Contracted offsite None 90-day pad 146 Contracted offsite NA
(7,680 gal) (29,500 gal)
Solid 20 Contracted offsite None 90-day pad 146c Contracted offsite NA
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid Included in solid Septic fields As required None NA Septic fields As required
Solid 7,000 None None NA NA Landfill onsite As required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in sanitary Septic fields As required None NA Septic fields As required
Solid 100,000 None None NA NA NA As required
Table 4.3.3.10-2.-Estimated Annual Generated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes for
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site
Category No Action Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
(yd3)
- - HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear Fuel None 7 80 55 36 None
Low-Level
Liquid None 10,400g 2,600g 24,800g 3,910g Noneg
(2,100,000 gal) (525,000 gal) (5,000,000 gal) (790,000 gal)
Solid 42,400 48,000 44,100 43,500 43,400 43,300
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid Included in solid 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
(6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal) (6 gal)
Solid 5,460 5,580 5,460 5,470 5,470 5,470
Hazardous
Liquid 38 38 38 38 38 38
(7,680 gal) (7,680 gal) (7,680 gal) (7,680 gal) (7,680 gal) (7,680 gal)
Solid 20 61 121 56 56 24
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid Included in solid 309,000 219,000 516,000 318,000 1,290,000
(62,300,000 gal) (44,300,000 gal) (104,000,000 gal) (64,300,000 gal) (260,000,000 gal)
Solid 7,000 22,000 21,800 21,300 18,600 15,600
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary
Solid 100,000 113,000 113,000h 112,000h 110,000h 106,000h
Table 4.3.3.10-3.-Potential Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Impacts from the
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Nevada Test Site [Page 1 of 2]
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT
Category Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact
from No from No from No from No from No
Action Actiona Actiona Actiona Actiona
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Spent Nuclear New New storage New New storage New New storage New New storage None None
Fuel facility facility facility facility
Low-Level
Liquid New New New New New New New New None None
treatment treatment treatment treatment
facility facility facility facility
required required required required
Solid +13 0.6 acres per +4 0.2 acres per +3 0.2 acres per +2 0.1 acres per +2 0.1 acres per
year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW
disposal disposal disposal disposal disposal
required required required required required
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid New Additional New Additional New Additional New Additional New Additional
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
capability capability capability capability capability
for organic for organic for organic for organic for organic
mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed
waste may waste may waste may waste may waste may
be required be required be required be required be required
Solid +2 Additional +<1 Additional +<1 Additional +<1 Additional +<1 Additional
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
capability capability capability capability capability
for organic for organic for organic for organic for organic
mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed
waste may waste may waste may waste may waste may
be required be required be required be required be required
Hazardous
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +205 Additional +505 Additional +180 Additional +180 Additional +18 Enlarge
storage storage storage storage storage
facility facility facility facility facility
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid New New New New New New New New New New
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
facility facility facility facility facility
required required required required required
Solid +214 Landfill life +211 Landfill life +204 Landfill life +166 Landfill life +123 Landfill life
reduced or, reduced or, reduced or, reduced or, reduced or,
expansion expansion expansion expansion expansion
required required required required required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +13 None - Project +13 None - Project +12 None - Project +10 None - Project +6 None - Project
wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are
recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable
Heavy Water Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of 7 yd3 per year.
This would add 0.3 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent nuclear fuel
inventory. The HWR would be designed to provide the necessary stabilization and storage of
the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid LLW generated by the
HWR would require new treatment facilities to reduce its volume and stabilize the
remaining concentrated radionuclides and prepare the solidified waste for disposal
onsite. The solid onsite LLW generated would be increased to a rate that is 13percent
greater than the No Action volume. Assuming a 3,200 yd3 per acre LLW disposal usage
factor, this would require approximately 0.6 acres per year for onsite LLW disposal. A
small amount of liquid mixed LLW is generated. This small volume could be handled by
adding an organic mixed waste treatment capability within facilities being planned to
comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Mixed solid LLW volume is small enough to
be handled by existing and planned facilities pursuant to compliance with the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Hazardous waste generation would increase by a factor of
3. This would require a permitted storage facility where the waste can be packaged for
shipment to a commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid sanitary
wastes generated by the HWR would require new treatment facilities since NTS does not have
centralized facilities for these wastes. The volume of solid sanitary wastes generated
would increase approximately by a factor of three more than No Action. This could reduce
the remaining useful life of the landfill or require a proportional expansion.
Siting an HWR without tritium recycling facilities at NTS would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described above. Liquid
mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All remaining waste
stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes would not
change from those described above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required
for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of 3
to a factor of 2; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of
the landfill.
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the
rate of 80 yd3 per year. This would add 0.24 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the
DOE spent nuclear fuel inventory. The MHTGR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generation would require a new treatment facility, to concentrate and stabilize
this waste. Solid LLW generation at NTS would increase to a rate 4 percent greater than No
Action. It would be treated and disposed of onsite, and would require 0.2 acres per year
of LLW disposal. The small volume of liquid mixed LLW could be handled by adding an
organic mixed waste treatment capability within facilities being planned to comply with
the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Mixed solid LLW volumes are small enough to be
handled by adding an organic mixed waste treatment capability to existing and planned
facilities pursuant to compliance with the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The
generation of hazardous waste would increase to a level six times greater than No Action.
This would require a RCRA-permitted facility where the waste can be staged for shipment to
a commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid sanitary nonhazardous
wastes generated by the MHTGR would require new treatment facilities since NTS does not
have centralized facilities for these wastes. The volume of sanitary nonhazardous solid
wastes generated would increase by a factor of three greater than No Action. This could
reduce the remaining useful life of the landfill or require a proportional expansion.
Siting an MHTGR without tritium recycling facilities at NTS would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All
remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid
mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes
would not change from those described above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area
required for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase
in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor
of 3 to a factor of 2; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime
of the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
55 yd3 per year. This would add 105 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Large ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generated by the ALWR would require new treatment facilities to reduce its
volume and stabilize the remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare the waste for
disposal onsite. The solid LLW generation rate would increase by 3 percent more than the
No Action rate. This would require 0.2 acres per year of LLW disposal. The small volume of
liquid mixed LLW could be handled by adding an organic mixed waste treatment capability
within facilities being planned to comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Mixed
solid LLW volume is small enough to be handled by adding an organic mixed waste treatment
capability to existing and planned facilities pursuant to compliance with the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Hazardous wastes would be generated at a rate almost
three times the No Action rate. This would require a RCRA-permitted facility to prepare
the waste for shipment to a commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility.
Liquid sanitary nonhazardous wastes generated by the ALWR would require separate
treatment and disposal facilities since NTS does not have centralized facilities for these
wastes. The solid sanitary nonhazardous wastes generated by the ALWR increases the
disposal at NTS to a rate that is three times the No Action generation. This could reduce
the remaining useful life of the landfill or require a proportional expansion.
Siting a Large ALWR without tritium recycling facilities would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel as described above. Liquid mixed LLW and
cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All remaining waste stream generation
rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid
sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described
above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required for solid LLW would decrease
by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in generation rate over No Action
for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of 3 to a factor of almost 2; thus,
proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
36 yd3 per year. This would add 68 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Small ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generated by the ALWR would require new treatment facilities to reduce its
volume and stabilize the remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare the waste for
disposal onsite. The solid LLW volume would increase the generation rate at NTS by 2
percent more than the No Action volume and would require 0.1 acres per year of LLW
disposal. The small volume of mixed liquid LLW generated by the ALWR could be handled by
adding an organic mixed waste treatment capability within facilities being planned to
comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act, since there are no facilities planned
for this purpose at NTS. The ALWR solid mixed LLW generation would cause the rate to
increase by less than 1 percent above No Action. With an added organic mixed waste
treatment capability, existing/planned facilities would be adequate. Hazardous waste would
be generated at a rate of almost three times the No Action rate. This would require a
RCRA-permitted facility where the waste can be staged for shipment to a commercial
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid sanitary nonhazardous wastes
generated by the Small ALWR would require new treatment and disposal facilities because
NTS does not have centralized facilities for these wastes. The solid sanitary nonhazardous
wastes generated by the Small ALWR would increase by a factor of two and one-half more
than No Action generation. This could reduce the remaining useful life of the landfill or
require a proportional expansion.
Siting a Small ALWR without tritium recycling facilities would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described above. Liquid
mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All remaining waste
stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes would not
change from those described above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required
for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of
2.5 to 60 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of
the landfill.
Accelerator Production of Tritium. The APT would not generate spent nuclear fuel. Any
liquid LLW can be solidified at the point of generation. The APT generated solid LLW would
increase the volume disposed at NTS by 2 percent more than No Action. This would require
0.1 acres per year of LLW disposal. A small amount of liquid LLW generated could be
treated at the point of generation. The solid mixed LLW volume is small enough to be
handled by adding an organic mixed waste treatment capability to existing and planned
facilities pursuant to compliance with the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992.
There would be no liquid hazardous waste generation. Solid hazardous waste generation
would be increased by 18 percent over No Action. An expansion of existing or planned
RCRA-permitted facilities could be required where the hazardous wastes are staged for
shipment to a commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Liquid sanitary
nonhazardous wastes generated by the APT would require new treatment and disposal
facilities because NTS does not have centralized facilities for these wastes. When the
volume of solid sanitary nonhazardous wastes is added to No Action, the generation
increases by a factor of two. This would require additional or expansion of existing
landfill facilities.
Siting an APT without tritium recycling facilities would not affect the generation of nor
change the impacts from liquid LLW as described above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. Liquid
mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All remaining waste
stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes would not
change from those described above and in table 4.3.3.10-3. The LLW disposal area required
for solid LLW would decrease by approximately 0.04 acres per year. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of 2
to 18 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of the
landfill.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event of a reduced baseline tritium requirement the
waste volumes shown in table 4.3.3.10-2 would not appreciably change as a result of the
HWR operating at less power, and the MHTGR and ALWR irradiating fewer target rods. In the
case of a Phased APT using the helium-3 target, the waste volumes with the exception of
cooling tower blowdown, which decreases by 36 percent (86 MGY), are approximately the
same as the Full APT using the helium-3 target.
Multipurpose Reactor.
Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. The volume of spent nuclear
fuel generated by the six-reactor module multipurpose MHTGR would be approximately double
the spent nuclear fuel from the three-reactor module tritium supply MHTGR. Similar to the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, the plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time before dry storage, the spent nuclear fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the three-reactor module tritium
supply MHTGR. No increases in waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due
to the change from uraniumoxide reactor fuel to plutonium-oxide reactor fuel. However,
there would be increases in waste generation for all waste categories due to operation
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes from both the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility and the fabrication of
plutonium-oxide fuel. These increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.3.3.10-2
for the tritium supply MHTGR. Table 4.8.3.1-8 provides the quantity of waste effluents
from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility. In addition approximately 385 yd3 of mixed
TRU and TRU wastes would result from the fabrication of plutonium-oxide fuel. The 399 yd3
of mixed TRU and TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one
is available) after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
Since NTS has a very limited capability to manage TRU and mixed TRU wastes, additional
facilities to handle TRU waste would be needed. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU
wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per year, 18 regular train shipments per
year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. One hundred gallons of liquid and 0.2 yd3
of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in accordance with the NTS Site Treatment Plan.
Approximately 0.003 acres per year of LLW disposal area would be required to dispose of
the 10 yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging capacity exists to accumulate the 1,000
gallons of liquid and 1 yd3 of solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to a
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An additional 87 yd3 of solid nonhazardous
wastes would require disposal in the sanitary landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be required if the Pit Disas-
sembly/Conversion Facility is not collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Multipurpose Advanced Light Water Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the same rate
with approximately the same amount of residual heavy metal content as the tritium supply
ALWR. The decay heat in the mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could be 10 to 20percent greater
than the heat in spent uraniumoxide fuel assemblies. The increased decay heat load could
reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool and dry storage casks or
increase fuel pool dwell time before dry storage. No increases in waste generation rates
or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to
mixed-oxide reactor fuel. However, there would be increases in waste generation for all
waste categories due to operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU wastes. These
increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.3.3.10-2 for the Large and Small
tritium supply ALWR. As shown in table 4.8.3.1-4, approximately 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available)
after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
Since NTS has a very limited capability to manage TRU and mixed TRU wastes, additional
facilities to handle TRU waste would be needed. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU
wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per year, 18 regular train shipments per
year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. Two hundred gallons of liquid and 13 yd3
of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in accordance with the NTS Site Treatment Plan.
Approximately 0.16 acres per year of LLW disposal area would be required to dispose of the
524 yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging capacity exists to accumulate the 200 gallons
of liquid and 13 yd3 of solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted
treatment and disposal facility. An additional 3,920 yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes
would require disposal in the sanitary landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be required if the Pit Disas-
sembly/Conversion/Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility is not collocated with the
multipurpose reactor.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Each tritium supply technology and recycling facility would
be designed to process its own waste into forms suitable for longterm storage or
disposal and would use proven waste minimization and pollution prevention technologies to
the extent possible. Some facility designs would produce waste quantities or waste forms
that could undergo additional reductions by utilizing emerging technologies, thereby
further reducing or mitigating impacts. Pollution prevention and waste minimization
would be major factors in determining the final design of any facility constructed as part
of the proposed action at NTS. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would also be
analyzed as part of the site-specific analyses and tiered NEPA documents.
NTS has a very limited onsite treatment capability. The plans for remediation of inactive
waste disposal areas will be formulated over the next 3.5 years, and these plans will
likely result in changes (from current practices) in waste generation, treatment, storage,
and disposal at NTS by the time tritium facilities begin operation. A mixed waste
treatment facility is planned, and accommodation of the small amount of mixed LLW from the
tritium facility would have a minor impact. The use of existing facilities for the staging
of hazardous wastes could be considered, although the volume generated by the tritium
facilities is sufficient that new facilities may be more feasible. Utilization of any of
these facilities would require site-specific engineering studies and would be analyzed in
site-specific tiered NEPA documents.

4.4 Oak Ridge Reservation
ORR was established in 1942 and is located on approximately 35,000acres within the city
boundaries of Oak Ridge, TN. Of the three major facilities on ORR, the Y-12 Plant is the
primary location of the defense program missions. The Y-12 assignment includes the
dismantling of nuclear weapons components returned from the Nation's arsenal, maintain-
ing nuclear production capability and stockpile support, storing special nuclear
materials, and providing special manufacturing support to DOE programs. Section 3.3.4
describes the other missions at ORR. DOE's property boundaries for ORR are illustrated in
figure 4.4-1.

4.4.1 Description of Alternatives
Under the proposed action, any one of the four tritium supply technologies (HWR, MHTGR,
ALWR, or APT) could be sited at ORR alone or collocated with a new tritium recycling
facility. Section 3.4.2 provides a description of the tritium supply technologies and
section 3.4.3.1 describes the tritium recycling facility. Figure 4.4.1-1 shows the
location of existing facilities within ORR and the proposed TSS.
Under No Action, ORR would continue to perform the missions described in section 3.3.4.
There are no facilities at ORR that would be phased out as a result of any of the proposed
action alternatives discussed in the PEIS.

4.4.2 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the affected environment at ORR for land resources, air
quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, cultural
and paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. In addition, the infrastructure at ORR,
the radiation and hazardous chemical environment, and the waste management conditions are
described.

4.4.2.1 Land Resources
The discussion of land resources at ORR includes land use and visual resources.
Land Use. ORR is located on approximately 35,000acres within the corporate limits of the
city of Oak Ridge, approximately 12miles west of Knoxville, TN. All the land within ORR is
owned by the Federal government and is administered, managed, and controlled by DOE.
Generalized land uses at ORR and in the vicinity are shown in figure 4.4.2.1-1.
Land uses within ORR can be grouped into four major land use classifications: industrial,
public/quasi-public, forest/undeveloped, and water. The industrial areas account for
approximately 11,700acres of the total site acreage. An additional 1,200acres are used for
a security buffer zone around various facilities. Approximately 800acres are classified as
public land and consist mainly of the 90-acre Clark Center Recreational Park, numerous
small public cemeteries, and an onsite public road (OR DOE 1989b:5-10). The remaining
area, about 21,600acres, consists of forest/undeveloped land, some of which is managed as
pine plantations for production of pulpwood and saw timber. The DOE water treatment
facility, which provides water to many ORR facilities and the city of Oak Ridge, is
located just north of Y-12. There are no prime farmlands on ORR.
In 1980, DOE designated approximately 13,600acres of ORR undeveloped land as a National
Environmental Research Park. The National Environmental Research Park is used by the
national scientific community as an outdoor laboratory for environmental science research
on the impact of human activities on the eastern deciduous forest ecosystem
(DOE1985a:3,27).
The proposed 600-acre TSS would be located within the west-central portion of ORR, between
K-25 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (figure 4.4.2.1-1) on forest/undeveloped land. The
current primary land uses are environmental research and cultivation of pine plantations.
A portion of the siting area, south of the Bear Creek Valley Road and west of State Route
95, is part of the National Environmental Research Park. There are two cemeteries within
the area. There are three utility easements and also rights-of-way for State Routes 58,
95, and 327 (Blair Road) (OR DOE1991f:2-6).
Figure (Page 4-189)
Figure 4.4-1.-Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee, and Region.
Figure (Page 4-190)
Figure 4.4.1-1.-Primary Facilities and Proposed Tritium Supply Site at Oak Ridge
Reservation.
Figure (Page 4-191)
Figure 4.4.2.1-1.-Generalized Land Use at Oak Ridge Reservation and Vicinity.
ORR has other facilities planned including proposed short-range projects (1995 through
1999). The short-range projects include the Composite Materials Laboratory, Center for
Biological Sciences, Mixed Waste Treatment Facility, Recycle and Materials Processing
Facility, Process Waste Treatment Facility, Industrial Landfill Expansion and Upgrades,
and Steam Plant Waste Water Treatment Facility. Figure4.4.2.1-2 shows proposed development
areas in relation to existing ORR facilities and the proposed TSS.
Land bordering ORR is predominately rural and used largely for residences, small farms,
forest land, and pasture land. The city of Oak Ridge, along the northeast portion of the
site, has a typical urban mix of residential, public, commercial, and industrial land
uses. There are four residential areas along the northern boundary of ORR; each has
several houses within 100 feet of the boundary.
Visual Resources. The ORR landscape is characterized by a series of ridges and valleys
that trend in a northeast-to-southwest direction. The vegetation is dominated by deciduous
forest mixed with some coniferous forest. Much of ORR's open fields (about 5,000acres)
have been planted in shortleaf and loblolly pine; smaller areas have been planted in a
variety of deciduous and coniferous trees (ORDOE1989b:3-14). The DOE facilities are
brightly lit at night, making them especially visible. The developed areas are consistent
with the Bureau of Land Management's VRM Class 5 designation. The remainder of ORR ranges
from VRM Class 3 to Class 4 designation. Portions of the proposed TSS where contrasts
caused by development activity are evident, but subordinate to the natural landscapes, are
consistent with VRM Class 3. Other portions that have roads and utility lines that attract
the attention of the viewer are designated VRM Class4.
The viewshed consists mainly of rural land. The city of Oak Ridge is the only adjoining
urban area. Viewpoints affected by DOE facilities are primarily associated with the public
access roadways, the Clinch River/Melton Hill Lake, and the bluffs on the opposite side of
the Clinch River. Views are limited by the hilly terrain, heavy vegetation, and generally
hazy atmospheric conditions. Some partial views of the DOE water treatment plant
facilities can be seen from the urban areas of the city of Oak Ridge.

4.4.2.2 Site Infrastructure
Section 3.3.4 describes the current missions at ORR. To support these missions, an
extensive infrastructure exists as shown in table 4.4.2.2-1. Of critical importance to
the proposed action is the electrical power capacities and reserves at each site. ORR is
located in the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council Regional Power Pool and draws its
power from the Tennessee Valley Authority Subregion. Characteristics of this subregion
are given in table 4.4.2.2-2.
Table 4.4.2.2-1.-Baseline Characteristics for Oak Ridge Reservation
Current Characteristics Value
Land
Area (acres) 34,709
Roads (miles) 43
Railroads (miles) 17
Electrical
Energy consumption (MWh/yr) 12,368,800
Peak load (MWe) 1,411
Fuel
Natural gas (ft3/yr) 3,122,000,000
Oil (GPY) 980,600
Coal (ton/yr) 25,000
Steam (lb/hr) 340,000
Figure (Page 4-193)
Figure 4.4.2.1-2.-Future Land Use at Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Table 4.4.2.2-2.-Subregional Power Pool Electrical Summary for Oak Ridge Reservation
Type Fuel Production
(percent)
Coal 49
Nuclear 39
Hydro/geothermal 11
Oil/gas <1
Other 0
Total Annual Production: 159,842,000 MWh
Total Annual Load: 156,987,000 MWh
Energy Exported Annually: 2,407,000 MWh
Generating Capacity: 33,370 MWe
Peak Demand: 28,127 MWe
Capacity Margin: 4,550 MWe

4.4.2.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
The following describes existing air quality and acoustics including a review of the
meteorology and climatology in the vicinity of ORR. More detailed discussions of the air
quality and acoustics methodologies, input data, and atmospheric dispersion
characteristics are presented in appendix section B.1.3.4.
Meteorology and Climatology. The Cumberland and Great Smoky Mountains have a moderating
influence on the climate at ORR. Winters are generally mild and summers warm, with no
noticeable extremes in precipitation, temperature, or winds.
The annual average temperature at ORR is 57.5F; the average daily minimum temperature is
27.7F in January and the average daily maximum temperature is 87.2F in July. The average
annual precipitation is approximately 54.8 inches (NOAA 1991c:3). Prevailing wind
directions tend to follow the orientation of the valley; up valley, from west to
southwest, or down valley, from east to northeast. The annual average wind speed is
approximately 4.6 mph. Additional information related to meteorology and climatology at
ORR is presented in appendix section B.1.3.4.
Ambient Air Quality. ORR is located in Anderson and Roane Counties in the eastern
Tennessee and southwestern Virginia Interstate AQCR 207. As of 1991, the areas within this
AQCR were designated as attainment with respect to all NAAQS for criteria pollutants (40
CFR 81.343). Applicable NAAQS and Tennessee state ambient air quality standards are
presented in appendix table B.1.3.1-1.
One Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I area can be found in the vicinity of
ORR. This area, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, is located approximately 30miles
east of ORR. Since the promulgation of regulations, no Prevention of Significant
Deterioration permits have been required for any emissions source at ORR.
Ambient air quality monitoring data collected at ORR during 1989 and 1990 are summarized
in appendix table B.1.3.4-1. The primary emission sources of criteria pollutants are the
steam plants at K-25, Y-12, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Other emission sources
include fugitive particulates from coal piles, the TSCA incinerator, other processes,
vehicles, and temporary emissions from various construction activities (ORDOE1987a:34-49).
Appendix table B.1.3.4-2 presents emissions of criteria pollutants from ORR.
Table 4.4.2.3-1 presents the baseline ambient air concentration for criteria pollutants
and other pollutants of concern at ORR. As shown in the table, baseline concentrations
are in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations.
Table 4.4.2.3-1.-Comparison of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at Oak Ridge Reservation, 1992
Pollutant Averaging Time Most Stringent Baseline Concentration
Regulation or (ug/m3)
Guideline
(ug/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 5
- 1-hour 40,000b 11
Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5b 0.05
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100b 3
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235b d
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50b 9
- 24-hour 150b 56
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80b 29
- 24-hour 365b 105
- 3-hour 1,300b 401
Mandated by Tennessee
Total suspended particulates 24-hour 150e 75
(TSP)
Hydrogen fluoride (as fluorides) 30-day 1.2e 0.2
7-day 1.6e 0.3
- 24-hour 2.9e e
12-hour 3.7e f
8-hour 250e 0.60
Hazardous and Other
Toxic Compounds
CFC-11 8-hour 562,000e 46.2
CFC-114 8-hour 699,000e 24.1
Chlorine 8-hour 150e 4.1
Chlorodifluoromethane 8-hour 354,000e 16.4
Dichlorodifluoromethane 8-hour 495,000e 10.5
Hydrogen chloride 8-hour 750e 57
Methyl alcohol 8-hour 26,200e 216
Nitric acid 8-hour 520e 78
Sulfuric acid 8-hour 100e 20
Tetrachloroethylene 8-hour 33,900e 100
Trichloroethane 8-hour 191,000e 6.1
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 8-hour 767,000e 10.1
Acoustic Conditions. Major noise emission sources within ORR include various industrial
facilities, equipment, and machines. At the site boundary, noise emitted from the site is
barely distinguishable from background noise levels of 35 to 50 dBA. Areas near the site
that are within the city of Oak Ridge are typical of a suburban area. The primary source
of noise at the site boundary and at residences near roads is traffic. During peak hours,
the plant traffic is a major contribution to traffic noise levels in the area.
The State of Tennessee has not established specific numerical environmental noise
standards applicable to ORR. The city of Oak Ridge has specific acceptable sound levels
at property lines.

4.4.2.4 Water Resources
This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources at ORR.
Surface Water. The major surface water body in the immediate vicinity of ORR is the Clinch
River, which borders the site to the south. There are four major sub-drainage basins on
ORR that flow into the Clinch River and are affected by site operations: Poplar Creek,
East Fork Poplar Creek, Bear Creek, and White Oak Creek (ORR 1992a:5). Two smaller
drainage basins, Ish Creek and Grassy Creek, drain directly into the Clinch River. Each
drainage basin takes the name of the major stream flowing through the area. Within each
basin is a number of small tributaries. The natural surface water bodies in the vicinity
of ORR are shown on figure 4.4.2.4-1.
The three major facilities at ORR each affect different basins of the Clinch River.
Drainage from Y-12 enters both Bear Creek and East Fork Poplar Creek; K-25 drains
predominantly into Poplar Creek; and Oak Ridge National Laboratory drains into the White
Oak Creek drainage basin.
The proposed TSS lies within the central portion of ORR in an area drained by tributaries
of Grassy, Ish, and Bear Creeks. No buildings or structures are currently located within
the candidate area (ORDOE1991c).
The Clinch River and connected waterways supply all raw water for ORR. The Clinch River
has an average flow of 4,882 ft3/s (OR USGS 1986a). The average flows of Grassy, Ish, and
Bear Creeks near the proposed TSS are 2.82 ft3/s, 1.77 ft3/s, and 3.22ft3/s, respectively.
The average flow at East Fork Poplar Creek is 51.4 ft3/s. ORR and the city of Oak Ridge
use approximately 18.3 MGD of water; the ORR water supply system, which includes the DOE
treatment facility and the K-25 treatment facility, has a capacity of 32.1 MGD.
Wastewater treatment facilities are located throughout ORR. At Y-12, there are six
treatment facilities with NPDES-permitted discharge points to East Fork Poplar Creek. Y-12
also has a permit to discharge wastewater to the Oak Ridge Treatment Facility. At Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, there are three NPDES-permitted wastewater treatment facilities
discharging into White Oak Creek basin. K-25 operates one sanitary sewage system discharg-
ing to Poplar Creek (OR DOE 1992c).
Clinch River water levels in the vicinity of ORR are regulated by a system of dams
operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Melton Hill Dam controls the flow of the
Clinch River along the northeast and southeast sides of ORR. Watts Bar Dam, on the
Tennessee River near the lower end of the Clinch River, controls the flow of the Clinch
River along the southwest side of ORR (ORNL 1986a).
The Tennessee Valley Authority has conducted flood studies along the Clinch River, Bear
Creek, and East Fork Poplar Creek (OR TVA 1991a). Portions of Y-12 lie within the 100- and
500-year floodplains of East Fork Poplar Creek (Oak Ridge Y-12 Technical Site Information,
Y/EN-SFPI). Studies have not been performed to delineate the 100- or 500-year floodplain
boundaries of Grassy, Ish, and Bear Creeks near the proposed TSS (OR DOE 1991c). A
site-specific assessment would be required before constructing any tritium supply and
recycling facility at ORR.
Surface Water Quality. The streams and creeks of Tennessee are classified by the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation and defined in the State of Tennessee Water
Quality Standards. Classifications are based on water quality, designated uses, and
resident aquatic biota. The Clinch River is the only surface water body on ORR classified
for domestic water supply. Streams at ORR are classified for fish, aquatic life, and
livestock watering; irrigation; recreation; and wildlife. White Oak Creek and Melton
Branch are the only streams not classified for irrigation. Portions of Poplar Creek, East
Fork Poplar Creek, and Melton Branch are not classified for recreation (OR DOE 1992c).
ORR streams receive effluents from treated sanitary wastewater, industrial discharges,
cooling water blowdown, stormwater, surface water runoff, and groundwater (OR DOE 1991f).
At Y-12, Bear Creek, McCoy Branch, Rogers Quarry, and East Fork Poplar Creek receive
effluents (OR DOE 1993a).
DOE is currently involved with remediation of East Fork Poplar Creek under CERCLA due to
contamination from past releases from Y-12 operations. Significant cleanup activities are
required onsite and offsite.
There were three primary areas of NPDES noncompliances at Y-12: creek outfalls, discharges
from Rogers Quarry, and discharges from wastewater treatment facilities. Observable
excursions along East Fork Poplar Creek consisted primarily of discharges of visible foam
or oil sheens. The foam noncompliance occurred as a result of numerous sinks being tied to
the storm sewer system. Most oil sheen noncompliances were the result of parking lot
runoff (OR DOE 1993a). A building drain identification survey has been started to address
the foam problem. Noncompliance of the discharge from Rogers Quarry as a result of
elevated pH levels is believed to be caused by algae growth. A subsurface discharge pipe
has been installed to allow deeper, CO2-rich water to be discharged (OR DOE 1992c).
Noncompliances with wastewater treatment facilities discharge limits are being addressed
by better operational controls and preventive maintenance programs (ORDOE1993a).
Figure (Page 4-197)
Figure 4.4.2.4-1.-Surface Water Features at Oak Ridge Reservation.
Table 4.4.2.4-1.-Summary of Clinch River Surface Water Quality Monitoring at Oak Ridge
Reservation, 1991
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Average Water Body
Measure Criteria Concentration
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 0.416
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 0.563
Cesium-137 pCi/l 120 7.63
Chemical oxygen demand mg/l NA 11,071
Copper (acute/chronic) mg/l 0.018f/0.012 5.5/5.2
Dissolved solids mg/l 500f 140,000
Fluoride mg/l 4.0b 100
Manganese mg/l 0.05 49.3
Mercurye (acute/chronic) mg/l 0.0024f/0.000012f 0.24/0.24
Neptunium-237 pCi/l 1.2d -0.0378
Nitrate mg/l 10.0b 0.373
pH pH units 6.5-8.5f 8.04
Plutonium-238 pCi/l 1.6d -1.23h
Plutonium-239 pCi/l 1.2d -0.026h
Sodium mg/l NA 4,393
Sulfate mg/l 250g 21,333
Suspended solids mg/l NA 17,917
Technetium-99 pCi/l 4,000d -258.16h
Uranium, Total mg/l NA 0.001
Zince (acute/chronic) mg/l 0.117f/0.106f 14/8.05
As shown in table 4.4.2.4-1, concentrations of copper, mercury, zinc, and dissolved solids
exceed both chronic and acute (where applicable) state water quality criteria where the
Clinch River leaves ORR. Monitoring data from this sampling site were compared with data
from the Melton Hill Dam sampling site, located upstream of all ORR discharges.
Concentrations at Melton Hill Dam were well below applicable water quality criteria.
Surface Water Rights and Permits. In Tennessee, the state's water rights laws are codified
in the Water Quality Control Act. In effect, the water rights are similar to riparian
rights in that the designated usages of a water body cannot be impaired. Requirements to
withdraw water from available supplies would be dependent on intake location. Construction
may require a 26A permit from Tennessee Valley Authority, review by the Watts Bar Inter-
Agency Working Group, State Aquatio Resources Alteration Permit, or a Corps of Engineers
404 permit State 401 certification.
Groundwater. ORR is located in an area of sedimentary rocks of widely varying hydrological
character. However, because of the topographic relief and a decrease in bedrock fracture
density with depth, groundwater flow is restricted primarily to shallow depths and
groundwater discharges primarily to nearby surface waters within ORR (ORNL 1992b). Depth
to groundwater is generally 20 to 30 feet, but is as little as 5 feet in the area of Bear
Creek Valley near Highway 95 (OR DOE 1992c).
Aquifers at ORR include a surficial soil and regolith unit and bedrock aquifers. The
surficial aquifer consists of man-made fill, alluvium, and weathered bedrock. Bedrock
aquifers occur in carbonates and low-yield sandstones, siltstones, and shales.
There are no Class I sole-source aquifers that lie beneath ORR. All aquifers are
considered Class II aquifers (current potential sources of drinking water). Because of
the abundance of surface water and its proximity to the points of use, very little
groundwater is used at ORR. Only one supply well exists on the Reservation; it provides a
supplemental water supply to an aquatics laboratory during extended droughts.
Recharge occurs over most of the area but is most effective where overburdened soils are
thin or permeable. In the area near Bear Creek Valley, recharge into the carbonate rocks
is mainly along Chestnut Ridge. Groundwater generally flows from the recharge areas to the
center of Bear Creek Valley and discharges into Bear Creek and its tributaries (OR DOE
1992c).
Groundwater Quality. Groundwater samples are collected quarterly from over 1,000
monitoring wells throughout ORR. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells
are analyzed for a standard suite of parameters and constituents, including trace metals,
volatile organic compounds, radioactive materials, and pH (ORNL 1992b). Background
groundwater quality at ORR is generally good in the near surface aquifer zones and poor in
the bedrock aquifer at depths greater than 1,000 feet due to high total dissolved solids.
Groundwater in Bear Creek Valley near Y-12 has been contaminated by hazardous chemicals
and radionuclides (mostly uranium) from weapons production process activities. The
contaminated sites include past waste disposal sites, waste storage tanks, spill sites,
and contaminated inactive facilities (OR DOE 1992c). The groundwater quality as indicated
by groundwater contamination monitoring wells near the proposed TSS at ORR is summarized
in table4.4.2.4-2.
Groundwater Availability, Use, and Rights. Industrial and drinking water supplies in the
area are primarily taken from surface water sources. However, single-family wells are
common in adjacent rural areas not served by the public water supply system. Most of the
residential supply wells in the immediate area of ORR are south of the Clinch River (OR
DOE 1992c). The State of Tennessee does not issue permits or allotments and does not
regulate groundwater use.
Table 4.4.2.4-2.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data at Oak Ridge Reservation, 1991
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Well No. Well No. Well No.
Measure Criteria and GW-655 GW-683b GW-685b
Standard
Alkalinity-CO3 mg/l NA <1 <1 <1
Alkalinity-HCO3 mg/l NA 35 141 245
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 1.77 12.60 1.35
Aluminum mg/l 0.05-0.2 2.4 0.22 0.062
Barium mg/l 2.0c 0.21 0.083 0.091
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 1.59 27.40 6.68
Boron mg/l NA 0.016 0.063 0.054
Calcium mg/l NA 4.5 4.8 71
Chloride mg/l 250d <1 6.2 31
Chromium mg/l 0.05 0.034 <0.01 0.01
Copper mg/l 1.3c 0.012 <0.004 <0.004
Fluoride mg/l 4.0c 0.2 0.2 0.2
Iron mg/l 0.3d 4.6 0.26 0.29
Lead mg/l 0.015c 0.0096 <0.004 <0.004
Magnesium mg/l NA 6.4 14 20
Manganese mg/l 0.05d 0.075 0.011 0.086
Nickel mg/l NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Nitrate-N mg/l 10.0c <0.2 4.4 2.74
pH pH units 6.5-8.5d 7.9 7.13 7.38
Potassium mg/l NA 2 2 1.9
Sodium mg/l NA 6 4.4 18
Strontium mg/l NA 0.022 0.079 0.099
Sulfate mg/l 250d 9.2 18.2 20
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500d 94 212 350
Uranium pCi/l 20 <0.001 0.032 0.002
Vanadium mg/l NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zinc mg/l 5.0d 0.027 0.0077 0.0091

4.4.2.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. ORR lies in the Valley and Ridge province of east-central Tennessee. The
topography consists of alternating valleys and ridges that have a northeast-southwest
trend, with most ORR facilities occupying the valleys; Y-12 and the proposed TSS are in
the Bear Creek Valley. Bear Creek Valley and the adjacent Pine and Chestnut Ridges are
underlain by rocks composed of siltstone, silty limestone, and shale with some sandstone.
The present topography of the valleys is the result of stream erosion of the softer shales
and limestones; the ridges are underlain by the more resistant sandstones and dolomites.
ORR is cut by many inactive faults formed during the Late Paleozoic Era. There is no
evidence of capable faults in the immediate area of Oak Ridge within the definition of 10
CFR 100, Appendix A; the nearest are 300miles west in the New Madrid fault zone (OR EG&G
1991a).
The Oak Ridge area lies at the boundary between Seismic Zones 1 and 2 (figure 4.2.2.5-2).
Since the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812, at least 26 other earthquakes with a
modified Mercalli intensity of III to VI have been felt in the Oak Ridge area; most of
these have occurred in the Valley and Ridge province. The nearest seismic event occurred
in 1930, 5miles from ORR; it had an intensity of V at the site (OR EG&G 1991a).
There is no volcanic hazard at ORR. The area has not experienced volcanism within the last
230million years. Therefore, future volcanism is not expected.
Soils. Bear Creek Valley lies on well to moderately well drained soils underlain by shale,
siltstone, and sandstone. Developed portions of the valley are designated as urban land.
Soil erosion from past land uses has ranged from slight to severe. Erosion potential is
very high in those areas with slopes greater than 25percent and which have been eroded in
the past. Erosion potential is lowest in nearly flat-lying permeable soils that have a
loamy texture (ORNL 1988b). Additionally, wind erosion is slight, shrink-swell potential
is low-to-moderate, and the soils are acceptable for standard construction techniques.

4.4.2.6 Biotic Resources
The following describes biotic resources at ORR including terrestrial resources, wetlands,
aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. Within each biotic resource
area, the discussion focuses first on ORR as a whole and then on the proposed TSS.
Scientific names of species identified in the text are presented in appendix C. Also,
presented in appendix C is a list of threatened and endangered species that may occur on
the site or in the vicinity of ORR.
Terrestrial Resources. Plant communities are characteristic of the intermountain regions
of central and southern Appalachia. Approximately 10percent of ORR has been developed
since it was withdrawn from public access; the remainder of the site has reverted to or
been planted with natural vegetation (OR DOE 1989a:3-5). The vegetation of ORR has been
categorized into seven plant communities (figure 4.4.2.6-1) (ORNL 1987a).
Pine and pine-hardwood forest is the most extensive plant community on ORR. Important
species of this community type include loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and Virginia pine
(ORNL 1987a). Another abundant plant community is the oak-hickory forest, which is
commonly found on ridges throughout ORR. Northern hardwood forest and hemlock-white pine-
hardwood forest are the least common forest community types on ORR. Currently, forest
resources are not managed for timber production, although in the past both cordwood and
saw timber were produced (ORNL 1986b:1). Nine-hundred eighty-three species, subspecies,
and varieties of plants have been identified on ORR (ORNERP1993b:2).
Animal species found on ORR include 26 species of amphibians, 33 species of reptiles, 169
species of birds, and 39 species of mammals (OR NERP nda). Animals commonly found include
the American toad, eastern garter snake, Carolina chickadee, northern cardinal,
white-footed mouse, and raccoon. Although the whitetail deer is the only species hunted
onsite (OR DOE 1991c: 4-6), other game animals are also present. Raptors, such as the
northern harrier and great horned owl, and carnivores, such as the gray fox and mink, are
ecologically important groups on ORR. A variety of migratory birds has been found at ORR.
Migratory birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Vegetative communities in the area of the proposed TSS are typical of ORR as a whole, with
pine and pine hardwood and oak-hickory forest being the predominant community types. Fauna
of the proposed TSS would also be similar to that expected throughout ORR.
Wetlands. Wetlands have recently been evaluated based on National Wetland Inventory maps
and field surveys of vegetation. Soils and hydrology were not specifically considered in
this survey (OR NERP 1991a:4). Wetland surveys conducted since 1992 have used the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers methodology. This survey uses the three criteria of hydro-
phytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Based on this survey, wetlands
include emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested wetlands associated with embayments of the
Melton Hill and Watts Bar Reservoirs, riparian areas bordering major streams and their
tributaries, old farm ponds, and groundwater seeps. Well-developed communities of emergent
wetland plants in the shallow embayments of the two reservoirs typically intergrade into
forested wetland plant communities, which extend upstream through riparian areas
associated with streams and their tributaries. Old farm ponds vary in size and support
diverse plant communities and fauna. Although most riparian wetlands are forested, areas
within utility rights-of-way, such as those in Bear Creek and Melton Valleys, support
emergent wetland vegetation.
Figure (Page 4-202)
Figure 4.4.2.6-1.-Distribution of Plant Communities at Oak Ridge Reservation.
Within the vicinity of the proposed TSS, most wetlands are forested, located in riparian
areas bordering headwater tributaries to Bear Creek, Grassy Creek, and Ish Creek. Forested
wetlands also occupy severalacres in the floodplain of Bear Creek as it flows through this
vicinity. Emergent wetlands are present where tributaries to Grassy Creek cross a power
line paralleling Bear Creek Road.
Portions of the forested wetland in the Bear Creek floodplain located near the northern
edge of the proposed TSS are designated as a National Environmental Research Park
Reference Area and Natural Area. This wetland area is uncommon because it is not subject
to the changing water levels from the Tennessee Valley Authority dams, and it has a deep,
organic substrate combined with a diversity of herbaceous plants. The springs, seeps, and
old streambeds create a variety of habitats. This wetland supports a state-listed
endangered plant species. A portion of the Reference Area and the entire Natural Area have
been designated as state Natural Areas (OR NERP 1993a:13).
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic habitat on or adjacent to ORR ranges from small, free-flowing
streams in undisturbed watersheds to larger streams with altered flow patterns due to dam
construction. These aquatic habitats include tailwaters, impoundments, reservoir
embayments, and large and small perennial streams. Aquatic areas in ORR also include
seasonal and intermittent streams. The ORR streams evaluated for this project include Bear
Creek, Grassy Creek, and Ish Creek, as well as the Clinch River.
Sixty-four fish species have been collected on or adjacent to ORR. The minnow family has
the largest number of species and is numerically dominant in most streams (ORNL
1988c:0-43). Fish species representative of the Clinch River in the vicinity of ORR are
shad, herring, common carp, catfish, bluegill, crappie, and drum (ORNL 1981b:138-149). The
most important fish species taken commercially in the ORR area are common carp and
catfish. Commercial fishing is permitted on the Clinch River downstream from Milton Hall
Dam (OR WRA 1995a:1-5). Area recreational species consist of crappie, bass, sauger,
sunfish, and catfish (OR DEC 1992e; OR WRA 1993a). Sport fishing is not permitted within
ORR.
Fish species that have been recorded near the proposed TSS include 18 species in Bear
Creek, 15species in Grassy Creek, and 8 species in Ish Creek. Fish found in these streams
include: blacknose dace, creek chub, shiner, Tennessee dace, banded sculpin, central
stoneroller, bluntnose minnow, redbreast sunfish, and rock bass (ORDOE1984a:3-30; ORNL
1988c:4-10; ORNL 1992c:4-5, 4-6, 4-7).
A National Environmental Research Park Aquatic Reference Area is located along Grassy
Creek and its tributaries to the southwest of the proposed TSS (ORNERP 1993a:16). Grassy
Creek has a diverse assemblage of invertebrates and fish species for a stream its size.
ORR uses Grassy Creek as a reference area for studies of other streams affected by site
development.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Eighty-eight Federal- and state-listed threatened,
endangered, and other special status species have been identified on the site and in the
vicinity of ORR (appendix table C-4). Thirty of these species may occur on the site or
near the proposed TSS (table 4.4.2.6-1). No critical habitat for threatened or endangered
species, as defined in the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11; 50 CFR 17.12), exists on
ORR.
There are no Federal-listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in the
proposed TSS. East Fork Poplar Creek, north of the proposed TSS, contains suitable habitat
for the Indiana bat. ORR lies within the geographic range of the gray bat but suitable
caves for this species are not known to occur on or near the proposed TSS. Neither bat
species was collected during a limited survey conducted in 1992 (OR TT 1993a). The
peregrine falcon may occur in the area as a rare migrant or winter visitor. Hellbenders
may occur in streams that drain the proposed TSS. Federal candidate species do not receive
legal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the USFWS recommends that impacts
to these species be considered in project planning.
Table 4.4.2.6-1.-Federal- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special
Status Species That May Be Found On the Site or In the Vicinity of Proposed Tritium
Supply Site at Oak Ridge Reservation
Species Status Known or Potential Habitat/Location
- Federal State -
Mammals
Eastern woodrat C2 D Rocky cliffs
Gray bat E E Caves, forage over water
Indiana batb E E Floodplain hardwood forest
Southeastern shrew NL D Open fields and wood lots
Birds
American peregrine falconb E E Rare migrant, winter visitor
Arctic peregrine falcon T E Rare migrant, winter visitor
Bachman's sparrow C2 E Open pine woods
Barn owl NL D Woodlands, dense conifers (winter)
Bewick's wren C2 T Thickets, underbrush
Black vulture NL D Entire Oak Ridge Reservation
Cooper's hawkc NL T Woodland forest, uncommon permanent resident
Grasshopper sparrow NL T Grassy, weedy fields
Northern harrier NL T Rare migrant, winter visitor, forages in fields
Redheaded woodpecker NL D Floodplain forest
Red-shouldered hawkc NL D Woodland, floodplain forest
Sharp-shinned hawkc NL T Woodland forest, rare permanent resident
Reptiles
Northern pine snake NL T Sandy pine woods, dry mountain ridges
Six-lined racerunner NL D Open, well-drained areas
Amphibians
Hellbenderc C2 D Rivers, streams with running water and ample shelter
Tennessee cave salamander C2 T Caves with streams and pools in county
Fish
Tennessee dacec NL D Bear Creek and tributaries
Plants
Canada (wild yellow) lilyc NL T Moist woods and edges in Natural Area just north and
east of TSS
Fen orchidc NL E Lower McNew Hollow, in Natural Area north of TSS
Ginsengc NL T Rich woods, Bear Creek
Golden sealc NL T Limestone, moist woods in Natural Area just
northeast of TSS
Gravid sedgec NL S Dry open soil
Michigan lilyc NL T Moist woods
Pink lady's-slipperc NL E Pine Ridge area
Purple fringeless orchidc NL T Along small powerline near Bear Creek Road
Tuberculed rein-orchidc NL T Shaded wetland along Bear Creek, in Natural Area
north of NFS
A number of state-listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur in the
proposed TSS. The Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks are resident forest-dwelling raptors
(ORNL 1987b:11,12). The Cooper's hawk probably nests on ORR, and the sharp-shinned hawk
has been observed nesting on ORR (ORR 1992a:3). A large population of pink lady's-slippers
have been found within a National Environmental Research Park Reference Area located
northeast of the proposed TSS. This population is expected to occur throughout the Pine
Ridge area, which includes the proposed project site (ORNL 1992a:1,2). The tubercled
rein-orchid occurs in two National Environmental Research Park Natural Areas, one located
near the northern section of the proposed TSS along Bear Creek and the other extending
from the eastern edge of the proposed TSS. The purple fringeless orchid and Canada lily
also occur in the latter area. Ginseng is found in the western edge of the TSS. The fen
orchid occurs in the Bear Creek/McNew Hollow floodplain within a Natural Area located to
the northeast of the proposed TSS (OR NERP 1993a:6).
Several species listed by the state in need of management occur in the proposed TSS. The
red-shouldered hawk and black vulture are both resident raptor species that nest on ORR,
the latter near the proposed TSS (ORNL 1988c:0-43; ORR 1991a:7). The Tennessee dace is an
inhabitant of Bear Creek and its tributaries. This stream system, which flows through the
proposed TSS, is designated as a National Environmental Research Park Aquatic Natural
Area. The habitat of this fish is protected by the state (OR DOE 1990a:250). Bear Creek is
the site of life history studies of the Tennessee dace and may contain the greatest
density of this species in the state. The Tennessee dace also occurs in several other
streams designated as Aquatic Natural Areas, including Ish Creek and a number of
tributaries of East Fork Poplar Creek (OR NERP 1993a:10,11).

4.4.2.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Prehistoric Resources. More than 20 cultural resources surveys have been conducted on ORR.
About 90percent of ORR has received at least reconnaissance-level studies, however, less
than 5percent has been intensively surveyed. Most cultural resources studies have occurred
along the Clinch River and adjacent tributaries. Prehistoric sites recorded at ORR include
villages, burial mounds, camps, quarries, chipping stations, limited activity locations,
and shell scatters. Over 45 prehistoric sites have been recorded at ORR. At least 10
prehistoric sites may be considered potentially eligible for the NRHP; however, most of
these sites have not yet been evaluated.
Only a reconnaissance-level survey has been conducted on portions of the proposed TSS. The
survey found no prehistoric sites, however, additional prehistoric sites, mostly small
camps and activity locations, may be identified in the unsurveyed portions of the proposed
TSS.
Historic Resources. Several historic resources surveys have been conducted at ORR.
Historic resources identified include both archaeological remains and standing structures.
Documented log, wood frame, or fieldstone structures include cabins, barns, churches,
gravehouses, springhouses, storage sheds, smokehouses, log cribs, privies, henhouses, and
garages. Archaeological remains consist primarily of foundations, roads, and trash
scatters. Sixty-five pre-1942 cemeteries were located within the original ORR (OR Robinson
1950a:130). Today there are 32 cemeteries within ORR since the size of the reservation has
been reduced. More than 240 historic resources have been recorded at ORR, and 20 of those
sites may be considered potentially NRHP-eligible. Freels' cabin, two church structures,
and two guard houses have been listed on the NRHP. The X-10 Reactor is listed on the NRHP
as a National Historic Landmark. Many other buildings and facilities at ORR are
associated with the Manhattan Project and may be potentially eligible for the NRHP.
Historic building surveys were completed during fiscal year1994 at K-25 and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Similar surveys occurred during fiscalyear 1995 at Y-12.
A reconnaissance-level survey has been conducted on portions of the proposed TSS.
Forty-five historic sites have been previously recorded; however, only four are considered
potentially NRHP-eligible. Additional historic sites may be anticipated in the unsur-
veyed portions of the proposed TSS.
Native American Resources. The Overhill Cherokee occupied portions of the Tennessee,
Hiwassee, Clinch, and Little Tennessee River Valleys by the 1700s. Overhill Cherokee
villages consisted of a large townhouse, a summer pavilion, and a plaza; residences had
both summer and winter structures. Subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and
horticulture. The Cherokee were relocated to the Oklahoma territory in 1838; some Cherokee
later returned to the area from Oklahoma. Resources that may be sensitive to Native
American groups include prehistoric and historic villages, ceremonial lodges,
cemeteries, burials, and traditional plant gathering areas.
Paleontological Resources. The majority of geological units with surface exposures at
ORR contain paleontological materials. All paleontological materials consist of
invertebrate remains, and these assemblages have relatively low research potential.

4.4.2.8 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic characteristics presented for ORR include employment and local economy,
population, housing, public finance, and local transportation. Statistics for regional
economy characteristics are presented for the regional economic area that encompasses 29
counties around ORR (appendix table D.2.1-2). The regional economic area is a broad labor
and product market-based region linked by trade among economic sectors within the region.
Statistics for population and housing, public finance, and local transportation are
presented for the ROI, a 4-county area in which 95percent of all ORR employees reside:
Anderson County (35 percent), Knox County (37 percent), Loudon County (6percent), and
Roane County (17 percent). (See figure 4.4-1 for a map of counties and cities). Fiscal
characteristics of the jurisdictions in the ROI are presented in the public finance
section in appendix table D.3-47. The schools most likely to be affected by the proposed
action include those funded by Anderson, Knox, Loudon, and Roane Counties and the cities
of Clinton, Oak Ridge, Lenoir City, and Harriman. Assumptions, assessment methodologies,
and supporting data are presented in appendix D.
Regional Economy Characteristics. Employment and local economy statistics for the ORR
regional economic area are presented in appendix table D.3-38 and summarized in figure
4.4.2.8-1. Between 1970 and 1990, the civilian labor force in the regional economic area
increased 50 percent. The unemployment rate in the regional economic area in 1990 was
slightly higher than the rate for the State of Tennessee. The 1990 per capita income in
the regional economic area was approximately 10percent below the state.
As shown in figure 4.4.2.8-1, the percentage of total employment involving farming in the
regional economic area was slightly higher than the state. The percentage employed in
governmental activities was approximately the same. Nonfarm private sector activities of
manufacturing, retail trade, and services were similar in the regional economic area and
the state.
In 1990, ORR employed 15,273 persons (3.1percent of the total regional economic area
employment), increasing from 14,257 persons in 1970. Historical and future employment of
ORR and the distribution of ORR employees by place of residence in the ROI are presented
in appendix tables D.2.1-1 and D.3-37, respectively.
Population and Housing. Population and housing distribution in the ROI is presented in
appendix tables D.3-41, D.3-44, and summarized in figure 4.4.2.8-2. Thepercent increase in
population in the ROI from 1970 to 1990 was similar to that of the state except for the
city of Clinton, which experienced an 87-percent increase. The percentage increase in
housing units between 1970 and 1990 was similar to the percentage increase for the state
with the exception of the city of Clinton (135-percent increase). Homeowner and rental
vacancy rates in the ROI in 1990 were similar to those experienced by the state.
Public Finance. Financial characteristics of the local jurisdictions in the ROI that are
most likely to be affected by the proposed action are presented in this section. The data
reflect total revenues and expenditures of each jurisdiction's general fund, special
revenue funds, and, as applicable, debt service, capital project, and expendable trust
funds. Funding for schools in the ROI is provided by the county or city in which they are
located. Major revenue and expenditure fund categories for counties and cities are
presented in appendix table D.3-47. Figure 4.4.2.8-3 summarizes local governments revenues
less its expenditures.
Local Transportation. Vehicular access to the Y-12 Plant is via Bear Creek Valley Road.
State Routes 58, 62, 95, and 162 pass through ORR and are open to the general public
(figure 4.4-1). Road segments providing access to Y-12 experience varying levels of
traffic congestion. Traffic on State Route 162 generally experiences less traffic
congestion than Bear Creek Valley Road and State Route 58, whereas traffic on State Routes
95 and 62 generally experience more traffic congestion.
Figure (Page 4-207)
Figure 4.4.2.8-1.-Economy for Oak Ridge Reservation Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-208)
Figure 4.4.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Oak Ridge Reservation Region of Influence
[Page 1 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-209)
Figure 4.4.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Oak Ridge Reservation Region of Influence
[Page 2 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-210)
Figure 4.4.2.8-3.-1992 Local Government Public Finance for Oak Ridge Reservation Region of
Influence.
Road reconstruction, widening, modification of interchanges, and new interchange
construction projects are planned for segments of Bear Creek Valley Road, Scarboro Road,
and State Routes 58, 62, and 95 (figure 4.4-1) (OR DOE 1991f; OR DOT 1992a; OR DOT 1992b).
The city of Oak Ridge has no public transportation service. Other modes of transportation
within the ROI include railways and waterways. Railroad service in the ROI is provided by
two main lines. A spur line serves Y-12 as well as the city of Oak Ridge. Waterborne
transportation is potentially available via the Clinch River. The Clinch River waterway
has rarely been used for DOE business and no designated port facilities exist for such
purposes (USCOE 1991a).
The McGhee Tyson Regional Airport in the city of Knoxville, approximately 23miles from
ORR, supports regularly scheduled jet air passenger and cargo aircraft. Numerous private
airports are located throughout the ROI (DOT 1991a).

4.4.2.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
The following provides a description of the radiation and hazardous chemical environment
at ORR. Also included are discussions of health effects studies, emergency preparedness
considerations, and an accident history.
Radiation Environment. Major sources of background radiation exposure to individuals in
the vicinity of ORR are shown in table 4.4.2.9-1. All annual doses to individuals from
background radiation are expected to remain constant over time. Accordingly, the
incremental total dose to the population would result only from changes in the size of
the population. Background radiation doses are unrelated to ORR operations.
Table 4.4.2.9-1.-Sources of Radiation Exposure to Individuals in the Vicinity, Unrelated
to Oak Ridge Reservation Operations
Source Committed
Effective Dose
Equivalent
(mrem/yr)
Natural Background Radiation
Cosmic and cosmogenic radiation 29
External terrestrial radiationa 38
Internal terrestrial radiation 39
Radon in homes (inhaled)b 200
Other Background Radiationb
Diagnostic x-rays and nuclear 53
medicine
Weapons test fallout <1
Air travel 1
Consumer and industrial products 10
Total 371
Releases of radionuclides into the environment from ORR operations provide another source
of radiation exposure to individuals in the vicinity of ORR. The radionuclides and
quantities released from operations in 1992 are listed in the Oak Ridge Reservation
Environmental Report for 1992 (ES/ESH-31/V1). The doses to the public resulting from these
releases and direct radiation are presented in table 4.4.2.9-2. These doses fall within
radiological limits (DOE Order 5400.5) and are small in comparison to background
radiation. The releases listed in the 1992 report were used in the development of the
reference environment (No Action) radiological releases at ORR in theyear 2010 (section
4.4.3.9).
Based on a risk estimator of 500 cancer deaths per 1million person-rem to the public
(appendix section E.2), the fatal cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the
public due to radiological releases from ORR operations in 1992 is estimated to be
approximately 8.5x10-6. That is, the estimated probability of this person dying of
cancer at some point in the future from radiation exposure associated with 1year of ORR
operations is less than 9 chances in 1million. (Note that it takes several to many years
from the time of exposure to radiation for a cancer to manifest itself.)
Table 4.4.2.9-2.-Doses to the General Public from Normal Operation at Oak Ridge
Reservations, 1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Atmospheric Releases Liquid Releases Total
Affected Environment Standard Actual Standarda Actualb, Standarda Actual
Maximally exposed 10 1.4 4 0.62 100 17
individual (mrem)
Population within 50 None 43 None 1 100 44
miles (person-rem)
Average individual None 0.049 None 1.1x10-3 None 0.05
within 50 miles
(mrem)
Approximately 2.2x10-2 excess fatal cancers were estimated from normal operations in 1992
to the population living within 50miles of ORR. To place this number into perspective,
it can be compared with the numbers of fatal cancers expected in this population from all
causes. The 1990 mortality rate associated with cancer for the entire U.S. population was
0.2percent peryear (Almanac 1993a). Based on this national rate, the number of fatal
cancers from all causes expected to occur during 1992 was 1,760 for the population living
within 50miles of ORR. This number of expected fatal cancers is much higher than the
estimated 2.2x10-2 fatal cancers that could result from ORR operations in 1992Workers at
ORR receive the same dose as the general public from background radiation, but also
receive an additional dose from working in the facilities. Table 4.4.2.9-2 presents the
average, maximum, and total occupational doses to ORR workers from operations in 1992.
These doses fall within radiological limits (10CFR 835). Based on a risk estimator of 400
fatal cancers per 1million person-rem among workers (appendix section E.2), the number of
excess fatal cancers to ORR workers from operations in 1992 is estimated to be 0.027. A
more detailed presentation of the radiation environment, including background exposures
and radiological releases and doses, is presented in the Oak Ridge Reservation Environmen-
tal Report for 1992 (ES/ESH-31/V1). The concentrations of radioactivity in various
environmental media (e.g., air, water, soil) in the site region (onsite and offsite) are
also presented in the same report. ORR operations contribute small amounts of radioac-
tivity to these media.
Chemical Environment. The background chemical environment important to human health
consists of: the atmosphere, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be inhaled;
drinking water, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be ingested; and other
environmental media with which people may come in contact; e.g., surface waters during
swimming, soil through direct contact, or via the food pathway. The baseline data for
assessing potential health impacts from the chemical environment are those presented in
previous sections of this PEIS, particularly sections 4.4.2.3 and 4.4.2.4.
Table 4.4.2.9-3.-Doses to the Worker Onsite from Normal Operation at Oak Ridge
Reservation, 1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Onsite Releases and
Direct Radiation
Affected Environment Standard Actual
Average worker None 4
(mrem)
Maximally exposed 5,000 2,000
worker (mrem)
Total workers None 68
(person-rem)
Health impacts to the public can be minimized through effective administrative and design
controls for decreasing pollutant releases to the environment and achieving compliance
with permit requirements (e.g., air emissions and NPDES permit requirements). The
effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use of monitoring information and
inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts to the public may occur during normal
operations via inhalation of air containing pollutants released to the atmosphere by ORR
operations. Risks to public health from other possible pathways, such as ingestion of
contaminated drinking water or direct exposure, are low relative to the inhalation
pathway.
Baseline air emission concentrations for hazardous/toxic air pollutants and their
applicable standards are presented in section 4.4.2.3. These concentrations are
estimates of the highest existing offsite concentrations and represent the highest
concentrations to which members of the public could be exposed. These concentrations are
in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. Information about estimating
health impacts from hazardous/toxic chemicals is presented in appendix section E.3.
Health impacts to ORR workers during normal operations may include those from: inhalation
of the workplace atmosphere, drinking ORR potable water, and possible other contact with
hazardous materials associated with work assignments. The potential for health impacts
varies from facility to facility and from worker to worker, and available information is
not sufficient to allow a meaningful estimation and summation of these impacts. However,
workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through appropriate training,
protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. ORR workers are also protected
by adherence to occupational standards that limit workplace atmospheric and drinking water
concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Monitoring ensures that these standards
are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements (DOE Order 3790.1B) ensure that
conditions in the work place are as free as possible from recognized hazards that cause or
are likely to cause illness or physical harm. Therefore, worker health conditions at ORR
are expected to be substantially better than required by the standards.
Health Effects Studies. Two epidemiologic studies were conducted to determine whether the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory facility contributed to any excess cancers in the
communities surrounding the facility. One study found no excess cancer mortality in the
population living in counties surrounding Oak Ridge National Laboratory when compared to
the control populations located in other nearby counties and elsewhere in the United
States. The other found slight excess cancer incidences of several types in the counties
near Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but none of the excess risks were statistically
significant. More epidemiologic studies have been conducted to assess the health effects
of the population working at ORR than at any other site reviewed for this PEIS. Excess
cancer mortalities have been reported and linked to specific job categories, age, and
length of employment as well as to the levels of exposure to radiation. For a more
detailed description of the studies reviewed and the findings, refer to appendix section
E.4.4.
Accident History. There have been no accidents with a measurable impact on offsite
population during nearly 50 years of Y-12 operations at ORR. The most noteworthy accident
in Y-12 history was the 1958 criticality accident. The impact from this accident
resulted in temporary radiation sickness for a few ORR employees. In 1989, there was a
one-time accidental release of xylene into the ORR sewer system with no adverse offsite
impacts. Accidental releases of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride occurred in 1986, 1988, and
1992, with little onsite and negligible offsite impacts. The hydrogen fluoride system
where these accidents occurred is being modified to reduce the probability of future
releases and to minimize the potential consequences if a release does occur (ORR
1992a:6).
Emergency Preparedness. In the event of an accident, each DOE site has established an
emergency management program. This program has been developed and maintained to ensure
adequate response for most accident conditions and to provide response efforts for
accidents not specifically considered. The emergency management program incorporates
activities associated with emergency planning, preparedness, and response. Section 4.1.9
provides a description of DOE's emergency preparedness program.
DOE has overall responsibility for emergency planning and operations at ORR. However, DOE
has delegated primary authority for event response to the operating contractor. Although
the contractor's primary response is onsite, it does provide offsite assistance if
requested under the terms of existing mutual aid agreements. If a hazardous materials
event with offsite impacts occurs at a DOE ORR facility, elected officials and local
governments are responsible for the state's response efforts. The Governor's Executive
Order No. 4 established the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency as the agency
responsible for coordinating state emergency services. When a hazardous materials event
occurring at DOE facilities is beyond the capability of local government and assistance is
requested, the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency Director may direct state agencies to
provide assistance to the local governments. To accomplish this task and ensure prompt
initiation of emergency response actions, the Director may cause the State Emergency
Operations Center and Field Coordination Center to be activated. City or county officials
may activate local emergency operations centers in accordance with existing emergency
plans.

4.4.2.10 Waste Management
This section outlines the major environmental regulatory structure and ongoing waste
management activities for ORR. A more detailed discussion of the ongoing waste
management operations is provided in appendix section H.2.3. Tables 4.4.2.10-1 (Y-12),
4.4.2.10-2 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and 4.4.2.10-3 (K-25) present a summary of
waste management at ORR for 1992.
Table 4.4.2.10-1.-Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management at Y-12 Plant [Page 1 of 2]
Category 1992 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear Fuel None NA NA Storage vaults 0.02 None NA
Low-Level
Liquid 740 Settlement and 20,800 Stored onsite None NA NA
(148,000 gal) filtration (4,200,000 GPY)
Solid 7,700 Compaction/ 62,000 Stored onsite at Y-12 5,710 Onsite (K-25) NA
incineration or K-25
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid 2,120 Settlement and 5,800 Tanks 810 NA NA
(428,000 gal) filtration (1,200,000 GPY) (163,000 gal)
Solid 740 None NA Staged for shipment 2,200 None - offsite to NTS pending NA
Hazardous
Liquid 4,850 Settlement and 273,000 Tanks 1,320 Offsite NA
(978,000 gal) filtration (55,000,000 GPY) (267,000 gal)
Solid 1,100 None NA Staged for shipment 7,800 Offsite NA
Nonhazardous (Sanitary)
Liquid 3,200yd3/day Offsite 6,940yd3/day None NA Offsite NA
(650,000 GPD) (1,400,000 GPD)
Solid 63,600 None NA None NA Landfill (onsite) 640,000
Nonhazardous (Other)
Liquid 191,000 Evaporation and 208,000 None NA Offsite - NPDES outfall NA
(38,500,000 gal) incineration (41,900,000 GPY)
Solid 2,370 None NA None NA Landfill VI and VII (onsite) 1,700,000
Table 4.4.2.10-2.-Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
[Page 1 of 2]
Category 1992 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation (yd3) Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3/yr) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear 0.008 None NA Pools 0.04 None NA
Fuel
Transuranic
(Solid)
Contact 14 None NA Staged for shipment 800 None, WIPP in NA
handled future
Remote 5 None NA Staged for shipment 290 None, WIPP in NA
handled future
Low-Level
Liquid 1,970 Ion exchange, 340,000 Stored onsite 750 NA NA
(398,000 gal) decantation, (68,500,000 GPY) (150,000 gal)
stabilization,
evaporation
Solid 510 Compaction 14,800 Stored onsite 42,900 Onsite NA
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid None See liquid Included in liquid Tanks 770 NA NA
low-level waste low-level waste (155,000 gal)
Solid 160 Planned Planned Staged for shipment 110 None, offsite to NTS NA
pending
Hazardous
Liquid 9 Neutralization/ 261,000 None NA Offsite NA
(1,850 gal) sedimentation and (53,000,000 GPY)
evaporation
Solid 49 None NA Staged for shipment 120 Incineration Planned
(K-25)/offsite
disposal
Planned - onsite
disposal
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 467,000 Biological 542,000 None NA NPDES outfall NA
(94,200,000 gal) degradation (109,300,000 GPY)
Solid 9,500l None NA None NA Y-12 landfill Included in Y-12
table 4.4.2.10-1
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 783,000 Evaporation and 2,000,000 None NA Offsite NA
(157,000,000 gal) Incineration (403,000,000 GPY)
Solid 40 None NA None NA Y-12 landfill and Included in sanitary
SWSA 6 burial
Table 4.4.2.10-3.-Waste Management at K-25 Site [Page 1 of 2]
Category 1992 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation (yd3) Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3/yr) (yd3)
Low-level
Liquid Included in Settlement and 1,860 None NA NA NA
hazardous liquid Filtration (375,000 GPY)
Solid 3,100 Compaction/ Offsite Stored onsite Included in solid Planned onsite- Planned offsite-
smelting mixed low-level nonmetallic metallic
Planned

Liquid 1,500 Settlement and 452,000 Stored onsite 127,000 NA NA
302,000 gal) filtration/ (91,000,000 GPY) (26,000,000 gal)
incineration
Solid 11 Planned Planned Stored onsite 157,000 None NA
Hazardous
Liquid 80,000 Neutralization/ 82,000 Stored for NA Planned offsite NA
(16,000,000 gal) precipitation (16,600,000 GPY) processing
Solid 900 Compaction for 2,100 Staged for shipment Included in solid Planned offsite NA
non- mixed low-level
RCRA/TSCA
and incineration
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 844,000 Neutralization/ 1,100,000 - sewage None NA NPDES outfall NA
(170,000,000 gal) precipitation (219,000,000 GPY)
95,200 - industrial
(19,200,000 GPY)
Solid 11,700m None NA None NA Oak Ridge Landfill NA
(offsite)
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 3m See liquid Included in None NA See liquid NA
(600 GPY) sanitary liquidsanitary sanitary
Solid 5,600 None NA Stockpiled at Unspecified Y-12 landfill and Included in Y-12
scrapyard capacity metal sold to public table 4.4.2.10-1
The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address
compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at ORR. The Department
is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance.
These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for
achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for
nonachievement of agreed upon milestones.
EPA placed ORR on the NPL on November 21, 1989. DOE, EPA Region IV, and the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation completed a Federal Facility Agreement
effective January 1, 1992. This agreement coordinates future assessments and remedial
activities at ORR under CERCLA with existing actions being conducted under RCRA and
applicable state laws, minimizes duplication, expedites response actions, and achieves a
comprehensive remediation of the site.
ORR generates and manages spent nuclear fuel and the following waste categories: TRU, LLW,
mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous. A discussion of the waste management operations
associated with each of these categories follows.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. ORR generates and manages a small quantity of spent nuclear fuel. The
only operating reactor is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory High-Flux Isotope Reactor,
which is used to produce isotopes for medical and industrial applications, neutron
scattering experiments, and various materials irradiation experiments. ORR has also
received some offsite shipments of reactor irradiated nuclear material. Most of the fuel
and irradiated nuclear material is stored in numerous buildings and hot cells at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and one building at Y-12. Some of the fuel still remains in the core
of the inactive research reactors. Irradiated fuel and its associated fission products are
stored in dry wells at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Solid Waste Storage Area-5N. A
small amount of irradiated spent nuclear fuel is stored in wells and trenches in Solid
Waste Storage Areas-5S and -6. The interim management of the spent nuclear fuel (pending
the availability of a geologic repository) will be in accordance with the ROD published
in the Federal Register (60 FR 28680) on June 1, 1995, for the DOE Programmatic Spent
Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203-F).
High-Level Waste. ORR does not generate or manage HLW.
Transuranic Waste. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the only generator of TRU waste at
ORR. Solid TRU waste consisting of filters, paper, metals, and other items was generated
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory through laboratory, pilot plant, and reactor operations
in 1992. This includes both contact-handled and remote-handled TRU waste contaminated
with lead and, in some cases, mercury. Contact-handled waste is TRU waste that contains
mainly plutonium, which emits alpha particles and low-energy photons. The packaging is
designed to provide sufficient containment and shielding to minimize personnel exposure
problems. Remote-handled TRU waste contains activation materials and fission products
that decay and emit beta and gamma radiation on the surface of the packaging that exceeds
200mrem/hr.
As of December 31, 1992, approximately 1,400yd3 of TRU wastes were in retrievable drum or
concrete cask storage. The amount of remote-handled waste was about 1,500yd3 (DOE
1994c:89). Current activities center around certification of contact-handled waste,
planning/designing of a repackaging and certification facility for remote-handled wastes,
and planning for shipment of wastes to the WIPP or another suitable repository which can
provide for the disposal of TRU wastes pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 191.
Low-Level Waste. Solid LLW consisting primarily of radioactively-contaminated construction
debris, wood, paper, asbestos, trapping media, process equipment, and radionuclides
removed from liquid and airborne discharges is generated at ORR. Currently, solid LLW is
being stored at K-25 and Y-12 for future disposal. Contaminated scrap metal is stored
above ground at the K-770 scrap metal facility and the Y-12 old salvage yard until further
disposal methods are evaluated. As of 1992, the amount of LLW buried at ORR was
approximately 577,000yd3 (DOE 1994c:121).
The primary generator of radioactively-contaminated liquid waste is the K-1435 TSCA
Incinerator from the wet scrubber blowdown. This waste is currently being treated at the
Central Neutralization Facility, which provides pH adjustment and chemical precipi-
tation. Treated effluents are discharged through an NPDES outfall. The contaminated
sludges are stored above ground at K-25.
The Energy Systems Waste Management Organization has been established and assigned the
responsibility to design, construct, and operate all new LLW disposal facilities for
ORR. This organization is located at K-25. The new LLW disposal facilities will serve
waste generators from all three DOE facilities on ORR. The Low-Level Waste Disposal
Facilities project will provide new disposal facilities at a new centralized location of
ORR for LLW, and capacity for up to 40 years at current generation rates. The facility
will be able to handle tritium wastes. The disposal facility will utilize state-of-the-art
disposal technologies for Below Regulatory Concern/Class L-I wastes and for Class L-II
wastes. The limits for tritium waste are 5.6x105 Ci/yd3 for Class L-I wastes and 1.2x106
Ci/yd3 for Class L-II wastes. Class L-I waste is LLW that is suitable for disposal using
sanitary/industrial landfill disposal technology and will not expose any member of the
public to an effective dose equivalent of more than 10mrem peryear at the time of
disposal. Class L-II waste is LLW primarily containing fission product radionuclides with
halflives of 30 years or less that is suitable for disposal in engineered facilities
designed to isolate the waste from the environment and the public for a period of time
sufficient to allow for the decay of radionuclides to such a level that any member of the
public will not be exposed to an effective dose equivalent of more than 10mrem peryear (OR
DOE 1992b:9-7). As currently scheduled, the Class L-II facility, for wastes contaminated
with very low concentrations of long half-life radionuclides, is expected to be
operational in 2002. DOE has indefinitely postponed construction of the Class L-I
facility for wastes contaminated with low concentrations of predominantly short halflife
radionuclides. The Federal Facility Agreement has specific requirements concerning LLW
tank systems.
Mixed Low-Level Waste. RCRA mixed, radioactive land disposal restricted waste (including
some nonradiological classified land ban waste) has been stored in some areas at K-25.
Because storage of these wastes is in violation of RCRA, ORR entered into a Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement for RCRA Land Disposal Restriction wastes with EPA on June
12, 1992. This Federal Facility Compliance Agreement recognizes that DOE will continue to
generate and store such mixed wastes subject to land disposal restrictions. The terms of
this agreement are presently being reviewed and will be renegotiated pursuant to the
requirements of the Federal Facility Compliance Act. This compliance agreement will form
the basis for the site-specific treatment plan required by the Federal Facility Compliance
Act of 1992.
Sludges contaminated with low-level radioactivity are generated by settling and scrubbing
operations and in the past were stored in K-1407-B and 1407-C ponds at K-25. Sludges have
been removed from these ponds and a portion have been fixed in concrete at the K-1419
Sludge Treatment Facility and stored above ground at the K-1417 Casting and Storage Yard.
These materials are considered mixed waste and a delisting petition has been submitted to
EPA. Disposition of this waste is pending a determination of this petition. Mixed waste
sludges are also generated at Y-12 in the treatment of nitrate waste from
purification/recycling of uranium and in the treatment of plating shop waste.
The K-25 TSCA incinerator has a design capacity to incinerate 2,000 lb/hr of mixed liquid
waste and up to 1,000 lb/hr of solids and sludge (200 lb/hr maximum sludge content). DOE
guidance currently does not allow incineration of solids/sludges. Because of permit limits
(TSCA, RCRA, State of Tennessee), the incinerator is not running at full capacity. It is
currently incinerating approximately 3,000,000 lb/yr (ORR 1993a:2).
Uranium-contaminated PCB wastes (i.e., mixed wastes) are being stored in excess of the
1-year limit imposed by TSCA because of the lack of treatment and disposal capacities. DOE
and EPA have signed a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement, effective February 20, 1992,
to bring the facility into compliance with TSCA regulations for use, storage, and
disposal of PCBs. It also addressed the approximately 10,000 pieces of nonradioactive
PCB-containing dielectric equipment associated with the shutdown of diffusion plant
operations.
Hazardous Waste. RCRA-regulated and PCB wastes are generated by ORR in laboratory
research, electroplating operations, painting operations, descaling, demineralizer
regeneration, and photographic processes. Certain other wastes (e.g., spent photographic
processing solutions) are processed onsite into a nonhazardous state. Those wastes that
are safe to transport and contain no DOEadded radioactivity are shipped offsite to RCRA-
permitted commercial treatment/disposal facilities. Small amounts of reactive chemical
explosives that would be dangerous to transport offsite, such as aged picric acid are
processed onsite in the Chemical Detonation Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The majority of the Y-12 hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal units are
currently operating in accordance with RCRA interim status requirements. Y-12 has
submitted a RCRA Part B Permit application to the state for all hazardous waste
treatment storage and disposal facilities. These applications are presently under review
with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the units are awaiting
issuance of final RCRA operating permits. These permits will cover more than 200RCRA waste
streams, 48 90-day waste accumulation areas, and 49 underground tanks.
Nonhazardous Waste. Nonhazardous wastes are generated from ORR maintenance and utilities.
For example, the steam plant produces nonhazardous sludge. Scrap metals are discarded from
maintenance and renovation activities and are recycled when appropriate. Construction
and demolition projects also produce nonhazardous industrial wastes. All nonradioactive
medical wastes are autoclaved to render them noninfectious and are sent to the Y-12
Sanitary Landfill. A new landfill became operational in March 1994. Remedial action
projects also produce wastes requiring proper management. The State of Tennessee permitted
landfill receives nonhazardous industrial materials such as fly ash and construction
debris. Asbestos and general refuse are managed in the Y-12 Sanitary Landfill.
Groundwater monitoring at five of seven land-based waste disposal sites at Y-12 have
detected volatile organic compounds, nitrates, heavy metals, and radioactivity levels that
exceed applicable standards. Additional monitoring wells and continued monitoring is
required to define precise contaminant plumes.

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the various
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at ORR described in section 4.4.1. It
begins by describing potential impacts to existing and planned facilities at ORR, followed
by descriptions of potential impacts and the environmental impacts of the proposed action
on potentially affected environmental resources. The section concludes by describing the
potential impacts of tritium supply and recycling on human health during normal operation,
the consequences of facility accidents, and regulatory considerations and waste
management. Each description addresses the effects of No Action and the potential impacts
and environmental impacts of constructing and operating any of the tritium supply
technologies collocated with tritium recycling facilities or tritium supply alone at ORR.

4.4.3.1 Land Resources
Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology and recycling facilities at
ORR would affect land resources, including land use and visual resources. Potential
impacts to these resources are summarized below.
ORR has sufficient land area to accommodate any of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. The 600-acre TSS would be located in an undeveloped
area of the reservation (figure 4.4.2.1-1). A portion of this area is designated as a
National Environmental Research Park. The proposed facilities would create a visual impact
to nearby viewpoints with high levels of sensitivity, and result in negative changes in
VRM classification of the site. The following sections present the effects of the proposed
action on land resources.
Land Use
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned land use activities at
ORR as presented in figure 4.4.2.1-1. Any impacts to land use from these actions would be
independent of and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Any one of the tritium supply technologies and collocated
tritium recycling facilities (section 3.4) or tritium supply alone could be sited at ORR
in the proposed TSS (figure 4.4.2.1-1). Land requirements for the tritium facilities are
presented in table 4.4.3.1-1. The land area affected ranges from 360 acres for the MHTGR
to 173 acres for the APT. An additional 196 acres would be required if the tritium supply
facility is collocated with a new recycling facility. As shown in the table, adequate
undeveloped land exists. The land use designation would change from forest/undeveloped
to industrial. Prime farmland or agricultural activities would not be affected.
No tritium facilities would be constructed offsite, thus offsite land use would not be
directly affected. Offsite land is available and could be converted to residential
developments to house workers. Such development would be subject to local land use and
zoning controls, which vary by jurisdiction.
Table 4.4.3.1-1.-Potential Changes to Land Use Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies
and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
Indicator Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Land requirements 260 360 350 173 196
Available land, (percent) 1.2 1.7 1.6 0.8 0.9
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity to
meet a tritium supply requirement less than baseline, or the construction and operation of
a tritium requirement Phased APT would not change potential baseline land use impacts.
Land requirements would be the same in both operation scenarios.
Multipurpose Reactor. The land requirement for the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR (section
4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3) with recycling would be 925 and 675 acres, respectively. The site
requirements for both the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR exceed the 600- acre TSS study area;
however, the proposed TSS is in an area where the additional land requirements would not
result in potential conflicts with site land use or development plans. The land use
designation would change from forest/undeveloped to industrial. The 925 and 675 acres
represent approximately 3 and 4 percent, respectively, of the undeveloped available land
at ORR. Construction and operation of the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR would not affect
prime farmland, other agricultural activities, or other land uses on the site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Avoidance of steep slopes and special National
Environmental Research Park reference and natural areas present in the vicinity of the
TSS, through alternative facility layouts, would minimize or eliminate impacts to these
areas.
Visual Resources
No Action. Under No Action, both existing and planned activities, described in section
4.4.2.1 would continue. Thus, no new facilities would be constructed that could impact
visual characteristics at the site. It is also not anticipated that these activities would
cause a change in the Bureau of Land Management VRM classification. The existing ORR
landscape character would still range from VRM Class 3 to Class 5.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Views of the construction and operation of the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would be similar to other existing
large industrial facilities at ORR. Of the tritium supply technologies, the APT would be
much less visually obtrusive because most of the facility would be low profile (figure
3.4.2.4-1). The existing landscape at the proposed site, presently VRM Class4, has been
moderately disturbed by roads and clear cutting for utility lines. Construction of any of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would impact visual aesthetics.
The proposed facilities could result in extensive surface disturbance and would result in
a change in the VRM landscape classification of the affected area from Class 4 to Class5.
These facilities would be visible from viewpoints along Bear Creek Road, State Route58,
and/or State Route 95. These viewpoints are highly sensitive because of their relatively
high traffic volumes. The use of a wet cooling system for an HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR would
potentially result in large cooling towers (up to 50stories high) and visible plumes
during certain atmospheric conditions.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline visual impacts would not change due to operation
of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity or the construction and operation of a
Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures such as rerouting public access
roadways (State Routes 58 and 95) away from the TSS, or siting the facilities away from
these roadways could reduce visual impacts. These measures could provide existing
vegetation and/or terrain to screen views and would allow landscaping, including heavy
plantings and earth berms to increase screening. Use of alternate architectural designs
and special materials for the proposed facilities would help facilities to blend with, or
complement, the existing landscape; and/or efficient site planning could minimize surface
disturbance to the existing landscape. The use of alternative cooling systems (such as low
profile cooling towers or mechanical draft dry cooling systems) could further reduce the
visual impacts caused by cooling tower vapor plumes from a HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR.

4.4.3.2 Site Infrastructure
This section discusses the site infrastructure for No Action and the modifications needed
for actions due to construction and operation of new tritium supply and recycling
facilities. With nominal increases to fuel procurement contracts, the ORR infrastructure
would be capable of supporting any of the proposed tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities selected for the site. A comparison of site infrastructure and
facilities resource needs for No Action and the proposed tritium supply alternatives is
presented in table 4.4.3.2-1.
Table 4.4.3.2-1.-Modifications to Site Infrastructure for Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
- Transportation Electrical Fuel
Alternative Roads Railroads Energy Peak Load Oil Natural Gas Coal
(miles) (miles) (MWh/yr) (MWe) (GPY) (million ft3/yr) (tons/yr)
Current Resources 43 17 12,368,800 1,411 980,600 3,122 25,000
No Action
Total site requirement 43 17 727,000 107 900,000 3,000 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -11,641,800 -1,304 -80,600 -122 10,000
Heavy Water Reactor
Total site requirement 43 17 1,185,000 174 1,032,000 3,247 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -11,183,800 -1,237 51,400 125 10,000
Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled
Reactor
Total site requirement 43 17 1,075,000 159 1,031,000 3,013 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -11,293,800 -1,252 50,400 -109 10,000
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 43 17 1,515,000 219 1,150,000 3,007 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -10,853,000 -1,192 169,400 -115 10,000
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 43 17 1,195,000 175 1,060,000 3,007 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -11,173,800 -1,236 169,400 -115 10,000
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 43 17 4,555,000 673 963,200 3,007 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -7,813,800 -738 -17,400 -115 10,000
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 43 17 3,215,000 478 963,200 3,007 35,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -9,153,800 -933 -17,400 -115 10,000
Note: A negative number (-) indicates that sufficient resources exist to meet the demands.
Source: FDI 1994h; DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; ORR
1993a:8.
No Action. The missions discussed in section 3.3.4 would continue under No Action. It is
anticipated that certain process improvements to be implemented in the near future
would eliminate specific effluents and emissions and reduce or eliminate some waste
streams. These process improvements, along with the expected reduction in workload for
Y-12, would result in reduced utilities infrastructure requirements for the ORR with the
exception of coal use. The increase in coal use is planned to take economic advantage of
this fuel source. Estimated reductions for other resource requirements are shown in table
4.4.3.2-1. No modifications are necessary under No Action. The existing site
infrastructure would adequately support all No Action missions.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The modifications to the infrastructure at ORR to support
the various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are summarized in table
4.4.3.2-1. Table 4.4.3.2-2 summarizes the demands the mission would place on the Tennessee
Valley Authority subregional electrical power pool. The pool would be able to meet the
additional ORR requirements for any tritium supply technology. The alternatives would
require between 1.14 and 12.44percent of the Tennessee Valley Authority subregional power
pool capacity margin and between 0.06 and 2.0percent of the Southeastern Electric
Reliability Council regional power pool capacity margin. Additional natural gas, oil, and
coal fuel requirements could be satisfied through normal contractual means. No other
modifications would be necessary.
Table 4.4.3.2-2.-Impacts on Subregional Electrical Power Pool from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
Tritium Supply Technology Peak Power Capacity Annual Energy Total Electricity
and Recycling Required Margin Required Production
(MWe) (percent) (MWh) (percent)
Heavy Water Reactor 67 1.47 458,000 0.29
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled 52 1.14 348,000 0.22
Reactor
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor 112 2.46 788,000 0.49
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor 68 1.5 468,000 0.29
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium 566 12.44 3,828,000 2.4
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium 371 8.15 2,488,000 1.56
Source: FDI 1994h; DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; ORR
1993a:8.
Tritium Supply Alone. If new tritium recycling facilities are not collocated with the
tritium supply facilities at ORR, and the upgraded recycling facility at SRS is utilized,
the overall impact at ORR would be reduced. Onsite transportation network and electrical
transmission line requirements would not be affected. The electrical power requirements
associated with each of the tritium supply technologies would decrease by 88,000MWh per
year with the peak load decreasing by 16MWe. This represents a reduction in the total
site peak power requirement of between 2 and 10percent with no appreciable change to the
capacity margin of the subregional power pool. Since the overall electrical requirements
still represent a reduction from current requirements, no additional impact would be
expected. The natural gas requirement would decrease by 7million ft3 per year and the fuel
oil requirement would decrease by 50,000gallons per year. This represents a decrease of
only about 2percent in the overall site requirement for natural gas and about 5percent for
fuel oil.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event that only the steady state component of the
baseline tritium requirement is required, the impacts on the site infrastructure would
change for some supply technologies. There would be no appreciable change for the HWR,
MHTGR, and the ALWR technologies. The Phased APT would reduce electrical consumption by
approximately 30percent but the fuel, onsite transportation infrastructure, and power line
requirements would not change.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or the ALWR multipurpose reactor option described in
section 4.8.3 could be sited at ORR. The site infrastructure impacts would vary depending
on the technology.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility described in section 4.8.3.1 along with three additional
MHTGR reactor modules. Fabrication of the plutonium-oxide fuel could be accomplished
in the fuel fabrication facility already included in the tritium supply MHTGR design.
Operation of this facility along with the six module MHTGR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 373,000 MW per year (55 percent)
and the total site fuel requirement by about 651,000 GPY (16 percent) over that for
operation of the three module tritium supply MHTGR.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. Operation of this facility along with the ALWR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 20,000 MWh per year (less than 2
percent) and the total site fuel requirement by about 830,000 GPY (20 percent) over that
for operation of the tritium supply ALWR.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated gas-fired power plant at ORR to
provide the necessary power for the APT could be constructed (section 4.8.2.2). This
would decrease the annual amount of electricity required to be purchased from commercial
sources by up to 3,740,000 MWh per year for the Full APT and 2,400,000 MWh for the Phased
APT. This gas plant would require 54,200million ft3 per year of natural gas to provide the
Full APT requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year and 34,800million ft3 per year of natural
gas to provide the Phased APT requirement of 2,400,000 MWh per year. Since this is a large
increase (11 to 17 times) over normal usage, the existing gas line would likely have to be
expanded.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The siting of new tritium supply and recycling facilities
would require only minor modifications to the existing site infrastructure. Siting of
utility infrastructure could follow existing rights-of-way or be upgraded in place to
minimize impacts to natural resources. Where new rights-of-way would need to be
constructed, alignments would consider existing sensitive habitat (e.g., wetlands,
streams, and vegetation) to minimize the potential for impacting these resources.

4.4.3.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology and recycling facility at ORR
would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that could potentially exceed
Federal and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. To determine the air
quality impacts, criteria and toxic/hazardous estimated concentrations from each
technology have been compared with Federal and state standards and guidelines. Impacts for
radiological airborne emissions are discussed in section 4.4.3.9.
In general, all of the proposed technologies would emit the same types of air pollutants
during construction. Emissions would typically not exceed Federal, state, or local air
quality regulations or guidelines, except that PM10 and TSP concentrations may be close to
or exceed the 24-hour PM10 and TSP standard during peak construction periods. This
exceedance is not uncommon for large construction projects.
During operation, impacts from each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities with respect to the concentrations of toxic/hazardous air pollutants are
predicted to be within standards set forth in Federal, state, and local air quality
regulations or guidelines.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect
ambient air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to
existing sources. Based on the emission rates presented in appendix table B.1.4-3,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for each of the proposed
alternatives at ORR. This may require "offsets," reductions of existing emissions, to
permit any additional or new emission source. The proximity of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Class I areas may require significantly more stringent
mitigation for air resource impacts.
Noise emissions during either construction or operation are expected to be low. Air
quality and acoustic impacts for each technology are described separately. Supporting data
for the air quality and acoustics analysis, including modeling results, are presented in
appendix B.
Air Quality
An analysis was conducted of the potential air quality impacts of emissions from each
tritium supply technology and recycling facility. The air quality modeling analysis used
the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model recommended by EPA. The resulting air
quality concentrations were then evaluated against local and state air quality regula-
tions, and NAAQS (40 CFR 50). The potential exceedance of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (40 CFR 52.21) increments for PM10, SO2, or NO2 was also determined.
No Action. No Action utilizes estimated air emissions data from current operations at ORR
extrapolated to the year 2010 assuming continuation of site missions as described in
section 3.3.3. These data reflect conservative estimates of criteria and toxic/hazardous
emissions at ORR. The emission rates for the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for
No Action are presented in appendix table B.1.4-3. Table 4.4.3.3-1 presents the No Action
concentrations. Pollutant concentrations are in compliance with all air quality reg-
ulations and guidelines.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Alternatives for ORR consist of four candidate technologies:
HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT, alone or collocated with tritium recycling facilities. Air
pollutants would be emitted during construction of the tritium supply and recycling
facilities. The principal sources of such emissions during construction include the
following:
Fugitive dust from land clearing, site preparation, excavation, wind erosion of exposed
ground surfaces, and operation of a concrete batch plant.
Exhaust from and road dust raised by construction equipment, vehicles delivering
construction material, and vehicles carrying construction workers.
PM10 and TSP concentrations are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient
standard during the peak construction period. Exceedances would be expected to occur
during dry and windy conditions. Appropriate control measures would be followed, such as
watering to reduce emissions. With the exception of PM10 and TSP, it is expected that
concentrations of all other pollutants at the ORR boundary or public access highways,
would remain within applicable Federal and state ambient air quality standards.
Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of each of the technologies
include all or part of the following:
Increased operation of existing boilers to generate additional steam for space heating.
Operation of diesel generators and periodic testing of emergency diesel generators.
Recycling operations.
Exhaust from and road dust raised by vehicles.
Appendix table B.1.4-3 presents emissions from each of the proposed tritium supply
technology and recycling facilities. There are no gaseous releases associated with the APT
(SNL 1995a), although emissions are associated with operation of the tritium supply
facility included with the APT and with recycling facilities. Emissions from the Large
ALWR were used to determine pollutant concentrations since these represent the maximum
emission rates from either the Large or Small ALWR. Concentrations of pollutants from
the operation of each of the tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR are presented
in table 4.4.3.3-1. Pollutant concentrations, combined with No Action concentrations,
are in compliance with Federal and state standards.
Table 4.4.3.3-1.-Estimated Cumulative Concentrations of Pollutants Resulting from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling Including No Action at Oak Ridge Reservation [Page 1 of
2]
- - - - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Pollutant Averaging Most Stringent 2010 HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Time Regulation or No Action (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) Recycling
Guideline (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 5 61 194 75 27 22
1-hour 40,000 11 267 879 334 111 100
Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 0.05 0.05a 0.05a 0.05a 0.05a c
Quarter
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 3 6 12 11 4 1
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 b c c c c c
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 9 10 9 9 9 0.2
24-hour 150 56 62 59 61 59 2.9
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 29 29 29 29 29 0.02
24-hour 365 105 106 106 106 105 0.2
3-hour 1,300 401 405 404 408 402 1.2
Mandated by Tennessee
Hydrogen fluoride 30-day 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 e
(as fluorides) 7-day 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 c
24-hour 2.9 e e e e e e
12-hour 3.7 e e e e e e
8-hour 250 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 c
Total suspended particulatesd 24-hour 150 75 81 78 80 78 2.9
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds
Acetone 8-hour 178,000 c c c 9.7 c c
Acetylene 8-hour f c 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
Ammonia 8-hour 1,700 c c c 5.1 c c
Chlorine 8-hour 150 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 e
Chlorodifluoromethane 8-hour 354,000 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 c
Dichlorodifluoromethane 8-hour 495,000 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 c
Ethyl alcohol 8-hour 188,000 c 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (Continued)
Hydrogen chloride 8-hour 750 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 c
Methane 8-hour f c 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
Methyl alcohol 8-hour 26,200 140.7 141.9 141.9 141.9 141.9 1.2
Nitric acid 8-hour 520 50.8 56.6 50.8 118.5 50.8 c
Sulfuric acid 8-hour 100 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 c
Tetrachloroethylene 8-hour 33,900 65.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 c
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8-hour 191,000 4 4.9 4.3 26.2 4 c
Trichlorofluoromethane 8-hour 562,000 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6 c
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 8-hour 767,000 14.6 55.7 14.6 14.6 14.6 c
Pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of tritium supply technologies alone
(HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT) consist of criteria pollutants from the operation of boilers
and diesel generators and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions from facility processes.
Criteria pollutant emissions from the MHTGR are the highest among the other tritium supply
technologies and would increase existing total site criteria pollutant emissions by less
than 5percent above No Action emissions. Concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous
pollutants, added to No Action concentrations, are in compliance with Federal and state
standards.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Air emissions from the HWR would be reduced slightly when
operated at reduced capacity. However, the reduction would be negligible since most
emissions are attributed to support equipment and facilities that are not related to the
reactor operating level. The MHTGR or ALWR would have no change in air emissions because
it would continue to operate at the same level as the baseline requirement to maintain
power levels for steam or electrical production. The Phased APT construction and operation
emissions and impacts would be the same as the Full APT.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Operation of a 500 to 600 MWe natural gas
electric generating facility (section 4.8.2.2) would generate a substantial amount of
emissions consisting of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These emissions would be controlled using the best available control technology to
minimize impacts and comply with NAAQS and state mandated emission standards.
Estimated emissions are based upon emissions factors for a large controlled gas turbine
(EPA 1995a; SPS 1995a). Table B.1.3.1-3 presents the emission factors and resulting annual
emission rates of a 600 MWe natural gas-fired turbine power plant.
For a natural gas-fired power plant located at ORR, the increase in carbon monoxide
emissions with respect to the 2010 No Action emissions at ORR would be approximately
72percent (75 tons per year); for nitrogen oxides the increase would be approximately
33percent (314 tons per year); for particulate matter the increase would be approxi-
mately 897percent (179 tons per year); for sulfur dioxide the increase would be less than
1percent (5tons per year); and for volatile organic compounds the increase would be
approximately 5,382percent (215 tons per year). In addition, the gas turbine generating
facility would generate 126 tons per year of methane, 58 tons per year of ammonia, 29 tons
per year of nonmethane hydrocarbons, and 24 tons per year of formaldehyde.
Any power plant facility constructed to meet the power needs of the APT would be required
to meet the Federal NAAQS and state mandated regulations for toxic/hazardous pollutants.
Appropriate pollution control equipment would be incorporated into the design of that
facility to meet these standards.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures during construction include
watering to reduce dust emissions; applying nontoxic soil stabilizers to all inactive
construction areas; cover, water, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed piles (i.e.,
gravel, sand, dirt); suspend all excavation and grading operations when wind speeds
warrant; pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50daily trips
by construction equipment; and using electricity from power poles rather than temporary
gasoline and diesel power generators. Potential mitigation measures during operation
include incorporating additional HEPA filters to reduce particulate emissions from
processing facilities; substituting cleaning solvents for those that present health
hazards or exceed the applicable standards; and switching from coal or fuel oil to produce
electricity or steam to natural gas to reduce criteria pollutants.
Acoustics
The location of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities relative to the
site boundary and sensitive receptors was examined to determine the contribution to noise
levels at these locations and the potential for onsite and offsite impacts.
No Action. The continuation of operations at ORR would result in no appreciable change in
traffic noise and onsite operational noise sources from current levels (section 4.4.2.3).
The nontraffic noise sources associated with operation are located at sufficient distance
from offsite noise sensitive receptors that the contribution to offsite noise levels would
continue to be small.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Noise sources during construction may include
heavy-construction equipment and increased traffic. Increased traffic would occur onsite
and along major offsite transportation routes used to bring construction material and
workers to the site.
Most nontraffic noise sources associated with operation of any of the tritium supply and
recycling facilities would be located at sufficient distance from offsite areas that the
contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be small. Based on the size of the
site, noise emissions from construction equipment and machinery and from operational
facilities, equipment, explosives, and machinery would not be expected to cause
annoyance to the public.
Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes would be considered in
tiered NEPA documents. Some nontraffic noise sources associated with construction and
operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities may be located close
enough to offsite noise receptors that they could experience some increase in noise
levels.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline noise impacts would not change due to reactors
operating at reduced capacity or the construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential measures to minimize noise impacts on workers
include the use of standard silencing packages on construction equipment and providing
workers in noisy environments with appropriate hearing protection devices meeting OSHA
standards. As required, noise levels would be measured in worker areas, and a hearing
protection program would be conducted.

4.4.3.4 Water Resources
Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at ORR would affect both surface
water and groundwater resources. The proposed site for the tritium supply and recycling
facilities would be outside any 100-year floodplain. Complete information on the location
of the 500-year floodplain at ORR is currently unavailable. At ORR, surface water
resources, primarily the Clinch River, would be used to meet all construction and
operation water requirements. The Clinch River has sufficient flow to support any of the
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. During construction, treated
sanitary wastewater would be discharged in compliance with NPDES permit requirements to
nearby streams. No construction-related discharge would exceed 0.2percent of the Clinch
River's average flow. Any construction-related impacts would be mitigated by standard
erosion control practices with the exception of the large amount of dewatering wastewater
generated during the construction of the MHTGR and APT where detention basins may become
necessary to control the discharge. During operation of the tritium supply and recycling
facilities, treated wastewater and cooling system blowdown would be discharged to nearby
streams. Because of the manner in which blowdown is usually released (e.g., high velocity
pulsed releases), it has the potential to scour streambeds and erode stream banks of small
receiving streams. Impacts from blowdown velocity and elevated temperatures can be
mitigated with energy dissipating structures, cooling water canals, or retention basins.
During operation, stormwater runoff would be collected, and treated if necessary, before
discharge to natural drainage channels in accordance with NPDES permit requirements.
Table 4.4.3.4-1.-Potential Changes to Water Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Affected Resource Indicator No Action HWR MHTGR Large Small Full Phased Tritium
ALWRa ALWRa APT APT Recycling
Construction (2005)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
Total water requirement (MGY) 1,849 1,870 1,867 1,882 1,869 1,857 1,857 1.5
Percent increase in projected water use 0 1 1 2 1 <1 <1 NA
Percent change in Clinch River flow from 0.2 <0.002 <0.002 <0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 NA
withdrawals
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters (MGY) NA 16.5 13.6 27.5 15.5 0.3 0.3 0.9
Percent change in stream flow NA 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 NA
NPDES permit required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Operation (2010)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
Total water requirement 1,849 7,749 5,849 17,849 9,049 3,049 2,619 14
Percent increase in projected water used 0 320 217 866 390 66 42 NA
Percent change in Clinch River flow from 0.2 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 NA
withdrawalse
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters (MGY) negligible 48 30 90 50 0.2 0.2 13
Percent change in stream flowf NA 0.005 0.004 0.009 0.005 0.001 0.001 NA
Blowdown discharge to surface waters (MGD) NA 9.6 6.7 25.8 11.7 1 0.7 0.04
Percent change in stream flowi NA 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.02 0.01 NA
NPDES permit required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Floodplain
Actions in 100-year floodplain NA No No No No No No No
Critical actions in 500-year floodplain NA Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain
Floodplain assessment required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year NA
Minimal impacts to groundwater are anticipated because no water will be withdrawn and no
direct discharges would occur during construction and operation. Table 4.4.3.4-1
presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the potential changes to
water resources at ORR resulting from the proposed tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities. Resource requirements for each tritium supply technology shown in
this table represent the total requirements at the site, including No Action. Resource
requirements for tritium recycling are added to these values to obtain water resource
requirements for assessing impacts associated with combined tritium supply and recycling.
Surface Water
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to surface water resources are
anticipated beyond the effects of existing and future activities which are independent of
and not affected by the proposed action. A description of the activities that would
continue at ORR is provided in section 3.3.4. Under No Action, because of reduced
operating requirements of existing facilities at ORR, surface water withdrawals from the
Clinch River are expected to decrease to 0.2percent of the river's average flow.
Wastewater discharges from Y-12 would continue to East Fork Poplar Creek and Bear Creek
although the volume would decrease.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Surface water withdrawals during construction of any tritium
supply technology, with or without the tritium recycling facilities, would comprise no
more than 0.003percent of the Clinch River's average flow and would therefore have no
adverse effect on flow or downstream users. Treated wastewater effluent released to
surface streams would be less than 0.002percent of the average flow of the Clinch River.
Similarly, discharges to East Fork Poplar Creek would not exceed 0.2percent of the
creek's average flow. All discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and
other discharge requirements. The potential impacts during construction would be erosion
of disturbed land and siltation in surface waters. To minimize soil erosion impacts,
stormwater management and erosion control measures would be implemented.
In addition to wastewater effluent, MHTGR or APT would require dewatering because of
construction activities below the water table. The amount of dewatering discharges would
depend on hydrologic and engineering conditions of the site. These discharges could either
be directed to Clinch River or East Fork Poplar Creek and are expected to exhibit low
turbidity and not require settling basins. However, temporary sediment basins to remove
soil particles could be built as part of standard soil erosion and sediment control plans
for the site. Dewatering discharges to East Fork Poplar Creek could cause stream bank
erosion, increased turbidity, stream bed scouring, and potential flooding. As discussed in
section 4.4.2.4, DOE is currently involved with remediation of East Fork Poplar Creek
under CERCLA. Any discharges including cooling tower blowdown involved with tritium
production that may potentially impact East Fork Poplar Creek would require engineering
design mitigation measures to avoid interference with the goals of the remediation effort.
More detailed analyses would be conducted during site-specific NEPA studies to evaluate
the site conditions and the amount of dewatering needed, construction techniques to
reduce dewatering, and to identify mitigation measures. Construction of an HWR or ALWR
would require much less dewatering, and the impact on East Fork Popular Creek or Clinch
River are expected to be minor.
Operation of the Large ALWR would require the most water, approximately 16,000 MGY or
approximately 1percent of the Clinch River's average flow. The other tritium supply
technologies, with or without tritium recycling, would require no more than 0.8percent of
this flow. Treated sanitary, process, and utility wastewater discharge of the Large ALWR
with recycling (103MGY) released to East Fork Poplar Creek would not exceed 1percent of
the creek's average flow and therefore should not result in any downstream effects.
Release to the Clinch River would represent 0.009percent of the average flow. All
discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit limits. Stormwater runoff from
the main plant area would be collected in detention ponds, monitored, and if acceptable,
discharged to nearby streams. Stormwater runoff from outside the main plant area, except
those facilities that require onsite management controls by regulation such as sanitary
wastewater treatment plants and landfills, would be discharged to nearby streams.
Unlike wastewater effluent from treatment facilities, which is released on a continuous
basis, cooling system blowdown activities discharge greater quantities over a shorter
period of time. The Large ALWR would release approximately 26million gallons of blowdown
water once a day over a 1-hour period. The other tritium supply technologies would release
less than half of this amount. Without engineered measures such as those described under
"Potential Mitigation Measures," blowdown from the Large ALWR and other tritium supply
technologies would temporarily increase the average flow rate of receiving streams by
0.5percent (for Clinch River) and 78percent (for East Fork Poplar Creek). These discharges
would cause scouring of streambeds, erosion of stream channels, increased turbidity, and
potential flooding of areas. In addition to impacts from the discharge velocity of the
blowdown, the high temperature of the releases could also affect receiving waters. As
discussed in section 4.4.2.4, DOE is currently involved with remediation of East Fork
Poplar Creek under CERCLA. Any discharges including cooling tower blowdown involved with
tritium production that may potentially impact East Fork Poplar Creek would require
engineering design mitigation measures to avoid interference with the goals of the
remediation effort. Engineering measures incorporated in technology design adapted to site
conditions could significantly reduce these impacts. Various cooling system blowdown
disposal options would be evaluated in site-specific tiered NEPA documents. All discharges
to surface waters would be subject to and required to comply with NPDES permit
requirements.
Blowdown would also contain concentrated chemicals and diffused tritium. Depending on the
operation of the system, blowdown chemical and tritium concentrations would range from
between 2.5to 5times the river water concentrations. Previous studies of tritium
concentrations in liquid discharges from reactors operating at higher production rates
than anticipated for the proposed facilities showed that the concentration in the
receiving water of a river having a comparable flow to the Clinch River did not exceed the
water quality standard of 20,000 pCi/l after dilution. For the purpose of this analysis,
it is anticipated that any release of tritium from the proposed facilities would not
exceed the water quality standard for tritium and would comply with NPDES discharge
requirements. For information on the radiological constituents present in cooling system
blowdown, refer to section 4.4.3.9.
The proposed site for the tritium supply and recycling facilities lies outside the
100-year floodplain. However, since 500-year floodplain information does not exist for
this portion of ORR, and because operation of the tritium supply and recycling facilities
may constitute a critical action, an assessment of the 500-year floodplain would be
required before construction activities were initiated. This study would be done for
site-specific assessments and appropriate design considerations made on the results.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR at reduced capacity to meet a tritium
supply requirement less than baseline would reduce slightly the operation water
requirements and the quantity of water discharges. A reduction in the temperature of
cooling water discharges would be expected because of the lower thermal output of the
reactor. The MHTGR or ALWR water requirements and discharges would not change from the
baseline, therefore the potential impacts would remain the same.
Operation of the Phased APT (with tritium recycling) would require 784MGY (table
4.4.3.4-1), a 42-percent increase over projected No Action water use. This is
approximately two-thirds of the 66-percent increase required by the Full APT, and is
0.07percent of the Clinch River's average flow. The 0.2MGY of wastewater discharges from
the Phased APT would not exceed 1percent of Clinch River's average flow and should not
have any downstream effects. The Phased APT would discharge 0.7million gallons of blowdown
water during 1hour every day. This is approximately one-half of the blowdown discharge of
the Full APT (1 MGD), and is 0.02percent of Clinch River's average flow and 1.3percent of
East Fork Poplar Creek's average flow. This discharge is less than the blowdown of the
other technologies and its impacts would be less than but similar to those of other
technologies. All other requirements of the Phased APT are identical to those of the Full
APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. For the multipurpose MHTGR, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would be constructed and operated to support the reactors. The construction of the
multipurpose MHTGR and the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would require an additional
24.3 MGY, which would be a 35percent increase over the surface water use for the MHTGR
tritium supply facility, and less than 1percent of the Clinch River's average flow. Water
use during operation of the MHTGR multipurpose reactor (7,200 MGY) and the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility (10 MGY), would total 7,210 MGY and would be a 78.2percent
increase over the surface water use for the MHTGR tritium supply facility and 4.6percent
of the Clinch River's average flow.
During construction and operation of a multipurpose MHTGR and Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility, all wastewater generated would be treated at either the Y-12 Centralized
Pollution Control Facility or at the Y-12 West End Treatment Facility prior to being
released to NPDES permitted outfalls. During construction, approximately 269 MGY of
wastewater would be generated and during operations approximately 394 MGY of wastewater
would be generated. These discharge rates would not exceed 0.3percent of the average flow.
Potential impacts from stream flow increases, such as streambed scouring and sediment
transport, would increase due to the increase in discharge volume. Engineering measures
could be implemented to minimize impacts of the discharges. Treatment of all wastewater
discharges would minimize potential impacts to water quality. Therefore, impacts from the
additional water discharges would not be substantially different than those expected
from the tritium supply MHTGR analyzed in this PEIS.
Water use during construction and operation of an ALWR multipurpose reactor would be the
same as previously discussed for an ALWR tritium supply facility. However, as discussed in
section 4.8.3, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility would
have to be constructed and operated in conjunction with an ALWR multipurpose reactor. A
Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility would use an additional 0.5 MGY of
surface water during construction, which would be less than a 1-percent increase over the
surface water use for the ALWR tritium supply facility, and 1.6percent of the Clinch
River's average flow. During operation, approximately 10million gallons of water would be
used, which would be a 0.05percent increase over the surface water use for the ALWR
tritium supply facility and 1.6percent of the Clinch River's average flow.
During construction and operation of a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication
Facility an additional 3 and 10 MGY of sanitary wastewater, respectively, would be
generated and treated at either the Y-12 Central Pollution Control Facility or at the Y-12
West End Treatment Facility before being released to surface waters. These discharge
amounts would have similar impacts as those discussed for the ALWR tritium supply
facility.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the
technology at ORR. Water requirements for the natural gas-fired power plant would be
approximately 80MGY in addition to the surface water requirements previously discussed for
the APT. Operation of the Full APT (with tritium recycling) and the dedicated power plant
would require a total site surface water withdrawal of 3,943MGY, that would be a 2-percent
increase over the surface water requirements for the Full APT without the dedicated power
plant (3,863 MGY), and is 0.34percent of the Clinch River average flow.
The demineralized backwash generated during operations would contain dilute
concentrations of trace metals, and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and
sulfate. However, with appropriate wastewater treatment at either the Y-12 Central
Pollution Control Facility or at the Y-12 West End Treatment Facility, minimal impacts to
surface waters would be expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Surface water impacts associated with construction could be
mitigated by applying standard erosion control practices. Impacts from operational
discharges, such as scouring and erosion in stream channels, could be mitigated through
retention basins to accommodate the volume of wastewater flow. Blowdown velocity and
temperature impacts could be mitigated with energy dissipating structures such as plunge
or stilling basins, cooling water canals, or retention basins. Lined conveyance channels
with additional energy dissipation features could also be designed to further reduce the
velocity of flow prior to entering the natural stream channel and discharges directed
through a series of detention ponds to reduce discharge velocities and allow the water to
cool.
Groundwater
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated
beyond the effects of existing and future activities which are independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action. A description of the activities that would continue at
ORR is provided in section 3.3.4. Currently, no groundwater is used.
Water quality data obtained from wells located near the Y-12 facility indicate that water
quality is above or bordering drinking water standards for a number of parameters (table
4.4.2.4-1). Under No Action, current restoration programs would continue onsite and
offsite. Process and wastewater would continue to be treated at either the Y-12 Central
Pollution Control Facility or at the Y-12 West End Treatment Facility before being
released to surface waters. Minimal impacts on groundwater quality are expected due to
wastewater releases.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. All water for construction and operation of tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would be taken from the Clinch River, with no
plans for withdrawal from groundwater resources. All process, utility, and sanitary
wastewater will be treated prior to discharge into East Fork Poplar Creek in accordance
with NPDES permits. Minimal impact to groundwater quality is expected.
Any salt coming from the cooling tower would have originated from the Clinch River.
Because the salt is concentrated in a wet cooling tower, it can potentially damage
vegetation in a small area near the facility. At ORR there is adequate rainwater and
groundwater flow such that the salt from the cooling tower would be flushed into the
groundwater and diluted. The groundwater and surface water systems are connected such that
the salt originating from the Clinch River and reaching the groundwater will return to the
river and the total amount of salt in the ecological system would remain the same.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Potential groundwater quality impacts described above
would not change due to changes in reactor operating capacities, or the construction and
operation of a Phased APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or a ALWR multipurpose reactor option at ORR would require
a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility to be constructed in conjunction with the reactors. Water
used for both of the reactors and support facilities would be obtained from surface water
resources with no plans to withdraw groundwater resources during operations.
During operation, wastewater and sanitary water would continue to be treated at either the
Y-12 Central Pollution Control Facility or at the Y-12 West End Treatment Facility before
being released to surface waters, to minimize potential impacts to groundwater resources.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the
technology at ORR. Water requirements (approximately 80MGY) for the natural gas-fired
power plant would be obtained from surface water resources with no plans to withdraw
groundwater during operation. Therefore there will be no impacts to groundwater levels.
During operations demineralized backwash containing dilute concentrations of trace
metals and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate would be
generated. With the appropriate wastewater treatment at either the Y-12 Central Pollution
Control Facility or at the Y-12 West End Treatment Facility, negligible impacts to
groundwater quality would be anticipated.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures have been identified because no
impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated.

4.4.3.5 Geology and Soils
Construction of tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR would have no impact on
geological resources, and hazards posed by geological conditions are expected to be
minor. Construction could disturb a few hundred surface acres of soil, the amount
depending on the tritium supply technology and the collocation of recycling facilities.
Control measures would be used to minimize soil erosion. Impacts would depend on the
specific soil units in the disturbed area, the extent of land disturbing activity, and the
amount of soil disturbed. Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the
construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities are discussed
below.
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned activities at ORR. Any
impacts to geology and soils from these actions would be independent of and unaffected
by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would not affect geologic
conditions. Facility design would ensure that they would not be adversely affected by
geologic conditions.
There are no known capable faults within the boundaries of ORR. There is little chance
for ground rupture as a result of an earthquake; minor ground shaking is more likely but
is not anticipated during the life of the proposed project. Intensities of more than VI on
the modified Mercalli scale are not likely at ORR. Ground shaking could affect the
integrity of poorly designed or nonreinforced existing structures but would not affect
newly designed facilities. Based on the seismic history of the area, low seismic risk
exists at ORR, but this should not preclude safe construction and operation of tritium
supply and collocated recycling facilities or tritium supply alone. In addition, all
facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance
with DOE Order 5480.28 and accompanying safety guides.
Volcanic activity has not occurred in the area formillions of years and is extremely
unlikely to impact the project. It is also highly unlikely that landslides or other
nontectonic movements would affect project activities. Slopes and underlying foundation
materials are generally stable. Sinkholes are present in the Knox Dolomite, but it is
unlikely that they would impact the project, as the Knox Dolomite is not present in Bear
Creek Valley (potential site).
Properties and conditions of soils underlying the proposed site have no limitations on
construction. Soils would be impacted by construction and operation of the facilities. The
amount of acreage that would potentially be disturbed by the tritium supply technologies
is shown in table 4.4.3.1-1 and for tritium recycling is 202 acres. Soils, therefore,
would not adversely effect the safe operation of project activities.
The soil disturbance from construction of new facilities could be as much as 562 acres
for a collocated MHTGR with the new recycling facilities. Disturbance would occur at
building, parking, and construction laydown areas, destroying the soil profile, and
leading to a possible temporary increase in erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and
wind action. Soil losses would depend on frequency of storms; wind velocities; size and
location of the facilities with respect to drainage and wind patterns; slopes, shape,
and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and, particularly during the construction
period, the duration of time the soil is bare. Construction of both the MHTGR and the
APT would also necessitate deep excavations to accommodate reactor modules and an
accelerator tunnel, respectively (sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.4). A considerable volume
of spoil would be removed as a result of the excavations. Most of the material removed
would be shale and limestone bedrock and could be stockpiled for use as fill. Some of this
material could be used to cover the accelerator tunnel of the APT. Site-specific NEPA
studies would evaluate in detail impacts to geology and soils at ORR resulting from deep
excavations required for the MHTGR and the APT and would identify appropriate mitigation
measures.
Net soil disturbance during operation would be less than for construction because some
areas temporarily used for laydown would be restored. Although erosion from stormwater
runoff and wind action could occur occasionally during operation, it is anticipated to
be minimal.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures would be used to minimize soil loss.
Wind erosion is likely to occur on an intermittent basis, depending on the wind
velocities, the amount of soil exposed, and the effectiveness of control measures.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Under less than baseline operations, geology and soil
impacts would not change for the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR technologies. Disturbed acreage for
the Phased APT would be the same as the baseline tritium requirement for the Full APT;
therefore, impacts would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. The multipurpose MHTGR would disturb an additional 270 acres of land
to accommodate the construction of three additional reactor modules and a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility. The additional land area disturbances would result in the
destruction of the soil profile and potential temporary increase in erosion as a result of
stormwater runoff and wind action. The three additional reactor modules would also
double the excavation requirements over that for the tritium supply MHTGR. The excavated
soil would substantially increase the volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal.
Impacts on ground water resources from the excavation are not expected. Groundwater flow
direction may be influenced in the immediate construction area from the extent of the
excavation. However, appropriate engineering measures are available to minimize potential
groundwater infiltration into the excavation and groundwater impacts.
Construction impacts for the multipurpose ALWR would be the same as those described for
the tritium supply ALWR. Additional soil impacts would be expected from the construction
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility needed to
support the multipurpose ALWR. Approximately 129 acres would be disturbed for the new
facility, destroying the soil profile and leading to a possible temporary increase in
erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on
frequency of storms; wind velocity; location of the facility with respect to drainage and
wind pattern; slope, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and the duration
of time the soil is bare.
Soil impacts during operation are expected to be minimal. Appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures would be used to minimize any long-term soil losses.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be required to control erosion of
soil, especially during construction. Potential measures include accepted standard
practices for erosion, sediment, and dust control such as silt fences, sediment traps,
runoff diversion dikes, drainageways, sedimentation ponds, establishment of ground cover
and windbreaks, grading of slopes, and construction of berms or other controls appropriate
to the sites. Standard control for wind erosion, such as wetting the surface, could be
done on a day-to-day basis. Exposing only small areas for limited periods of time, as
necessary, could also reduce erosional effects. After the construction period, long-term
control measures could include grading, revegetation or landscaping.

4.4.3.6 Biotic Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR would affect
biotic resources. Impacts resulting from the construction of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or Full
APT to meet the baseline tritium requirement would occur only at the beginning of the
project life cycle. The less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT could incur some
additional construction-related impacts if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium
requirements. The potential impacts would be minor since the expansion would occur in
the already developed main plant site. Impacts to terrestrial resources would result from
the loss of habitat during construction and operation. Displacement of wetlands would be
avoided or mitigated in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state
agencies. Without mitigation measures, water discharged during construction and operation
could disturb wetlands and aquatic habitat. No Federal-listed threatened or endangered
species would be affected by the proposed action. However, several special status plant
species could be destroyed and special status animal species could be affected, primarily
through the loss of potential foraging, nesting, or spawning habitat during construction.
Where potential conflicts could occur, mitigation measures would be developed in
consultation with the USFWS. Consultation would be conducted at the site-specific level in
tiered NEPA documents. Table 4.4.3.6-1 summarizes the potential changes to biotic
resources at ORR resulting from the proposed action. No major differences in impacts to
biotic resources exist between the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities. However, MHTGR or APT-related construction and operation discharges have the
potential to impact wetlands and aquatic resources to a greater degree than the other
tritium supply technologies.
The following discussion of impacts from a multipurpose reactor and a dedicated power
plant for the APT applies to the biotic resources at ORR as a whole. Where potential
impacts to a specific biotic resource are notable for the tritium supply technologies, the
discussion on multipurpose reactors identifies the potential impacts to the same resource.
Multipurpose Reactor. The selection of the multipurpose reactor option could result in
additional impacts to biotic resources at ORR. The MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility and the ALWR Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
would require an additional 129 acres of land. However, it is expected that during the
design phase, land requirements for this facility would be substantially reduced when
integrated into the reactor and recycling facility design. In addition, an MHTGR would
require three additional modules which would displace about 240 acres. Thus, total land
requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors would be 931 and 691 acres,
respectively. In general, impacts to terrestrial resources species would be similar to,
but greater than, those described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Although the fuel fabrication facility would require some additional water, construction
and operation of the MHTGR would greatly increase both water use and discharge. Selection
of the ALWR as the multipurpose reactor would not result in an increase in water use or
wastewater discharge beyond the increase required for the fuel fabrication facility. If
the MHTGR option is selected, impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources would be greater
than those described for construction and operation of the three module MHTGR. Mitigation
measures would be required to lessen impacts to these resources.
Table 4.4.3.6-1.-Potential Impacts to Biotic Resources During Construction and Operation
Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
Affected Resource Indicator No Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Action
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Acres of habitat disturbed 0 462 562a 552a 375a 202
Wetlands potentially impacted None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Aquatic resources potentially None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
impacted
Number of threatened and 0/0 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12
endangered species
potentially affected
For both the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactor options, impacts to threatened and endan-
gered species would be similar to, but greater than, those described for the tritium
supply and recycling facility. This is primarily the case since more land and water would
be required.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated natural gas-fired power plant,
similar to that described in section 4.8.2.2, could be an option to support an APT at ORR.
This facility, which would be constructed on the proposed TSS, would occupy 25 acres of
land. Construction of the gasfired power plant would increase the land disturbance
associated with the APT from 375 to 400 acres. This would result in a slight increase in
impacts to terrestrial resources over those described for the tritium supply and
recycling facility. Infrastructure requirements, such as parking and laydown areas,
would be incorporated into and take advantage of similar requirements associated with the
APT. Rights-of-way would be sited to take advantage of existing corridors to the maximum
extent practical. Since wet cooling towers would be used, impacts to vegetation from salt
drift are possible.
Direct and indirect impacts to wetlands resulting from construction of a power plant would
be similar to those described for the APT. If new intake and discharge structures are
required, wetlands bordering the affected waterbody could be impacted. Also, the discharge
of cooling and other wastewater could adversely affect any wetlands in the vicinity of the
outfall. Any impacts to wetlands would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and all discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and state water
quality requirements.
Direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction of a natural gas-fired power
plant would be similar to those described for the APT. Construction of new intake and
discharge structures, if required, could adversely impact aquatic resources by distur-
bance of the stream bottom. Downstream impacts could result from sedimentation and
turbidity. Such impacts would be temporary in nature. Operational impacts could include
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Also, if discharges represented a large
proportion of the streamflow of the receiving waterbody, streambed scouring and subsequent
increases in turbidity and downstream sedimentation could affect aquatic habitat,
including spawning habitat. Thermal impacts from the discharge of cooling tower blowdown
are also possible. Many of these potential impacts could be reduced through proper design
of intake and discharge structures and by taking water from and discharging it to larger
waterbodies. All effluent discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and Tennessee
Water Quality Control Act requirements.
Impacts from construction and operation of a power plant on threatened and endangered
species would be similar to those described for the APT. Results of preactivity surveys
associated with the APT would also apply to the power plant. If new intake and discharge
structures are required, preactivity surveys also would be required for these structures.
Terrestrial Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.3 would continue at ORR.
This would result in no changes to current terrestrial conditions at ORR described in
section 4.4.2.6.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT
in the proposed TSS would result in the disturbance of approximately 462, 562, 552, or 375
acres, respectively, or 1.6percent or less of ORR (table 4.4.3.6-1). These acreages
include areas on which the tritium supply and recycling facility would be constructed, as
well as areas that would be revegetated following construction.
Vegetation within the area to be developed would be destroyed during land clearing.
Vegetation cover within the proposed TSS is predominantly oak-hickory forest or pine and
pine-hardwood forest (figure 4.4.2.6-1). While both types would be affected by
construction, it is likely that a greater area of pine and pine-hardwood forests would be
removed. This type of forest is more heavily concentrated in valleys where most of the
development would occur. Oak-hickory forests are typically found on ridges. Both forest
types are common throughout ORR and within the region.
Constructing any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would have
some adverse effects on animal populations. Less mobile animals within the proposed
project area, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, would be destroyed during
land-clearing activities. Construction activities would cause larger mammals and birds in
the construction area and adjacent areas to move to similar habitat nearby. The long-term
survival of these animals would depend on whether the area where they migrated to was at
or below its carrying capacity. Nests and young animals living within the proposed TSS
could be lost during construction. Upon completion of construction, revegetated areas
would be of minimal value to most wildlife since they would be maintained as landscaped
areas.
Salt drift from wet cooling towers may cause salt deposition on surrounding land areas and
vegetation. Recent data on deposition rates from a similar sized cooling tower at ORR are
not available. However, previous studies for a proposed tritium reactor at SRS, which was
designed for the southeastern United States, would be expected to be applicable to ORR.
The proposed SRS reactor was predicted to impact 13 acres at a deposition rate of 15.2
pounds per acre per month. This is the level at which salt stress symptoms could become
evident on sensitive plants (DOE 1992e: 5-213). While specific data are not available,
all the proposed tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would use less water
than the previous SRS design. Assuming similar parameters for the ORR and SRS cooling
towers, impacts from salt drift at ORR are expected to be less. Potential impacts would be
further reduced since a portion of the salt drift would fall on developed areas in the
vicinity of the cooling tower.
Activities associated with facility operation, such as noise and human presence, could
affect wildlife living immediately adjacent to the tritium supply and recycling facility.
These disturbances may cause some species to move from the area.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to terrestrial resources but less than those described for a collocated tritium
supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since 202 fewer acres of habitat
would be disturbed.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction-related impacts of the less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT
would be similar to those described above. Some additional construction-related impacts
could occur if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential
impacts would be minor since the expansion activities would occur in the already developed
main plant site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The loss of habitat due to construction and operation of
tritium supply and recycling facilities may be mitigated by revegetating with native
species where possible. Disturbance to wildlife living in areas adjacent to the facility
may be minimized by preventing workers from entering undisturbed areas. It may be
necessary to survey the TSS for the nests of migrating birds prior to construction and/or
avoid clearing operations during the breeding season.
Wetlands
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.3 would continue at ORR.
This would result in no change to site wetlands. Section 4.4.2.6 describes current wetland
resource conditions at ORR.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Because the majority of the area in which the proposed
tritium supply technology and recycling facilities would be located is upland, it is
expected that direct impacts to wetlands could be avoided. Implementation of erosion and
sediment control measures would control secondary impacts. Any unavoidable displacement of
wetlands would be made in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.
Construction-related discharges would be directed to either East Fork Poplar Creek or the
Clinch River. Discharges to the Clinch River would have a minimal impact on the flow of
the river and are not expected to affect associated wetlands. Discharges associated with
dewatering from the MHTGR or APT to East Fork Poplar Creek could result in increased flow
(section 4.4.3.4). This could cause a temporary rise in the local water table adjacent to
the stream, especially during periods of low flow in the summer and fall. An increase in
water levels in wetlands adjacent to the creek could favor plants better adapted to
growing in wet soil conditions. Consequently, the composition of the wetland communities
adjacent to the stream could change to plants favoring wet soil conditions. Additionally,
the extent of any existing wetlands could also increase.
Scouring of the streambed of East Fork Poplar Creek due to high flow rates could result in
the deposition of sediments downstream. If this deposition occurred in wetland areas, it
could also change wetland vegetation composition. Construction of detention ponds to
control the release of water would reduce impacts to wetlands associated with the creek.
All wastewater discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and Tennessee Water
Quality Control Act requirements.
During operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities, blowdown
water from the cooling system would also be discharged to either East Fork Poplar Creek or
the Clinch River (section4.4.3.4). If directed to East Fork Poplar Creak, large
intermittent discharges of blowdown could result in streambed scouring and subsequent
deposition of sediments in downstream areas. If deposition occurs in wetland areas, the
vegetation composition of these wetlands could change. Thermal impacts to wetland
vegetation could occur with the release of large volumes of cooling system water.
Due to the larger volume of water in the Clinch River, impacts to wetlands bordering the
river would not be as great as those to wetlands along East Fork Poplar Creek. However,
flows would be large enough (section 4.4.3.4) to cause streambed scouring in the vicinity
of the outfall. Therefore, if present, wetlands in the vicinity of the outfall could be
altered. All wastewater discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and Tennessee
Water Quality Control Act requirements.
Impacts on wetlands are not expected from salt deposition from the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. Any impacts that would occur would be limited to a
relatively small area. All the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities could
be sited at a sufficient distance from wetlands to avoid any potential impacts from salt
deposition.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to wetlands, but slightly less than those described for a collocated tritium
supply and recycling facility. This is the case since both land and water requirements
would be less.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same types of wetland impacts described above for the
baseline tritium production requirement. However, operation of the HWR at reduced capacity
would potentially reduce the volume of cooling water discharges and may result in less
wetland vegetation impacts. The MHTGR or ALWR related wetland impacts would not change
from the baseline tritium production requirement consequences since the reactor would
operate at the same level to maintain power levels for steam or electrical production.
Construction and operation of a Phased APT would have similar wetlands impacts as
described for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Construction impacts to wetlands could be avoided by siting
the tritium supply and recycling facilities in areas away from wetland habitat.
Construction impacts could also be reduced by implementing soil erosion and sediment
control measures. The use of detention ponds could reduce cooling system water discharges
to wetlands adjacent to East Fork Poplar Creek. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be
mitigated according to DOE policy as set forth in 10 CFR 1022 and in accordance with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements. All effluent discharges to wetlands would be
required to meet NPDES permit and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act requirements.
Aquatic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.3 would continue with no
additional impacts to water bodies on the ORR. Currently, the only notable impacts are
entrainment and impingement losses of fish species resulting from water withdrawal,
and possible reduction in species diversity in some water bodies on the ORR due to reduced
water quality. Section 4.4.2.6 describes the current aquatic resource conditions at ORR.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT could cause
water quality changes (primarily sediment loading and resulting turbidity) to Bear Creek,
Grassy Creek, or Ish Creek as a result of soil erosion. These changes would vary according
to the acres disturbed by each tritium supply technology (table 4.4.3.6-1). Soil erosion
and sediment control measures would be implemented to control erosion. Construction water
withdrawal would represent a very small percentage of the Clinch River's average flow and
would have little affect on the flow of the river. Impingement and entrainment impacts
would, therefore, be minimal and would be unlikely to affect fish populations in the
Clinch River. During construction, dewatering discharges would be directed to either
East Fork Poplar Creek or the Clinch River. Dewatering discharges from the HWR and ALWR
would result in minor impacts to either stream or river (section 4.4.3.4). However, during
construction of the MHTGR or APT, dewatering discharges, without design mitigation,
could cause streambed scouring and increased turbidity in East Fork Poplar Creek. This
could eliminate some fish spawning and feeding habitat. Aquatic life would be displaced
during construction but would likely recolonize after construction is complete and water
quality returns to normal. If dewatering discharges from the HWR or APT are directed to
the Clinch River they would represent a small percentage of the river flow.
During operation, water withdrawals could increase entrainment and impingement of fish in
the Clinch River. However, the greatest amount of water required would comprise a small
percentage of the Clinch River's average flow and is unlikely to affect fish populations.
Treated wastewater would be discharged to either East Fork Poplar Creek or the Clinch
River; however, it would only represent a small percentage of the flow of either stream
(section 4.4.3.4) and would minimally affect aquatic resources.
Blowdown water from the cooling system of a tritium supply and recycling facility would be
released to either East Fork Poplar Creek or the Clinch River during operation. Without
mitigation, intermittent discharge of large volumes of blowdown water would greatly
increase the flow rate of East Fork Poplar Creek (section 4.4.3.4). This could result in
flooding and/or streambed scouring and, as a result, alter aquatic resources by displacing
existing plant and animal communities. Discharge of cooling system blowdown water to the
Clinch River would represent up to 20percent of the flow of the river during each
discharge period (section 4.4.3.4). This could result in streambed scouring in the
vicinity of the outfall and subsequent downstream sedimentation. Although fish would
likely return to the disturbed area between periods of discharge, this would not be
possible for benthic organisms. Thermal impacts may also occur as the result of the
release of large intermittent volumes of cooling water. Mitigation measures would be
required to lessen impacts to either East Fork Poplar Creek or the Clinch River. Chemical
constituents and temperature of the discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit
and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act requirements. If temperature limits are not met, a
Section 316a demonstration of a balanced biotic community would be required.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to aquatic resources but slightly less than those described for a tritium
collocated supply and recycling facility. This is the case since both land and water
requirements would be less.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same type of impacts to aquatic resources at ORR as
described above for the baseline tritium production requirement. However, operation of the
HWR at reduced capacity would potentially reduce the volume of cooling water discharges
and may result in fewer aquatic resource impacts. The MHTGR- or ALWR-related aquatic
resource impacts would not change from the baseline tritium production requirement
consequences since the reactor would operate at the same level to maintain power levels
for stream or electrical production. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would
have similar aquatic resource impacts but potentially slightly less than the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Impacts to aquatic resources could be mitigated by
implementing a soil erosion and sediment control plan to reduce stream turbidity. Also,
the use of discharge detention basins and energy dissipating structures could prevent
excessive increases in the rate of stream flows. Intake structures could also be designed
and operated to reduce intake flow rates, thereby reducing impingement and entrainment
losses. All discharges would be required to meet NPDES and Tennessee Water Quality Control
Act requirements.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.3 would continue, with
no change in impacts to threatened and endangered species at ORR.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Impacts to threatened and endangered species resulting from
construction of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would vary by the amount of terrestrial
habitat disturbed (table4.4.3.6-1). Federal-listed threatened and endangered species are
not expected to be affected by construction activities. Although the Indiana and gray bats
are potential resident species, neither is known to occur on ORR. Land-clearing activities
may destroy state-protected plant species found within or adjacent to disturbed portions
of the proposed site including pink lady's-slippers and fen orchid (state, endangered),
tubercled fen-orchid, ginseng, purple fringeless orchid, and Canada lily (state,
threatened). The Tennessee dace is sensitive to siltation and actively seeks clean gravel
for spawning. An increase in amount or duration of sediment runoff to Ish Creek or Bear
Creek during facility construction could adversely impact this fish species.
Construction could also impact four state-listed bird species. The Cooper's hawk and
sharp-shinned hawk (both threatened) would lose potential nesting and foraging habitat as
a result of the construction of the facility. The red-shouldered hawk and black vulture,
both deemed in need of management by the state, would also lose habitat. Preactivity
surveys would be required prior to construction to determine the occurrence of these
species in the area to be disturbed. During operation, the high velocity and large volume
of cooling system blowdown discharge to surface water could alter the aquatic ecology of
East Fork Poplar Creek and disrupt hellbender habitat.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to threatened and endangered species but slightly less than those described for a
collocated tritium supply and recycling facility. This is the case since both land and
water requirements would be less.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would be expected to result in similar impacts to threatened,
endangered or sensitive species as described for the baseline tritium production
requirement. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would also have similar impacts to
these species.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Disturbance of threatened, endangered, and special status
species would be avoided where possible. Land clearing could be avoided during the nesting
season of protected bird species. Where appropriate, habitat restoration or propagation
programs could be attempted for protected plants when their disturbance is unavoidable.
Use of the Clinch River for wastewater discharge would avoid impacting hellbender
habitat. Detention ponds and other alternative cooling system blowdown release mechanisms
described in section 4.4.3.4 could be used to prevent increasing the rate of stream flow.
Consultation with the USFWS would be pursued as required and, if necessary, a detailed
plan to mitigate impacts to Federal-listed threatened and endangered species at ORR would
be developed. Currently, no critical habitat has been designated for threatened and
endangered species at ORR.

4.4.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance
during construction, visual intrusion of the project to the historic setting or
environmental context of historic sites, visual and audio intrusions to Native American
resources, reduced access to traditional use areas, and unauthorized artifact collecting
and vandalism. Intensive cultural resources inventories and site evaluations have not
been conducted for the proposed TSS. Site-specific surveys and evaluations would be
conducted in conjunction with tiered NEPA documentation. Although the location and
acreage for the proposed tritium supply plant or combined tritium supply and recycling
facilities will vary, the effects on cultural and paleontological resources are based
primarily on the amount of ground disturbance; therefore, the facilities with the
greatest ground disturbance will have the greatest effect on cultural and paleontological
resources. Some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites and some important Native
American sites may be affected by the proposed action. Effects to paleontological
resources will be negligible.
Multipurpose Reactor. Total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors
would be 931 and 691 acres, respectively. NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites
and Native American resources may occur within these acreages and may be affected by the
construction of a multipurpose reactor. Paleontological resources are limited at ORR to
common assemblages with relatively low research potential, therefore potential impacts
are expected to be limited. In general, impacts to prehistoric and historic resources and
Native American resources would be similar to, but potentially greater than, those
described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at ORR. Any
impacts to prehistoric and historic resources from these missions would be independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Land disturbance for the proposed tritium supply facility
(section 3.4) would range from 360 acres for the MHTGR 173acres for the APT at ORR
(section 4.4.3.1). Acreages for the HWR and ALWR would be 260 and 360, respectively.
Acreage required by the recycling facilities would be an additional 196 acres. Although an
intensive survey has not yet been conducted, some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic
sites may occur within acreages that would be disturbed during construction. The
prehistoric sites may include small camps and limited activity locations; the historic
sites may include remains of farmsteads, roads, and trash scatters. NRHP-eligible
resources will be identified through project-specific inventories and evaluations, and any
project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Operation of new
tritium facilities does not involve additional ground disturbance or increased activity;
therefore, prehistoric or historic sites would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to prehistoric and historic resources
would be expected from operating the HWR at reduced capacity. Impacts for the MHTGR or
ALWR would also not change from those described for the baseline tritium requirement
because the MHTGR or ALWR would not be a reduced size or operate at reduced capacity.
Construction and operation of the Phased APT would not change the expected impacts from
the baseline tritium requirement sized technologies since the disturbed area would be the
same.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, and would result in an adverse effect, then a Memorandum of
Agreement would need to be negotiated between DOE, the Tennessee SHPO, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation describing and implementing intensive inventory and
evaluation studies, data recovery plans, site treatments, and monitoring programs. The
appropriate level of data recovery for mitigation would be determined through the
Tennessee SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Native American Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at ORR. Any
impacts to Native American resources from these missions would be independent of an
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Native American resources may occur within the acreages that
would be disturbed during construction of the tritium supply plant or combined tritium
supply and recycling facilities. Native American resources may include villages,
cemeteries, burials, and traditional plant gathering areas. Operation of tritium
facilities may create audio or visual intrusions on Native American sacred sites in the
vicinity or reduce access to traditional use areas. Specific concerns about the
presence, type, and locations of Native American resources would be identified through
consultation with the potentially affected Native American groups, and any project-related
effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to Native American resources would not change due
to less than baseline tritium operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR. Construction and
operation of a Phased APT would have similar impacts on Native American resources as those
described for the baseline tritium requirement Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If Native American resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, acceptable mitigation measures to minimize the effect on these
resources would be determined in consultation with the potentially affected Native
American groups. Such mitigations may include, but not be limited to, appropriate
relocation of human remains according to the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, planting vegetation screens to reduce visual and noise intrusions,
increased access to traditional use areas during operations, or transplanting or
harvesting sensitive Native American plant resources.
Paleontological Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at ORR. Any
impacts to paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Fossiliferous geological formations with surface exposures
occur within the proposed area designated for the tritium supply and recycling facilities.
All known paleontological materials consist of relatively common and wide-spread
invertebrate fossils and these assemblages have relatively low research potential.
Consequently, while there may be effects on paleontological resources, impacts would be
negligible.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to paleontological resources would be
expected due to reduced operation of the HWR, MHTGR or ALWR. Construction of a Phased APT
may potentially have a slightly smaller impact on paleontological resources due to less
excavation for APT tunnel length.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because no significant or rare paleontological resources
would be affected, no mitigation measures are required.

4.4.3.8 Socioeconomics
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling facilities at ORR
would affect socioeconomics in the region. Section 3.2 provides descriptions for No
Action, the tritium supply technologies, and tritium recycling. Siting a tritium supply
technology and recycling facility at ORR would create changes in some of the communities
in both the ROI and the regional economic area. The inmigrating population could
increase the demand for housing units. Additionally, there would be an associated
increased burden on community infrastructure and subsequent effects on the public finances
of local governments in the ROI. The increase of population could also burden
transportation routes in the ROI.
During the construction period, the greater changes in socioeconomic characteristics would
result from the ALWR and APT. During operation, the HWR, MHGTR, and ALWR would exhibit
similar characteristics. The APT would result in the smallest changes during operation.
None of these tritium supply technologies would increase population, the need for
additional housing, or local government spending in the ROI beyond 3percent over No Action
during peak construction or operation. Although the greatestpercent increases in
employment, population and housing, and public finance during construction and operation
occur in the peak years of 2005 and 2010, respectively, the annual average increases over
the periods for construction (2001 to 2005) and peak construction to full operation (2005
to 2010) are between less than 1percent and 2percent average growth annually, and 1percent
average annual growth during operation (2010 to 2050).
The effects of locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling
facilities at ORR are summarized in section 4.4.3. The following sections describe the
effects that locating one of these technologies would have on the local region's economy
and employment, population, housing, public finances, and local transportation.
Employment and Local Economy
Changes in employment and levels of economic activity in the 29-county regional economic
area from the proposed action at ORR are described in this section. Although specialized
personnel, materials, and services required for construction and operation would be
imported from outside the area, a significant portion of these requirements would be
available in this regional economic area. Figures 4.4.3.8-1 and 4.4.3.8-2 present the
potential changes in employment and local economy that would occur with each of the
technologies.
No Action. Under No Action, employment at ORR was approximately 15,000 persons in 1994.
This is a decrease of approximately 300 persons from the 1990 employment. ORR employment
is projected to remain at 15,000 persons through 2020. Historical and future employment
projections at ORR are found in appendix table D.2.1-1. The total ORR payroll was
approximately $513 million in 1994 and is expected to remain at this level through 2010.
Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow less than 1percent
annually between 2001 and 2009, reaching 570,500 persons, and decrease less than 1percent
annually between 2010 and 2020, reaching 565,200 persons. The unemployment rate in the
regional economic area is expected to remain at 6.2percent between 2001 and 2020. Per
capita income is projected to increase from $17,900 to $20,700 during this 20-year period.
No Action estimates are presented in appendix table D.3-38.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would begin between 2001 and 2003
and would be completed between 2007 and 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation
of the new facilities would begin in 2007 or 2008, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at this level into the future.
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at ORR would
create new jobs (direct) at the site. Indirect job opportunities, such as community
support services, would also be created in the regional economic area as a result of these
new jobs. The total new jobs (direct and indirect) created would reduce unemployment and
increase income in the economic region surrounding ORR during both the construction and
operation periods of the proposed action.
Construction. Locating tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR would require a
total of approximately 7,400 to 13,600 worker-years of activity over a 5- to 9-year
construction period. This constructionrelated employment would indirectly create other
jobs in the regional economic area and total employment would grow at an annual average
rate of 1percent until the peak year of 2005. Between 2005 and 2010, annual growth would
slow to less than 1percent. Figure 4.4.3.8-1 gives the estimates of total jobs (direct and
indirect) that would be created during peak construction (year 2005) for each of the
tritium supply technologies with recycling and the recycling facility's contribution to
employment growth.
As employment opportunities grow in the regional economic area due to the proposed action,
the unemployment rate would be reduced from the No Action estimate of 6.2percent. Figure
4.4.3.8-2 presents a comparison of unemployment rates for the different tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities during peak construction in 2005. During the
project's peak construction phase, the unemployment rate would range from a high of
5.5percent to 4.8percent, depending upon the tritium supply technology with recycling
selected.
Income in the regional economic area would also increase slightly, particularly during
peak construction as shown in figure 4.4.3.8-2. Per capita income is expected to
increase at an annual average of 1percent until the peak construction year (2005). Between
2005 and 2010, per capita income is also expected to increase annually by 1percent. This
is the same increase that is projected for the No Action per capita income for the same
time periods.
Operation. Siting tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR would help offset the
employment and income losses at ORR from the approximately 300jobs lost between 1990 and
1994. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as construction nears completion and
the construction-related employment begins phasing out. It is expected that full operation
employment would peak in 2010 and continue at this level into the future. Figure 4.4.3.8-1
gives the total project-related jobs projections (direct and indirect) for each of the
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities for 2010. Total employment would
be flat from 2010 to 2020; the same is projected under No Action.
Creation of additional job opportunities would reduce the unemployment rate below that
projected for No Action. Figure 4.4.3.8-2 presents the differences in unemployment rates
during the first year of full operation employment (2010) for each of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. From 2010 to 2020, unemployment would be reduced
from the No Action projection of 6.2percent to between 5.6 and 5.7percent, depending upon
the technologies selected for the proposed action.
Income would also increase slightly in the regional economic area as a result of the
proposed action. Per capita income differences for tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities for 2010 are given in figure 4.4.3.8-2. Per capita income annual
average increases would be about 1percent from 2010 through 2020 for the different tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities considered for location at ORR. The No
Action projected annual average increase during the same period would also be
approximately 1percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Construction of the tritium supply technologies without recycling
facilities would begin between 2001 and 2003 and would be completed between 2007 and 2009.
Employment for the operation of the facility would begin in 2007 and reach full employment
by 2010. Locating any of the tritium supply technologies at ORR would create new jobs at
the site and indirectly create other jobs in the region. However, this job creation and
the additional economic effects would be less than the effects that would occur with the
collocation of tritium supply with the recycling facility.
Construction. Construction of tritium supply technologies would require a total of 6,380
to 12,600worker-years of activity over a 5- to 9-year period. New jobs would be created at
an annual average rate of 1percent until the peak year of construction, 2005. Between
2005 and 2010, employment would generally increase by less than 1percent annually for
the four technologies. Appendix table D.3-39, presents the estimates of total employment
during peak construction in 2005, or these new jobs can be calculated by subtracting the
tritium recycling contribution from tritium supply technologies and recycling in figure
4.4.3.8-1.
Figure (Page 4-250)
Figure 4.4.3.8-1.-Total Project-Related Employment (Direct and Indirect) and Percentage
Increase Over No Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Oak Ridge
Reservation Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-251)
Figure 4.4.3.8-2.-Unemployment Rate, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Increase Over No
Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Oak Ridge Reservation Regional
Economic Area.
Although the construction of the facility will create new jobs, the effects would not be
enough to greatly affect the unemployment rate projected for No Action. Additionally, per
capita income in the region would rise only slightly above that estimated for No Action.
Estimates of unemployment rate and per capita income are presented in appendix table
D.3-39, or can be derived for tritium supply technologies by subtracting the tritium
recycling contribution in figure 4.4.3.8-2.
Operation. Operation employment for the tritium supply technologies alone would begin
phasing in at the end of the construction period and be at full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Estimates for full
employment in 2010 are presented in appendix table D.3-39. Total project related jobs
created by the tritium supply technologies alone can be calculated by subtracting tritium
recycling contribution in figure 4.4.3.8-1.
The addition of new jobs during operation would reduce the unemployment rate below the
projection for No Action. The unemployment rate for 2010, the first year of full operation
employment, is presented in appendix table D.3-39, or can be calculated by subtracting the
tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.4.3.8-2. Unemployment would be reduced from the
No Action projection of 6.2percent to between 6 and 5.9percent from 2010 through 2020,
depending on the technology selected.
The creation of new jobs as a result of tritium supply operation would also increase
income slightly over the No Action estimates. Appendix table D.3-39 gives the per capita
income for the facility for 2010. Per capita income growth can also be calculated by
subtracting the tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.4.3.8-2. From 2010 to 2020, per
capita income annual increases would be 1percent, the same annual increase projected under
No Action.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Tritium supply technologies that provide less than the
baseline tritium operation capacities are described in section 3.1. These options may or
may not be collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The options include lowering
the power in the HWR, using fewer target rods in the MHTGR or ALWR, and the phased
approach for the APT.
Construction. The less than baseline operations case for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would
have the same construction workforce requirements as discussed in the tritium supply and
recycling and tritium supply only sections. Therefore, employment and economic effects in
the region would be the same.
The Phased APT would require the same total number of construction workers as the Full
APT, but the construction period would span from 1999 to 2008 instead of from 2003 to
2007. Additionally, peak construction would occur in 2003 instead of 2005. The effects on
the regional economic area's employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income as a
result of constructing the Phased APT are presented in appendix table D.3-39. Appendix
table D.3-40 presents the effects on employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income
for constructing the Phased APT with tritium recycling facilities. Generally, average
annual increases in employment and income are similar to those for the Full APT, but these
increases are over a longer period of time. These increases are less than or equal to
1percent, the same as the No Action estimates.
Operation. Operation workforce requirements for the less than baseline tritium requirement
case for the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and the Phased APT would be the same as those described in
the tritium supply and recycling and tritium supply only sections. Thus, regional
employment and economic effects would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. Construction activities for the multipurpose reactor would begin in
2001 and would be completed by 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation of the
multipurpose reactor would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue
at that level into the future. Because this option would perform three processes, it would
result in greater changes in employment and local economy characteristics than any of the
four tritium supply technologies.
Construction. Siting the multipurpose reactor and a recycling facility at ORR would
require 19,140worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. The multipurpose reactor
alone would require 18,150worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. Employment
characteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during
construction of the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-39a and D.3-40a, respectively. From the first year of
construction to the peak year (2005), annual average increases in employment and per
capita income would range 1 to 2percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment growth would be
flat and per capita income would increase on an annual average of 1percent. The
unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with or without a recycling
facility would be 4.5 and 4.6percent, respectively.
Operation. Operation employment for the multipurpose reactor would begin phasing in
toward the end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment char-
acteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of
the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in
appendix tables D.3-39a and D.3-40a, respectively. During operation annual employment
growth would be flat and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than
1percent. The unemployment rate for the multipurpose reactor alone and with a recycling
facility would be 5.2 and 5.5percent, respectively.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Construction activities for the APT power
plant would begin in 2003 and would be completed by 2007. Phasing in of employment for the
operation of the APT power plant would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at that level into the future. This option is similar to the APT with an addition
of a gas power plant. The changes in employment and local economy would be similar, but
greater than those resulting from the APT.
Construction. Siting this option with a recycling facility at ORR would require 7,600
worker-years of activity over a 5-year period. The APT power plant alone would require
6,600 worker-years of activity of a 5-year period. Employment characteristics, unem-
ployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of this option
alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-39a and
D.3-40a, respectively. From the first year of construction to the peak year (2005), annual
average increases in employment and per capita income would be 1percent. Between 2005 and
2010, employment growth would be flat and per capita income would increase on an annual
average of 1percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with
or without a recycling facility would be 4.9 and 5percent, respectively.
Operation. Operation employment for the APT power plant would begin phasing in toward the
end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full employment is
expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of the APT
power plant alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables
D.3-39a and D.3-40a, respectively. During operation annual employment growth would be flat
and annual average growth in per capita income would be less than 1percent. The
unemployment rate for the APT power plant alone and with a recycling facility would be 5.7
and 6percent, respectively.
Population and Housing
Changes to ROI population and housing expected from the proposed action at ORR are
described in this section. Additional population could be expected to in-migrate to the
ORR region and these people would be expected to reside in cities and counties within the
ROI in the same relative proportion as the existing population. Increases to population
could lead to a demand for additional housing units beyond existing vacant housing
available during construction or operation phases of the proposed action. Figures
4.4.3.8-3 and 4.4.3.8-4 present the changes in population and housing for the tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Population and housing annual average increases between 2001 and 2009 are
projected to be 1percent. Future annual average increases are projected to be less than
1percent between 2010 and 2020. Population in the ROI is estimated to reach 561,000 in
2010 and 586,000 in 2020. Total housing units in the ROI are estimated to reach 239,800 in
2010 and 250,500 in 2020. No Action estimates are presented in appendix tables D.3-41 and
D.3-44.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. It is expected that the proposed action would increase
population and housing demands in the ROI slightly (less than 1percent) over No Action
projections during peak construction. The effects are expected to be fewer (much less than
1percent) during the operation phase of the proposed action.
Construction. Construction activities would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period. Figure
4.4.3.8-3 illustrates that during peak construction (year 2005), the ALWR and APT would
create the largest population and housing demand increases over No Action, and the HWR and
MHTGR would have the fewest effects. The increase in population could require some
additional housing units beyond what is currently available in the existing housing mix.
However, any requirements for additional housing units would be at annual average
increases of 1percent in the first 3years of construction of the ALWR, followed by an
increase of much less than 1percent until peak operation. The other tritium supply
technologies would have annual average population and housing demand growth of less than
1percent. Therefore, there would not be any major effects on any of the ROI communities.
Operation. Operation of tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities is expected
to reach full employment by 2010. In-migrating population is expected to demand housing
units similar to the existing housing mix in the ROI. Figure 4.4.3.8-4 shows that
population increases and potential demand for additional housing units over No Action
projections is almost negligible (much less than 1percent) in this peak year. Given that
the operations of the proposed action would be phased in over a 4-year period, it is
expected that existing vacancies would absorb much of this new demand and that No Action
requirements would be exceeded by very few units.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating only a tritium supply technology at ORR would not increase
population or housing demands in the ROI more than 1percent over No Action projections
during the construction or operation periods.
Construction. Construction activities for the tritium supply technologies alone would be
much lower than if collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The greatest increase
in population and housing demand would occur during peak construction in 2005. Appendix
tables D.3-42 and D.3-45 show that available vacancies in the existing housing mix would
probably accommodate the expected population growth. Estimated growth in the ROI is much
less than 1percent over the No Action projection.
Operation. Full employment levels for the tritium supply technologies alone would be
reached by 2010. In-migrating population would be expected to require housing units
similar to the existing mix in the ROI. These requirements would be lower than those for
any of the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities. Potential demand for
housing units would be very small (much less than 1percent) in the first year of full
employment as illustrated in appendix tables D.3-42 and D.3-45. It is expected that
existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment would be phased in
from 2007 through 2010.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Population increases and housing demands would be the same
or lower during construction and operation of tritium supply technologies operated at less
than baseline tritium requirements than the alternatives discussed in the tritium supply
and recycling and tritium supply only sections.
Construction. Population increases and housing demands would be the same as those given in
figure 4.4.3.8-3 for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The Phased APT would increase population
and housing demand during construction to the same level as the Full APT, but this would
occur over a longer construction period with lower average annual increases (less than
1percent). Also, the peak construction year would be 2003 instead of 2005. The effects of
the Phased APT on population and housing are presented in appendix tables D.3-42 and
D.3-45, respectively. Appendix tables D.3-43 and D.3-46, present the results of
constructing the Phased APT with the tritium recycling facilities.
Operation. The effects on population and housing of operating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and
Phased APT at less than baseline tritium requirement would be the same as those given in
figure 4.4.3.8-4.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a recycling
facility at ORR would not increase population and housing demands more than 2percent over
No Action projections during the construction period and 1percent during operation.
Figure (Page 4-255)
Figure 4.4.3.8-3.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action During
Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Oak Ridge
Reservation Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-256)
Figure 4.4.3.8-4.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action at Full
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Oak Ridge Reservation Region
of Influence, 2010.
Construction. Because this option would perform three processes, it would result in
greater changes in population and housing characteristics than any of the four tritium
supply technologies. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
multipurpose reactor with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix
tables D.3-42a, D.3-43a, D.3-45a, and D.3-46a. Population and housing growth in the ROI
would be at an annual average rate of 1percent until 2005 and would be flat between 2005
and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the multipurpose reactor would be reached by 2010.
As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-42a, D.3-43a, D.3-45a, and D.3-46a, potential demand
for housing units would be less than 1percent in the first year of full employment. It
is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment
would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a recycling facility at ORR would not increase population and housing demands
more than 1percent over No Action projections during the construction and operation
periods.
Construction. This option is similar to the APT with an addition of a gas power plant. The
changes in population and housing demands would be similar, but greater than those
resulting from the APT. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
the APT power plant with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix tables
D.3-42a, D.3-43a, D.3-45a, and D.3-46a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be
at an annual average rate of 1percent until 2005 and would be flat between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the APT power plant would be reached by 2010. As
illustrated in appendix tables D.3-42a, D.3-43a, D.3-45a, and D.3-46a, potential demand
for housing units would be less than 1percent in the first year of full employment. It
is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment
would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Public Finance
Fiscal changes could occur in some ROI local jurisdictions from the proposed action.
Factors influencing these changes include residence of project-related employees and
their dependents, cost and duration of construction, and economic conditions in the ROI
once the new facilities are operational.
Implementing the proposed action at ORR would increase population, resulting in more
revenues for ROI local jurisdictions. Additional population would also increase public
service expenditures.
Figures 4.4.3.8-5 and 4.4.3.8-6 present the potential fiscal changes that would occur with
the different tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Appendix table D.3-47, presents the 1992 public finance characteristics for the
local ROI jurisdictions. Appendix tables D.3-48 through D.3-51, present the impacts from
tritium supply technologies with or without recycling facilities compared to No Action
during construction and operation for the local counties and cities. Funding for school
districts is included in the finances for the county or city in which they are found.
Between 2001 and 2005, all ROI counties and cities are projected to increase total
revenues on an annual average of 1percent or less. Total expenditures are projected to
increase on an annual average of 1percent or less for most ROI counties and cities between
2001 and 2005. Between the peak year of construction (2005) and full operation (2010),
total revenues and expenditures are also expected to increase by less than 1percent.
Between 2010 and 2020, projected annual average increases in total revenues are less than
1percent for all counties and cities in the ROI. Total expenditures are also projected to
increase on an annual average by 1percent or less for ROI jurisdictions between 2010 and
2020.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at ORR would create some fiscal benefits
to local jurisdictions within the ROI. Some local government finances would be affected
during the construction and operation phases of the proposed action. Con-
struction-related effects on revenues and expenditures could span a 5- to 9-year period
with the peak occurring in 2005. The effects of the operation phase would peak in 2010 and
remain at this level throughout the life of the proposed action.
Construction. The public finances of counties and cities within the ROI would be affected
by the construction-related activities associated with the proposed action. Initially,
there would be slight increases to some local government jurisdictions' revenues and
expenditures, which would peak in 2005 and then decline as construction neared com-
pletion. Figure 4.4.3.8-5 presents the revenue and expenditure changes of ROI local
government jurisdictions over No Action during peak construction for the four tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities. Over the construction phase of the proposed
action and between 2005 to 2010, revenues and expenditures for ROI counties and cities
would increase on an annual average of 1percent or less for all the tritium supply
technologies with recycling facilities. Under the No Action estimates, local government
revenues and expenditures would also increase on an annual average of 1percent or less.
Operation. The effects of phasing in operation together with the phasing out of
construction on ROI local government finances would be fewer than the effects at peak or
full operation (2010). The effects that the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would have on county and city revenues and expenditures are presented in figure
4.4.3.8-6. Between 2010 and 2020, revenues and expenditures are expected to increase
slightly but at an average annual rate of less than 1percent for all ROI jurisdictions.
The No Action local government revenues and expenditures would also increase at an average
annual rate of less than 1percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating the tritium supply alone at ORR would create some fiscal
benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI, but these benefits would be fewer than if
collocated with the recycling facilities.
Construction. Construction-related effects on the revenues and expenditures of counties
and cities would be annual average increases of less than 1percent until peak construction
(2005) and between 2005 and 2010. Appendix table D.3-48 presents the revenue and
expenditure changes of ROI local governments over No Action during peak construction of
the tritium supply technologies alone.
Operation. The operation phase of the tritium supply only would affect the public finances
of counties and cities in the ROI but these effects would be less than those resulting
from operating the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities. Appendix
table D.3-49 presents the effects that operation would have on these local jurisdictions
in 2010. From 2010 to 2020 revenues and expenditures are expected to increase annually by
less than 1percent. In comparison, No Action local government revenues and expenditures
would increase at an average annual rate of 1percent.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The fiscal benefits that local jurisdictions would accrue
from the location of a tritium supply technology alone or collocated with recycling
would be the same or less if the tritium supply technologies are operated at less than
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction. Increases in local jurisdictions' revenues and expenditures would be the
same as those given in figures 4.4.3.8-5 and 4.4.3.8-6 if the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR is
built. If the Phased APT is constructed, the effects would peak in 2003 instead of 2005,
and the annual average increases would be lower (less than 1percent). Appendix tables
D.3-48 and D.3-49 present the revenue and expenditure changes as a result of constructing
the Phased APT for all ROI jurisdictions. Revenue and expenditure changes resulting from
the construction of the Phased APT with tritium recycling are presented in appendix tables
D.3-50 and D.3-51.
Operation. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and Phased APT at less than baseline tritium
requirements would have the same effects on local jurisdictions' finances as those
presented in figure 4.4.3.8-6.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a tritium
recycling facility at ORR would create greater changes in public finance characteristics
than the four tritium supply technologies because this option would perform three pro-
cesses. Public finance characteristics for the multipurpose reactor with and without a
recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-48a through D.3-51a.
Figure (Page 4-259)
Figure 4.4.3.8-5.-County, City, and School District Total Revenues and Expenditures
Percentage Increase Over No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling for Oak Ridge Reservation Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-260)
Figure 4.4.3.8-6.-County, City, and School District Total Revenues and Expenditures
Percentage Increase Over No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling for Oak Ridge Reservation Region of Influence, 2010.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually by 1percent. Between 2005
and 2010, revenues and expenditures would generally increase annually by less than
1percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to increase by less than 1percent annually for most
cities, counties, and school districts.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a tritium recycling facility at ORR would create similar, but greater changes in
public finance characteristics than the APT tritium supply technology. Public finance
characteristics for the APT power plant with and without a recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-48a through D.3-51a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually less than 1percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would increase annually by less than
1percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to increase at an annual average rate of less than
1percent for most cities, counties, and school districts.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Adding new missions to ORR would create new jobs and
generally benefit the local economy through increased earnings in the ROI. Some mitigation
measures may be required, such as Federal aid to local school districts where additional
school age children would attend as a result of the proposed action. These new missions at
ORR would increase population and the demand for additional housing units. Temporary
housing units and mobile homes would help to alleviate the demand for new housing during
the construction phase of the proposed action. Generally, construction would be phased
over a 5- to 9-year period with peak construction occurring in 2005. Phasing the start of
operation employment and training between 2005 and 2010 would reduce the annual level of
housing demand and smooth the peak and valley effect that would occur between peak
construction and full operation.
Local Transportation
The following is a description of the effects on local transportation resulting from
locating new missions at ORR. Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology
and recycling facilities are expected to increase traffic flow on site access routes.
No Action. Under No Action, the worker population at ORR would not increase. Therefore,
any increases in traffic would not be the result of DOE-related activities at ORR. Access
to the nearest interstate highway is 10 miles via 2- and 4-lane roads that pass through
rural and mountainous areas. Traffic conditions on site access roads would remain as
described in section 4.4.2.8.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at ORR would result in increases,
depending on the tritium supply technology, of worker population at the site. Traffic
conditions on site access roads leading to and from ORR would worsen due to increased
traffic volume. The primary access route to ORR is Bear Creek Road. This route would carry
the greatest increase in traffic volume from site development. Locating the ALWR or MHTGR
at ORR would have the greatest effect on traffic volume and flow.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating a tritium supply without the recycling facility at ORR
would result in increased worker population and traffic. However, the effects on traffic
volume would be less than those from siting the tritium recycling facility with any one of
the supply technologies.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The effects on traffic volume and flow would be the same
whether or not the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR were operated at baseline or less than baseline
tritium requirements. Construction of the Phased APT would increase traffic volume and
flow during the construction phase but less than the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation of traffic conditions may be necessary due to
the proposed action. Mitigation could include the widening and extension of Bear Creek
Road, the primary access route to ORR, as well as possible realignment of roadways and
construction of interchanges at roadway intersections overburdened by increased vehicle
traffic and congestion.

4.4.3.9 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents
This section describes the impacts of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
resulting from either normal operation or accidents at facilities involved with the
tritium supply and recycling facilities at ORR. The section first describes the impacts
from normal operation followed by a description of impacts from facility accidents.
During normal operation at ORR, all tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities
would result in impacts that are within regulatory limits. The risk of adverse health
effects to the public and to workers would be small.
For facility accident impacts, the results indicate that for all tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities the risk of fatal cancers (taking into account both
the probability of the accident and its consequences) from an accidental release of
radioactive or hazardous chemical substances at ORR is low when compared to fatal cancers
from all causes, even for a severe accident.
The impact methodology is described in section 4.1.9. Summaries of the radiological and
chemical impacts associated with normal operation are presented in tables 4.4.3.9-1 and
4.4.3.9-2, respectively. Summaries of impacts associated with postulated accidents are
given in tables 4.4.3.9-3 and 4.4.3.9-4. Detailed results are presented in appendix E for
normal operation and in appendix F for accidents.
Normal Operation
No Action. The current missions at ORR are described in section 3.3.3. The site has
identified facilities that will continue to operate and others, if any, which will become
operational by 2010. Based on that information, the radiological and chemical releases for
2010 and beyond were developed and used in the impact assessments.
Radiological Impacts. As shown in table 4.4.3.9-1, No Action would result in a calculated
annual dose of 17 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public, which projects to an
estimated fatal cancer risk of 3.5x10-4 from 40 years of total site operation. This annual
dose is composed of a dose from liquid releases of 14 mrem (0.4 mrem is from drinking
water; see appendix section E.2.6.1) and a dose from atmospheric releases of 3.9 mrem.
Both the liquid and atmospheric doses are within radiological limits and when combined
make up 5.7percent of the natural background radiation received by the average person near
ORR.
The population dose from total site operation in 2030 was calculated to be 57 person-rem,
which projects to an estimated 1.1 fatal cancers from 40years of total site operation. The
population dose is composed of 18 person-rem from liquid releases and 39 person-rem from
atmospheric releases and would be approximately 0.017percent of the annual dose received
by the surrounding population from natural background radiation.
The annual average dose to a site worker from No Action would be 17 mrem, which projects
to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 2.8x10-4 from 40 years of total site operation. The
annual dose to the total site workforce would be 320 person-rem, which projects to an
estimated 5.1 fatal cancers from 40years of total site operation. These estimates are
based on the measured doses from 1989 to 1992 and projected employment levels in 2010.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. As shown in table 4.4.3.9-2, No Action would result in a
calculated HI of 0.36 and no cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public.
The worker HI risk was calculated to be 0.26. These values are within the acceptable
regulatory health limits.
Table 4.4.3.9-1.-Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting from
Normal Operation of Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling -
- No HWR MHTGR Large Small Full APT Phased Tritium
Action ALWR ALWR APT Recycling
Affected Environment - - - - - Helium-3 SILC Helium-3 -
Target Target Target
System System System
Maximally Exposed Individual (Public)
Atmospheric Release
Dose (mrem/yr) 3.9 7.1 5.7 8.8 7.6 4.3 5.0 4.3 2.8
Percent of natural background 1.3 2.3 1.8 2.9 2.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.92
40-year fatal cancer risk 7.8x10-5 1.4x10-4 1.1x10-4 1.8x10-4 1.5x10-4 8.6x10-5 1.0x10-4 8.6x10-5 5.6x10-5
Liquid Release
Dosec (mrem/yr) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 0.0
Percent of natural backgroundd 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 0.0
40-year fatal cancer risk 2.7x10-4 2.7x10-4 2.7x10-4 2.8x10-4 2.8x10-4 2.7x10-4 2.7x10-4 2.7x10-4 0.0
Atmospheric and Liquid Releasesb
Dosec (mrem/yr) 17 21 19 23 21 18 19 18 2.8
Percent of natural backgroundd 5.7 6.8 6.2 74 7.0 5.8 6.1 5.8 0.92
40-year fatal cancer risk 3.5x10-4 4.2x10-4 3.8x10-4 4.5x10-4 4.3x10-4 3.6x10-4 3.7x10-4 3.6x10-4 5.6x10-5
Population Within 50 Miles
Atmospheric and Liquid Releases
Year 2030
Dose (person-rem) 57 82 76 90 87 68 73 68 11
Percent of natural backgroundd 0.017 0.025 0.023 0.027 0.026 0.021 0.022 0.021 3.3x10-3
40-year fatal cancers 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.22
Worker Onsite
Average site worker dosec (mrem/yr) 17 19 18 26 22 18 19 18 4
40-year fatal cancer risk 2.8x10-4 3.0x10-4 2.9x10-4 4.2x10-4 3.6x10-4 3.0x10-4 3.0x10-4 3.0x10-4 6.4x10-5
Total site workforce dose (person- 320 360 350 490 420 360 362 360 1.6
rem/yr)
40-year fatal cancers 5.1 5.8 5.6 7.9 6.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 0.026
Table 4.4.3.9-2.-Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting
from Normal Operations at Oak Ridge Reservation
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling, -
Health Impact No Action HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Hazard Index 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.36 2.5x10-5
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker Onsite
Hazard Index 0.26 0.27 0.32 0.35 0.26 4.0x10-5
Cancer risk 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tritium Supply and Recycling. There will be no radiological releases during the
construction of new tritium recycling facilities that are associated with all tritium
supply technologies under consideration. Limited hazardous chemical releases are
anticipated as a result of construction activities. However, their concentration will be
within the regulated exposure limits and would not result in any adverse health effects.
During normal operation, there would be both radiological and hazardous chemical releases
to the environment and also direct in-plant exposures. The impacts from radiological and
hazardous chemicals from each tritium supply technology considered are the summation of
the impacts from the various facilities in operation for that technology. The resulting
doses and potential health effects to the public and workers from each tritium supply
technology are described below.
Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts resulting from normal operation of tritium
supply technology and recycling facilities considered for ORR are listed in table
4.4.3.9-1. The supporting analysis is provided in appendix section E.2.6.2.
The doses to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual site operations at ORR
range from 18 mrem for both the APT with the helium-3 target and the Phased APT to 23 mrem
for the Large ALWR. From 40 years of operation, the corresponding risks of fatal cancer
to this individual would range from 3.6x10-4 to 4.5x10-4. As a result of total site
operations in 2030, the population doses would range from 68 person-rem for both the APT
with the helium-3 target and the Phased APT to 90person-rem for the Large ALWR. The
corresponding numbers of fatal cancers in this population from 40years of operation would
range from 1.4 to 1.8.
The annual dose to the total site workforce would range from 350 person-rem for the MHTGR
to 490person-rem for the Large ALWR. The corresponding annual average doses to a site
worker would be 18 mrem for the MHTGR, and 26 mrem for the Large ALWR. The risks and
numbers of fatal cancers among workers from 40 years of operation are included in table
4.4.3.9-1.
Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation, as described above,
all of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are acceptable for siting
at ORR. All resulting doses are within radiological limits and are well below levels of
natural background radiation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts resulting from normal operation of
various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at ORR are listed in table
4.4.3.9-2. Locating the HWR, MHTGR, or APT at ORR would result in identical HIs of 0.36
and no cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public. The ALWR would have an
HI of 0.38 and no cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public. The worker
HIs ranged from 0.35 for ALWR to 0.26 for APT. There was no cancer risk for any of the
supply technologies. All values are within regulatory health limits. For details on the
derivation of the HIs and cancer risks, see appendix tables E.3.4-16 through E.3.4-19 and
summary table E.3.4-21.
Tritium Supply Alone
Radiological Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the
tritium supply, the annual dose to the maximally exposed individual would be 2.8 mrem
lower than from operation of both supply and recycling. This is 0.92percent of the dose
from natural background radiation received by the average person near ORR. The estimated
risk of fatal cancer to this individual would decrease by 5.6x10-5 over 40years of total
site operation.
Not collocating the tritium recycling processes at ORR would result in a decrease of 11
person-rem to the population within 50 miles in 2030, and 0.22less fatal cancers over 40
years of operation.
If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the tritium supply, the total
annual workforce dose would decrease by 1.6 person-rem, resulting in 0.026 less fatal
cancers over the 40 years.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are eliminated from all of
the supply technologies at ORR, the cancer risk would not change since there is no cancer
risk resulting from any options. The HIs for the public would be reduced by about 0.01 to
0.02percent for any of the supply technologies and the reduction would be about the same
for workers. Based on the hazardous chemical impacts associated with normal operations at
ORR all values are within regulatory health limits.
Less Than Baseline Operations
The normal operation radiological impacts for the HWR operating at reduced tritium
production capacity to meet a less than baseline tritium operation requirement would be
proportional to the level of operation (approximately 50percent of baseline). The MHTGR or
ALWR normal operation radiological impacts would not change because the reactor would
maintain power requirements to produce steam or electricity.
The Phased APT is already less than the baseline tritium requirement and thus the impacts
are as presently given in this PEIS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Radioactive and hazardous chemical airborne emissions to
the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing
the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public
exposure from emissions, improved methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the
releases to the environment. Similarly, remote, automated, and robotic production methods
are examples of techniques being developed which could reduce worker exposure.
Substitution of less toxic/noncancer causing solvents would result in reductions of the HI
and possible complete elimination of the cancer risk.
Facility Accidents
No Action. Under No Action, the risk of accidents at ORR would be unchanged from that
reported in safety documentation for existing facilities.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at ORR has the potential for accidents
that may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The potential for and
associated consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents have been assessed for each
tritium supply technology at ORR and are summarized in this section and described in
more detail in appendix F. The methodology used in the assessment is described in section
4.1.9.
The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high consequence/low probability to low
consequence/high probability events, have been evaluated in terms of the number of cancer
fatalities that may result. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated to
provide an overall measure of an accident's impacts and is calculated by multiplying the
accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number of
cancer fatalities).
The analyses of postulated accidents for the tritium supply and recycling facilities at
ORR indicate that, for the high consequence accident, the estimated risk of cancer
fatalities to the public within 50 miles of the site is 1.2x10-4 cancer fatalities per
year (table 4.4.3.9-3). This accident risk, which corresponds with the HWR, is low when
compared to the risk of cancer fatalities each year to the same population from all other
causes.
Details on the range of accidents for the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities at ORR are presented in appendix F. Each of the technologies has been analyzed
from the standpoint of identifying the consequences of design basis/operational accidents
(using the GENII computer code) and beyond design basis, or severe accidents (using the
MACCS computer code). The severe accident consequences are shown in table 4.4.3.9-3 for
each technology. The table also shows the consequences of each accident for the population
and for an individual who may be located at the site boundary. The results of the analysis
indicate that the tritium supply and recycling facility with the highest severe accident
risk is the HWR. The technology with the lowest accident risk is the APT with the helium-3
target system. The MHTGR and APT have accident risks that are lower than the HWR and ALWR
consequences. The tritium extraction and recycling facilities are common to all tritium
supply technologies but, except for the APT, the consequences and risks are dominated by
reactor accidents. The tritium extraction accident dominates the accelerator accidents.
Figure 4.4.3.9-1 shows the number of latent cancer fatalities that may result for each
technology, including tritium extraction and recycling, if a high consequence accident
were to occur. Specifically, each curve in the figure shows the annual probability
(vertical axis) that the number of cancer fatalities (horizontal axis) will be exceeded
if the accident occurred. The curves reflect the probability of the accident.
The secondary impacts of accidents affect elements of the environment other than humans.
For example, a radiological release may contaminate farmland, surface and underground
water, recreational areas, industrial parks, historical sites, or the habitat of an
endangered species. As a result, farm products may have to be destroyed; the supply of
drinking water may be reduced; recreational areas may have to be closed to visitors; and
endangered species may move closer to extinction. In the region of the ORR, the natural
background level of radiation (excluding radon) is 67 mrem per year. For a hypothetical
design basis accidental release, the radiation levels exceeding 67 mrem per year are
well within the site boundary. The size of the area in which exposure levels would exceed
exposures from natural background radiation is 1.4x107 squaremeters (3,459 acres).
Tritium Supply Alone. The analyses of reasonably foreseeable high consequence accidents
for the tritium supply facilities at ORR are presented below.
Table 4.4.3.9-3.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling High Consequence/Low
Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Oak Ridge Reservation
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full/Phased Full APT Tritium Target Tritium
ALWRb, ALWRb,d APT Extraction Recycling
Facilityb Facility
Parameter - - - - Helium-3 SILC - -
Target Target
System, Systemb,,
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 0.015 1.5x10-3 0.02 0.042 1.3x10-7 2.2x10-6 1.5x10-4 5.2x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.4x10-7 2.4x10-8 3.1x10-9 6.6x10-9 9.5x10-14 1.6x10-12 1.5x10-10 5.2x10-10
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 13 1.4 6.2 33 9.6x10-5 1.0x10-3 0.11 0.38
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.2x10-4 2.3x10-5 9.4x10-7 5.1x10-6 6.8x10-11 7.4x10-10 1.1x10-7 3.8x10-7
Worker at 1,000meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.035 7.1x10-3 0.032 0.1 6.0x10-7 8.7x10-6 6.7x10-4 2.3x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 3.2x10-7 1.1x10-7 4.9x10-9 1.6x10-8 4.3x10-13 6.2x10-12 6.7x10-10 2.3x10-9
Worker at 2,000meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.019 2.4x10-3 0.02 0.054 2.2x10-7 3.4x10-6 2.4x10-4 8.4x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.4x10-7 3.9x10-8 3.0x10-9 8.3x10-9 1.5x10-13 2.4x10-12 2.4x10-10 8.4x10-10
Figure (Page 4-268)
Figure 4.4.3.9-1.-High Consequence Accident-Cancer Fatalities Complementary Cumulative
Distribution Functions for Tritium Supply and Recycling Severe Accidents at Oak Ridge
Reservation.
Heavy Water Reactor. A set of five high consequence accident sequences were postulated for
the HWR. These are described in appendix section F.2.1.1. In the event that any of these
accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 13 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 0.015 to an
individual who may be located at the site boundary and 0.035 to a collocated worker at
1,000meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of
the accident into account, is 1.2x10-4 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3).
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident
sequences were postulated for the MHTGR. In the event that this accident were to occur,
there would be an estimated 1.4 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an
increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.5x10-3 to an individual who may be located at
the site boundary. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the accident
into account, is 2.3x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3). Advanced Light
Water Reactor. A range of accident sequences with various release categories was analyzed
for the ALWR. One release category for a Large ALWR and one for a Small ALWR were selected
to represent the accident consequences for an ALWR (appendix section F.2.1.3). In the
event that such an accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 6.2 cancer
fatalities for a Large ALWR and 33 cancer fatalities for a Small ALWR in the population
within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 0.02 for a Large ALWR
and 0.04 for a Small ALWR to an individual who may be located at the site boundary and
0.032 for a Large ALWR and 0.10 for a Small ALWR to a collocated worker at 1,000meters
from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the
accident into account, is 9.4x10-7 for a Large ALWR and 5.1x10-6 for a Small ALWR cancer
fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Helium-3 Target System. The large break loss of
coolant accident with the total loss of the active emergency cooling system and the heat
sink with and without confinement were postulated as the high consequence accidents for
this APT and target option. In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there
would be an estimated 9.6x10-5 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and
an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.3x10-7 to an individual located at the
site boundary and 6.0x10-7 to collocated worker at 1,000meters from the accident. The risk
to the population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the
order of 6.8x10-11 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Spallation-Induced Lithium Conversion Target
System. The large break loss of coolant accident with a successful beam trip and the
total loss of the active emergency cooling system with and without confinement were
postulated as the high consequence accidents for this APT and target option. In the event
that this accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 1.0x10-3 cancer fatalities
in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of
2.2x10-6 to an individual located at the site boundary and 8.7x10-6 to a collocated worker
at 1,000meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability
of the accident into account, is on the order of 7.4x10-10 cancer fatalities per year
(table 4.4.3.9-3).
Tritium Extraction and Recycling. The tritium extraction facility is required to support
all tritium supply technologies except the APT technology with the helium-3 target system.
The tritium recycling facility is required to support all tritium supply technologies. The
analyses of postulated high consequence accidents for the tritium extraction and recycling
facilities at ORR are presented below.
Tritium Target Extraction Facility. An earthquake and release of process vessel tritium
inventory postulated as the high consequence accident. In the event that this accident
were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.11 cancer fatalities in the population within
50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatalities of 1.5x10-4 to an individual who
may be located at the site boundary and 6.7x10-4 to a collocated worker at 1,000meters
from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of an accident
into account, is less than 1.1x10-7 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3).
Tritium Recycling Facility. An earthquake induced leak/ignition and fire in the unloading
station carousel reservoir was postulated as the high consequence accident for the
tritium recycling facility. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be
an estimated 0.38 cancer facilities in the population with 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 5.2x10-4 to an individual located at the site boundary
and 2.3x10-5 to a collocated worker at 1,000meters from the accident. The risk to the
population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the order of
3.8x10-7 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.4.3.9-3).
For comparison purposes with high consequence tritium supply facility accidents, there is
a risk of 2,125 cancer fatalities per year from all other natural causes for the same
total population of 1,062,000 in 2050 within 50 miles of the site.
The analysis of facility accidents for tritium supply at ORR shows that, for high
consequence accidents analyzed using the MACCS computer code, the HWR has the highest risk
and the APT has the lowest risk. The risk of accidents for any of the tritium supply
technologies, tritium extraction, and tritium recycling facilities common to all
technologies is low when compared to the human risk of cancer fatalities from all other
causes.
Design-Basis Accidents. The consequences of operational basis or design-basis accidents
for the tritium extraction and recycling facilities at ORR are shown in table 4.4.3.9-4.
The results in table 4.4.3.9-4 should not be compared with the severe accident analysis
results in table 4.4.3.9-3 because different computer codes using different calcula-
tional approaches were used. More detailed description of design-basis accidents is
included in appendix F.2.2.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Less than baseline tritium operation would have no
significant change to the current accident analyses consequences for the HWR unless the
baseline HWR core design was downsized. The baseline HWR configuration would adjust to the
reduced target through-put requirements by reducing the time that the reactor is required
to operate at 100percent power. It is not anticipated that the overall risk from operating
the reactor in this mode would decrease significantly. Accident analyses have not been
performed to address accident sequences and initiating events when the reactor is in the
cold shut down mode. In addition, operator error has a significant effect on facility risk
and if the reactor is shutdown a high percentage of the time, operator error may actually
increase when the reactor is at power.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the current
accident analyses consequences for the MHTGR or ALWR. The reactor surplus capacity would
be used to generate steam for electric power production.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no change to the MHTGR accident analyses
because the analyses assumed that only one of the modules would be involved in the
accident.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the APT accident
analyses consequences. The accident consequences Full and Phased APT accidents with low
to moderate consequences were negligible. For the beyond design basis accident, there
was no difference in the Full and Phased accident sequences. Review of the source terms is
identical for both accidents. Review of the MACCS computer code out put date for each
accident analysis indicated that the tritium component of the source term dominated the
dose calculation results. The impact of the other source term isotopes on the dose
calculation results is negligible.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The accidents postulated for tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities are based on operation and safety analyses that have been
performed at similar facilities. One of the major design goals for tritium supply and
recycling facilities is to achieve a reduced risk to facility personnel and to public
health and safety relative to as low as reasonably achievable.
Current estimates are that there would be no collocated workers within 1,000meters from
an accident, 320 collocated workers between 1,000meters and 2000meters of an accident, and
14,110 collocated workers beyond 2,000meters of the accident. Involved workers that are
associated with the proposed action would be located in and around the facility.
Table 4.4.3.9-4.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Low-to-Moderate
Consequence/High Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Oak Ridge
Reservation
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full APT Tritium Target Tritium Recycling
ALWRb, ALWRb,d Extraction Facility
Facilityb
Parameter - - - - SILC Target - -
Systemb,
Accident
Description Fuel assembly failure Moderate break in Fuel handling Fuel handling Large break loss of Deflagration Hydride Bed
during charge and primary system coolant rupture
discharge operations piping accident
Frequency (per year) 1.0x10-3 2.5x10-2 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-3 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 6.8x10-5 4.4x10-8 4.3x10-5 5.8x10-5 negligible 4.2x10-4 1.8x10-6
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 6.8x10-8 1.1x10-9 4.3x10-10 5.8x10-10 negligible 8.4x10-9 3.6x10-10
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesi 0.75 4.3x10-4 0.46 0.64 negligible 4.5 0.021
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 7.5x10-4 1.1x10-5 4.6x10-6 6.4x10-6 negligible 9.0x10-5 4.2x10-6
Worker at 1,000meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 1.6x10-4 1.9x10-7 1.6x10-4 2.1x10-4 negligible 2.6x10-3 1.1x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.6x10-7 4.8x10-9 1.6x10-9 2.1x10-9 negligible 5.2x10-8 2.2x10-9
Worker at 2,000meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 5.3x10-5 6.5x10-8 5.4x10-5 6.7x10-5 negligible 8.8x10-4 3.6x10-6
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 5.3x10-8 1.6x10-9 5.4x10-10 6.7x10-10 negligible 1.8x10-8 7.2x10-10
Worker exposure that may result from the accidental release of radioactive material will
be minimized through design features and administrative procedures that will be defined
in conjunction with the facility design process. The radiological impacts to involved
workers from accidents could not be quantitatively estimated for this PEIS because the
facility design information needed to support the estimate has not yet been developed. The
impacts on workers from accidents will analyzed as part of subsequent project-specific
NEPA documentation and in detailed safety analysis documentation that are prepared in
conjunction with the facility design process.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to comply with current
Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and industrial codes and standards. This would
provide facilities that are highly resistant to the effects of severe natural phenomena,
including earthquake, flood, tornado, and high wind, as well as credible events as
appropriate to the site such as fire and explosions, and man-made threats to its
continuing structural integrity for containing materials.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to resist the effects of
severe natural phenomena as well as the effects of man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity. It also would be designed to provide containment of the tritium
inventory at all times through the use of multiple, high quality confinement barriers to
prevent the accidental release of tritium to the environment. It also would be designed to
produce a lower quantity of waste materials as compared to the tritium facilities of the
existing weapons complex.
In addition, DOE orders specify the requirements for emergency preparedness at DOE
facilities. ORR has comprehensive emergency plans to protect life and property within the
facility and the health and welfare of surrounding areas. The emergency plans would be
revised to incorporate future DOE requirements and expanded to incorporate the addition of
tritium supply and recycling facilities to ORR. Section 4.4.2.9 presents emergency
preparedness and emergency plan details at ORR.

4.4.3.10 Waste Management
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities would impact
existing ORR waste management operations, increasing the generation of low-level, mixed
low-level, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and reintroducing the generation of spent
nuclear fuel. There would be no high-level or TRU wastes associated with the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. As part of their design, all reactor
technologies would provide stabilization and storage of spent fuel for the life of the
facility. The impacts of a decision to put new tritium supply and recycling facilities at
ORR would involve the construction of new treatment facilities for liquid LLW for the HWR,
MHGTR and ALWR. There would be no impacts on current facilities for mixed LLW and
hazardous waste resulting from any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facil-
ities. All the technologies would generate enough nonhazardous solid waste to shorten the
planned lifetime for the sanitary/industrial landfills or require a proportional
expansion. All of the new technologies would require the construction of treatment
facilities for sanitary liquid waste. This section provides a description of the waste
generation, treatment, storage, and disposal requirements of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities and the potential impacts on waste management at
ORR.
No Action. Under No Action, spent nuclear fuel, TRU, low-level, mixed low-level,
hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes would continue to be managed from the missions outlined
in section 3.3.3. Table 4.4.3.10-1 lists the projected waste generation rates and
treatment, storage, and disposal capacities under No Action. Projections for No Action
were derived from 1992 environmental data with appropriate adjustments made for those
changing operational requirements where the volume of wastes generated are identifiable.
The projection does not include wastes from future, yet uncharacterized, environmental
restoration activities.
Table 4.4.3.10-1.-Projected Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management for No Action at Oak
Ridge Reservation [Page 1 of 2]
Category Annual Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Rate Method Capacitya Method Capacitya Method Capacitya
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear None None NA Pools and storage 0.08 None NA
Fuel vaults
Transuranic
(Solid)
Contact-handled 14 None NA Staged for 800 None, Federal NA
shipment repository in
future
Remote-handled 5 None NA Staged for 290 None, Federal NA
shipment repository in
future
Low-Level
Liquid 2,900 Neutralization & 479,000 Stored onsite 1,500 None NA
(587,000 gal) precipitaion (97,000,000 GPY) (302,000 gal)
Solid 9,300 Compaction, Offsite Stored onsite 202,000 Onsite Planned
smelting,
incineration
Mixed
Liquid 2,330 Settlement, 802,000 Long-term 128,000 NA NA
(470,000 gal) incineration, (162,000,000 GPY) storage onsite (26,000,000 gal)
ion exchange
Solid 11,060 None Planned Staged for 159,000 None - offsite to NA
shipment NTS pending
Hazardous
Liquid 94,000 Neutralization, 107,000 Tanks 1,440 Offsite NA
(19,000,000 gal) settlement (21,000,000 GPY) (290,000 gal)
Solid 1,150 Compaction/ 2,100 Staged for 163,000 Offsite NA
incineration shipment
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 2,400,000 Offsite 3,500,000 None NA Offsite/NPDES NA
(483,000,000 gal) neutralization, (700,000,000 GPY) outfall
biological
degradation
Solid 77,000 None NA None NA Landfill (onsite) 640,000
Landfill (offsite)
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 988,000 Evaporation, 2,300,000 None NA Offsite, NPDES NA
(199,000,000 gal) incineration, (464,000,000 GPY) outfall
neutralization
Solid 9,040 None NA None; Scrap NA Landfill (onsite) - 1,700,000
metal stockpiled Construction
debris
A small quantity of spent nuclear fuel could be generated by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory High-Flux Isotope Reactor in the production of isotopes for commercial
applications and in conducting research. As indicated in table 4.4.2.10-2 only 40percent
of the reactor pool is currently full and it should be capable of storing the generated
fuel rods for many years. Other fuel and irradiated nuclear material would be stored in
various locations at ORR awaiting transport to INEL or SRS by fuel type in accordance with
the ROD from the Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Final EIS. As
reflected in this ROD, the DOE estimated inventory of spent nuclear fuel in 2035 is
2,742metric tons. For comparison purposes, the commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory in
2030, assuming no reprocessing or new orders, is projected to be 85,700metric tons of
heavy metal (DOE 1994d:16).
Small quantities of TRU waste would be generated for isotope production and research
activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Most of this type of waste would be
generated in remedial action projects. TRU waste previously buried and stored would be
repackaged into TRUPACT-II containers to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria for
eventual shipment to WIPP once it can demonstrate compliance with the environmental
standards for the management and disposal of TRU wastes (40 CFR 191) and the land
disposal standards of RCRA as amended (40 CFR 268), or to another TRU waste disposal
facility should WIPP prove unsatisfactory. If shipments to WIPP are delayed, plans for
additional TRU storage facilities would be required or the waste could be shipped to
another TRU waste disposal facility.
Liquid LLW would be solidified, neutralized, and allowed to evaporate. Some liquid waste
would also be incinerated. Solid LLW would be compacted and stored onsite at K-25 and the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory as indicated in section 4.4.2.10. Contaminated scrap metal
would be processed for beneficial reuse where possible, including the DOE Shielding Block
Program, or be size-reduced for disposal. Hazardous waste would be treated in the same way
as LLW, but sent offsite for disposal.
Mixed solid waste would be treated and disposed of according to the ORR Site Treatment
Plan, which is being developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Mixed
liquid wastes would also be incinerated at the TSCA incinerator. The resulting waste would
then be stored in a RCRA-permitted facility in DOT-approved containers until it is shipped
to an offsite disposal facility. Some of the waste would be placed in interim storage
until new technologies for treatment and disposal are identified and evaluated.
A new industrial pretreatment facility for liquid discharges from Y-12 to the city of
Oak Ridge sanitary system would be constructed under the terms of its Industrial
Pretreatment Permit. Nonhazardous sanitary and nonradioactive process waste liquids would
be treated in conventional sewage treatment plants. The resultant solids would be disposed
of with solid nonhazardous waste in a permitted landfill sized to handle projected future
waste volumes.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Tritium supply and recycling facilities that will support
the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements would treat and package all waste generated in
support of this activity into forms that would enable long-term storage and/or disposal in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and other relevant statutes as outlined in
chapter 5 and in appendix section H.1.2. The resultant waste effluents are shown in
section3.4. Waste generated during construction would consist of wastewater, nonhazardous
solids, and hazardous waste. The nonhazardous wastes would be sent offsite to the city of
Oak Ridge landfill. The hazardous wastes would be shipped to a commercial RCRA-permitted
treatment and disposal facility. Operation of the three reactor-based tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities would generate spent fuel, and all four technologies
would generate low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes. The volume
of the waste streams from tritium supply would vary according to the technology chosen.
Table 4.4.3.10-2 lists the total estimated waste volumes projected to be generated at ORR
as a result of various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. The data for
the three major activities (K-25, Y-12, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory) at ORR were
combined (ORR 1993a:8). The incremental waste volumes from the tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities that were added to the No Action projection can be found in
appendix section A.2. Table 4.4.3.10-3 lists potential waste management impacts at ORR at
the time of initial operation of the tritium facilities. Spent nuclear fuel storage for
the life of the reactors is provided for in the reactor designs (appendix section A.2.1).
Because spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is not planned, no HLW would be generated. Without
plutonium production, no TRU waste would be generated. The treatment, storage, and
disposal of mixed LLW and hazardous waste from all the technologies could be handled by
current facilities.
Table 4.4.3.10-2.-Estimated Generated Annual Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes for
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Category No Action HWR MHTGR ALWR/Large ALWR/Small APT
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear Fuel None 7 80 55 36 None
Low-level
Liquid 2,910 13,300 5,510 27,700 6,820 2,910
(587,000 gal) (2,690,000 gal) (1,110,000 gal) (5,590,000 gal) (1,380,000 gal) (587,000 gal)
Solid 9,300 14,900 11,000 10,400 10,300 10,200
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid 2,330 2,330 2,330 2,330 2,330 2,330
(470,000 gal) (470,000 gal) (470,000 gal) (470,000 gal) (470,000 gal) (470,000 gal)
Solid 11,100 11,200 11,100 11,100 11,100 11,100
Hazardous
Liquid 94,400 94,400 94,400 94,400 94,400 94,400
(19,000,000 gal) (19,000,000 gal) (19,000,000 gal) (19,000,000 gal) (19,000,000 gal) (19,000,000 gal)
Solid 1,150 1,190 1,250 1,190 1,190 1,150
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 2,400,000 14,100,000 10,600,000 33,700,000 16,600,000 3,730,000
(483,000,000 gal) (2,860,000,000 gal) (2,140,000,000 gal) (6,800,000,000 gal) (3,360,000,000 gal) (753,000,000 gal)
Solid 77,000 92,000 91,800 91,300 88,600 85,600
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 988,000 988,000 988,000 988,000 988,000 988,000
(199,000,000 gal) (199,000,000 gal) (199,000,000 gal) (199,000,000 gal) (199,000,000 gal) (199,000,000 gal)
Solid 9,040 21,900 21,800 21,200 18,900 15,400
Heavy Water Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of 7yd3 per year.
This would add 0.3metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent nuclear fuel
inventory. The HWR would be designed to provide the necessary stabilization and storage of
the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The HWR would produce quanti-
ties of liquid LLW which would increase by a factor of five the quantity of wastes as
compared to No Action. Construction of a liquid radioactive waste facility would be
required. The amount of solid LLW generated by the HWR would increase 60percent over the
rate generated under No Action. Additional treatment and staging facilities may be
required. Assuming a 1,700yd3 per acre LLW disposal usage factor, this would require
approximately 1.2 acres per year for LLW disposal. Expansion of the planned LLW disposal
facility would be necessary. With the addition of an HWR facility, the total amount of
mixed and hazardous wastes would not change significantly compared to No Action. Thus no
additional impacts from these wastes are anticipated if this technology is chosen for
this site. The HWR would generate much larger quantities of nonhazardous liquid and
solid wastes than currently projected for ORR under No Action. The amount of sanitary
liquid waste would be greater by a factor of almost 7. The generation of solid sanitary
waste would increase 19percent. Therefore, additional treatment capacity and landfill
capacity would be necessary. Additional treatment facilities or expansion of existing or
planned facilities would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA analysis.
Siting an HWR without tritium recycling facilities at ORR would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described above and
table 4.4.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining waste
stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, and liquid nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described
above and in table 4.4.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by 56percent
over No Action, and would require approximately 1.1 acres per year of LLW disposal. The
increase in generation rate Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from 19percent
to 10 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of the
landfill.
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the
rate of 80yd3 per year. This would add 0.24metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE
spent nuclear fuel inventory. The MHTGR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
MHTGR would produce quantities of liquid LLW which would increase by 90percent the amount
being generated under No Action. Construction of a liquid radioactive waste facility would
be required. The MHTGR would increase by 18percent the amount of solid LLW being generated
under No Action. Expansion of existing or additional staging facilities may be needed.
Expansion of the planned LLW disposal facility may be necessary to meet the 0.35 acres per
year of LLW disposal. Approximately the same amount of mixed and hazardous wastes as in No
Action would be generated by the MHTGR. Thus no additional impacts from these wastes are
anticipated if this technology is chosen for this site. The MHTGR would generate greater
quantities of nonhazardous liquid and solid wastes than normal operations at ORR. This
would cause increased need for treatment and landfill capacity.
Siting an MHTGR without tritium recycling facilities at ORR would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above and table 4.4.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining
waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, and liquid nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described
above and in table 4.4.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by 14percent
over No Action, and would require approximately 0.3 acres per year of LLW disposal. The
increase in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from
19percent to 10 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned
lifetime of the landfill.
Table 4.4.3.10-3.-Potential Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Impacts from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling at Oak Ridge Reservation [Page 1 of 2]
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR ALWR/Large ALWR/Small APT
Category Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact
from from from from from
No Action No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Spent Nuclear New New storage Newb New storage Newb New storage Newb New storage None None
Fuel facility facility facility facility
Low-Level
Liquid +358 New +89 New +852 New +135 New None None
treatment treatment treatment treatment
facility facility facility facility
Solid +60 1.2 acres per +18 .35 acres per +11 0.4 acres per +11 0.2 acres per +10 0.2 acres per
year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW year of LLW
disposal disposal disposal disposal disposal
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None
Solid <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None <+1 None
Hazardous
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +4 None +9 None +3 None +3 None <+1 None
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid +491 New +342 New +1,310 New 595 New +56 New
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
Solid +19 Landfill life +19 Landfill life +19 Landfill life 15 Landfill life +11 Landfill life
reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or
expansion expansion expansion expansion expansion
required required required required required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +143 None - Project +142 None - Project +135 None - Project +110 None - Project +71 None - Project
wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are
recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
55yd3 per year. This would add 105metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. The Large ALWR would increase
the generation of liquid LLW by a factor of 9. Construction of a liquid radioactive
waste facility would be required. The 11percent increase in the generation of solid LLW
would require 0.4 acres per year of LLW disposal. Expansion of existing, or additional,
staging facilities and planned LLW disposal facility may be required. Approximately the
same amount of mixed and hazardous wastes as in No Action would be generated if the Large
ALWR facility is added to ORR. No additional impacts from these wastes are anticipated.
The Large ALWR does generate greater quantities of nonhazardous liquid and solid wastes
than normal operations at ORR. This would cause increased need for treatment and landfill
capacity.
Siting a Large ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at ORR would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above and table 4.4.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining
waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, and liquid nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described
above and in table 4.4.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by 8percent over
No Action, and would require approximately 0.33 acres per year of LLW disposal. The
increase in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from
19percent to 9 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned
lifetime of the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
36yd3 per year. This would add 68metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Small ALWR facility would be designed to have the necessary
stabilization and storage facilities for spent fuel. The Small ALWR facility would produce
approximately the same quantity of wastes as the Large ALWR except for liquid LLW and non-
hazardous wastes. The amount of liquid LLW generated from the Small ALWR is approximately
25percent of the Large ALWR generated wastes while the amount of solid LLW is
approximately the same. A solid LLW disposal rate of 0.2acres per year would be required.
The amount of nonhazardous liquid waste generated by the Small ALWR is about half the
amount generated by the Large ALWR while the amount of solid waste is about the same. In
general, as seen in table 4.5.3.10-3 the impacts on treatment and staging facilities are
the same.
Siting a Small ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at ORR would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel or liquid LLW as described
above and table 4.4.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining
waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW,
hazardous wastes, and liquid nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described
above and in table 4.4.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by 7percent over
No Action, and would require approximately 0.16 acres per year of LLW disposal. The
increase in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from
15percent to 5 percent; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned
lifetime of the landfill.
Accelerator Production of Tritium. The APT does not generate spent nuclear fuel. Any
liquid LLW can be solidified at the point of generation. Mixed low-level and hazardous
wastes generation increase is less than 1 percent; thus, no impacts are expected. The APT
would increase the generation of nonhazardous sanitary solid waste by 11percent over No
Action. Thus, there would be no additional impact for this facility except for an
increased need for LLW at the rate of 0.2 acres per year and landfill capacity.
Siting an APT without tritium recycling facilities at ORR would not affect the generation
of nor change the impacts from liquid LLW as described above and table 4.4.3.10-3. Liquid
mixed LLW would no longer be generated. All remaining waste stream generation rates would
decrease; however, the impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, and liquid
nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described above and in table 4.4.3.10-3.
The generation of solid LLW would increase by 6percent over No Action, and would require
approximately 0.13 acres per year of LLW disposal. A less than 2percent increase in the
generation of solid sanitary nonhazardous wastes over No Action would have minimal impact
on the planned lifetime of the landfill.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event of a reduced baseline tritium requirement the
waste volumes shown in table 4.4.3.10-2 would not appreciably change as a result of the
HWR operating at less power, and the MHTGR and ALWR irradiating fewer target rods. In the
case of a Phased APT using the helium-3 target, the waste volumes with the exception of
cooling tower blowdown, which decreases by 36percent (86 MGY), are approximately the same
as the Full APT using the helium-3 target.
Multipurpose Reactor
Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. The volume of spent nuclear
fuel generated by the six-reactor module multipurpose MHTGR would be approximately double
the spent nuclear fuel from the three-reactor module tritium supply MHTGR. Similar to the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, the plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time before dry storage, the spent nuclear fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the threereactor module tritium
supply MHTGR. No increases in waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due
to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to plutonium-oxide reactor fuel. However,
there would be increases in waste generation for all waste categories due to operation of
the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU
wastes from both the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility and the fabrication of
plutonium-oxide fuel. These increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.4.3.10-2
for the tritium supply MHTGR. Table 4.8.3.1-8 provides the quantity of waste effluents
from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility. In addition approximately 385yd3 of mixed
TRU and TRU wastes would result from the fabrication of plutonium-oxide fuel. The 399yd3
of mixed TRU and TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one
is available) after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
The only TRU waste handling facilities at ORR exist at ORNL; thus, siting at other than
ORNL would require TRU waste handling facilities to process the TRU waste to WIPP waste
acceptance criteria.
The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per
year, 18 regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. One
hundred gallons of liquid and 0.2yd3 of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in
accordance with the ORR Site Treatment Plan. Approximately 0.003 acres per year of LLW
disposal area would be required to dispose of the 10yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging
capacity exists to accumulate the 1,000 gallons of liquid and 1yd3 of solid hazardous
wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An
additional 87yd3 of solid non-hazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary
landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be
required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility is not collocated with the
multipurpose reactor.
Multipurpose Advanced Light Water Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the same rate
with approximately the same amount of residual heavy metal content as the tritium supply
ALWR. The decay heat in the mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could be 10 to 20percent greater
than the heat in spent uraniumoxide fuel assemblies. The increased decay heat load could
reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool and dry storage casks or
increase fuel pool dwell time before dry storage. No increases in waste generation rates
or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to
mixed-oxide reactor fuel. However, there would be increases in waste generation for all
waste categories due to operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU wastes. These
increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.4.3.10-2 for the Large and Small
tritium supply ALWR. As shown in table 4.8.3.1-4, approximately 399yd3 of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available)
after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
The only TRU waste handling facilities at ORR exist at ORNL; thus, siting at other than
ORNL would require TRU waste handling facilities to process the TRU waste to WIPP waste
acceptance criteria. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require
35 truck shipments per year, 18 regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train
shipments per year. Two hundred gallons of liquid and 13yd3 of solid mixed LLW would
require treatment in accordance with the ORR Site Treatment Plan. Approximately 0.16 acres
per year of LLW disposal area would be required to dispose of the 524yd3 of solid LLW.
Sufficient staging capacity exists to accumulate the 200 gallons of liquid and 13yd3 of
solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal
facility. An additional 3,920yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes would require disposal in
the sanitary landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities may be required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility is not collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Each new tritium supply technology and recycling facility
would be designed to process its own waste into a form suitable for storage or disposal
and would use proven waste minimization and pollution prevention technologies whenever
possible. Some facility designs produce waste quantities or waste forms that could undergo
additional reductions by utilizing the emerging technologies, thereby further reducing
or mitigating impacts. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would be major factors
in determining the final design of any facility constructed as part of the proposed action
at ORR. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would also be analyzed as part of
the sitespecific analyses and tiered NEPA documents.
Some of the facilities, such as the Above Grade Storage Facility at Y-12, planned for or
under construction at ORR to handle wastes generated from past and current operations
and from environmental restoration activities may be able to treat, store, or dispose of
tritium-related wastes. The use of existing incineration capability at ORR could reduce
the volume of solid LLW to be disposed of by a factor of 20. Utilization of existing
facilities, or the need for the construction of new facilities, would be addressed in
site-specific NEPA documents.

4.5 Pantex Plant
Pantex was established in 1951, and currently occupies approximately 10,000 acres near
Amarillo,TX. The current defense program mission at Pantex is to assemble and disassemble
nuclear weapons, perform weapons repair, modification and disposal, conduct stockpile
evaluation and testing, and provide interim storage for plutonium. Section 3.3.5 provides
a description of all the DOE mission and support facilities at Pantex. The location of
Pantex is illustrated in figure 4.5-1.

4.5.1 Description of Alternatives
Under the proposed action, any one of the four tritium supply technologies (HWR, MHTGR,
ALWR, or APT) alone or collocated with a new tritium recycling facility could be sited at
Pantex. Section 3.4.2 provides a description of the tritium supply technologies and
section 3.4.3.1 describes the tritium recycling facility. Figure 4.5.1-1 shows the
location of existing facilities within Pantex and areas for the proposed TSS.
Under No Action, Pantex would continue to operate its current and planned missions,
developing and fabricating HE components, assembling and disassembling weapons as
required to support the projected stockpile requirements, and other missions as described
in section 3.3.5. No facilities at Pantex would be phased out as a result of the proposed
action alternatives discussed in this PEIS.

4.5.2 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the affected environment at Pantex for land resources,
air quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources,
cultural and paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. In addition, the
infrastructure at Pantex, the radiation and hazardous chemical environment, and the waste
management conditions are described.

4.5.2.1 Land Resources
The discussion of land resources at Pantex includes land use and visual resources.
Land Use. The Pantex site is located within Carson County in the Panhandle region of
Texas, 17 miles east-northeast of downtown Amarillo. The Pantex site covers 15,000 acres
of land of which approximately 9,000 acres are owned by the Federal government and
approximately 6,000 acres are leased from Texas Technological University (Texas Tech). All
owned and leased buildings on the site are administered, managed, and controlled by DOE.
DOE owns an additional remote tract of 1,080 acres of undeveloped land at Pantex Lake.
This property is held by DOE to retain the water rights. Generalized land uses at Pantex
and the vicinity are shown on figure 4.5.2.1-1. Future land uses proposed in the Pantex
Site Development Plan are shown on figure 4.5.2.1-2. Future land uses concentrate on
centralization of facilities by relocations away from site boundaries into an interior
core.
Plant operations are currently located on approximately 1,800 acres of developed land.
Three additional parcels, totaling 2,240 acres, are designated for future industrial
sites as shown in figure 4.5.2.1-3. Any of these three future industrial sites could
support the potential tritium supply and recycling facilities.
The Texas Tech Agriculture Research operations use DOE-leased land not actively used for
Pantex operations for agricultural use. Agricultural activities generally consist of dry
farming and livestock grazing. A limited amount of crop irrigation occurs. Except for the
playas, the Soil Conservation Service considers these lands prime farmland when irrigated.
Texas Tech land also contains four dwelling units located approximately 3 miles southwest
of the weapons assembly and disassembly, and high explosives production core.
The land surrounding Pantex is rural private property. The closest offsite residences are
approximately 100 feet west of the plant boundary along Farm-to-Market Road683. Most of
the surrounding land is prime farmland when irrigated, with the exception of the area
northwest of the plant site, which is rangeland. Some property owners have enrolled
their land in the Federal Conservation Reserve Program. Under terms of this program, the
land is placed in a dormant state for 10 years and cannot be cultivated or grazed. The
majority of the land, however, is cultivated. The land is generally dry farmed; however,
some fields are irrigated from local playas or from the Ogallala aquifer. The packing
plant of Iowa Beef Packers, 7Inc., is the only industrial activity within 2miles of the
plant.
Figure (Page 4-283)
Figure 4.5-1.-Pantex Plant, Texas, and Region.
Figure (Page 4-284)
Figure 4.5.1-1.-Primary Facilities, Proposed Tritium Supply Sites, and Testing Areas at
Pantex Plant.
Figure (Page 4-285)
Figure 4.5.2.1-1.-Generalized Land Use at Pantex Plant and Vicinity.
Figure (Page 4-286)
Figure 4.5.2.1-2.-Future Land Use at Pantex Plant.
Figure (Page 4-287)
Figure 4.5.2.1-3.-Designated Industrial Sites at Pantex Plant.
Pantex is crossed by four low-altitude Federal airways used by the Amarillo International
Airport for aircraft landings and takeoffs. The runway is located approximately 7 miles
southwest of the site boundary. The Height Hazard and Land Use Ordinance for Amarillo
International Airport overlays approximately 75 percent of Pantex, with building height
limits ranging from 750 to 1,425 feet above the ground surface (PXBDC 1989a).
The Amarillo Comprehensive Plan has designated land for future growth. The direction for
future residential development is anticipated to occur toward the southwest, away from
the plant. The East Planning Area of the city, which extends to within 2miles of the plant
site, has historically been one of the slower growing residential areas. Because of the
presence of the airport and important industrial use in this area, the comprehensive plan
encourages compatible use rather than residential use. The largest residential area in
this planning area is the site of the base housing of the former Amarillo Air Force Base.
The base housing, which has been converted to rental housing, is located approximately 5
miles southwest of the plant boundary.
Visual Resources. Pantex is sited within a landscape typical of the High Plains region of
Texas consisting of cultivated cropland and rangeland. The Pantex site consists of
operational facilities of the plant and the inactive facilities of the former World War II
ammunition plant. These industrial land uses are surrounded by cropland and rangeland
that blend into the offsite viewscape. This mixed use of industrial and agricultural uses
is consistent with the Bureau of Land Management's VRM Class 4 designation.
The most sensitive viewpoint of the plant site is located 1.5 miles southeast of the plant
at the intersection of U.S. Route 60 and Farm-to-Market Road 2373. U.S. Route 60 is part
of the Texas Plains Trail, a scenic road with Pantex as a designated point of interest.
Much of the view of the plant along this highway is obscured by the elevated railroad
right-of-way. The plant is still visible, appearing as low clusters of buildings on a flat
horizon. The cylindrical water towers are the most visible feature because of their
height. The operations areas are well defined at night by the intense security lighting.
The plant operations areas are also visible from Interstate 40, with the closest viewpoint
being the rest area approximately 6 miles away. This viewpoint is similar to that
described for U.S. Route 60; however, because of the greater distance, the plant
facilities are not as prominent.
Public access to Pantex and its buffer areas is strictly controlled and limited to
authorized personnel, visitors, and the agricultural lessee. Public access adjacent to the
plant perimeter is limited to three Farm-to-Market Roads and U.S. Route 60. The plant
facilities are generally visible from the low-density rural housing that surrounds the
site.

4.5.2.2 Site Infrastructure
Section 3.3.5 describes the current missions at Pantex. To support these missions, an
extensive infrastructure exists as shown in table 4.5.2.2-1. Of critical importance to the
proposed action is the electrical power infrastructure at each potential site. Pantex is
located in the Southwest Power Pool Region and draws its power from the West Central Power
Pool Subregion. Characteristics of this subregion are listed in table 4.5.2.2-2.
Table 4.5.2.2-1.-Baseline Characteristics for Pantex Plant
Current Characteristics Value
Land
Area (acres) 16,000
Roads (miles) 47
Railroads (miles) 17
Electrical
Energy consumption (MWh/yr) 77,000
Peak load (MWe) 13
Fuel
Natural gas (ft3/yr) 520,000,000
Oil (GPY) 274,000
Coal (ton/yr) 0
Steam (lb/hr) 75,000
Source: PX 1993a:2
Table 4.5.2.2-2.-Subregional Power Pool Electrical Summary for Pantex Plant
Type Fuel Production
(percent)
Coal 59
Nuclear 7
Hydro/geothermal 1
Oil/gas 32
Other 1
Total Annual Production: 107,607,000 MWh
Total Annual Load: 104,681,000 MWh
Energy Exported Annually: 2,926,000 MWh
Generating Capacity: 24,642 MWe
Peak Demand: 20,578 MWe
Capacity Margin: 4,064 MWe

4.5.2.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
The following describes existing air quality and acoustics including a review of the
meteorology and climatology in the vicinity of Pantex. More detailed discussions of the
air quality and acoustics methodologies, input data, and atmospheric dispersion
characteristics are presented in appendix section B.1.3.5.
Meteorology and Climatology. The climate at Pantex and in the surrounding region is
characteristically that of a continental steppe (Trewartha 1954a). It is typified by
large variations in temperature and precipitation from year to year, with summers that are
hot and dry and winters that are mild. The annual average temperature in the Amarillo
region is 57.2F; average daily temperatures vary from a minimum of 21.7 F in January to a
maximum of 91.4 F in July. The average annual precipitation is approximately 19 inches
(NOAA 1991c:3). Prevailing wind directions are from the south to southwest. The annual
average wind speed is 13.6 mph. Additional information related to meteorology and clima-
tology at Pantex is presented in appendix sectionB.1.3.5.
Ambient Air Quality. Pantex is located within the Amarillo-Lubbock Intrastate AQCR 211,
which is currently designated as "attainment" or "unclassified" by EPA (40 CFR 81.344)
with respect to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 50). Applicable NAAQS and the
State of Texas ambient air quality standards are presented in appendix table B.1.3.1-1.
There are no Prevention of Significant Deterioration (40 CFR 52.21) Class I areas in the
vicinity of Pantex.
Pantex does not operate any ambient air quality monitoring stations that measure
criteria pollutant emissions. Ambient air quality monitoring data are supplied by the
State of Texas from stations located in Amarillo. Appendix table B.1.3.5-1, presents
ambient air quality monitoring data from 1986 to 1991 for PM10 and Pb. The data indicate
that these regulated pollutants were in compliance with applicable ambient standards.
Historically, the primary emission sources of criteria pollutants are the steam plant
boilers, the explosives burning operation, and emissions from vehicles (appendix table
B.1.3.5-2) (PX DOE 1983a:3-8). Potential emission sources of hazardous/toxic air pol-
lutants include the high explosives synthesis facility, the explosive burning operation,
miscellaneous laboratories, and other small operations (appendix table B.1.3.5-2). With
the exception of high explosives disposal burning at the Burning Ground, most stationary
points of nonradioactive atmospheric releases are from fume hoods and building exhaust
systems with HEPA filters.
Table 4.5.2.3-1 presents the baseline ambient air concentration for criteria pollutants
and other pollutants of concern at Pantex. As shown in the table, with the exception of
the 30-minute standards for hydrogen chloride, baseline concentrations are in compliance
with applicable guidelines and regulations.
Table 4.5.2.3-1.-Comparison of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at Pantex Plant, 1991 [Page 1 of 2]
Pollutant Averaging Time Most Stringent Baseline
Regulation or Concentration
Guideline (ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 1,352
- 1-hour 40,000 a 7,836
Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5a 0.07
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 a 2
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 a b
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 a 27
- 24-hour 150 a 114
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 0.03
- 24-hour 365 a 24
- 3-hour 1,300 a 194
Mandated by Texas
Hydrogen fluoride 30-day 0.8 d
- 7-day 1.6c d
- 24-hour 2.9c 0.69
- 12-hour 3.7c d
Hazardous and Other
Toxic Compounds
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30-minute 19,100 c 8.3
- Annual 1,910 c <0.01
1,1,2-Trichloro- 30-minutee f 12.6
1,2,2-Trifluoroethane
- Annual f <0.01
2-Butoxyethanol 30-minutee 1,210 c 208.9
- Annual 121 c 0.13
Acetone 30-minutee 5,900 c 341.1
- Annual 590 c 0.02
Aliphatic hydrocarbons 30-minutee f 19
- Annual f <0.01
Aromatic hydrocarbons 30-minutee f 27.2
- Annual f <0.01
Aromatic petroleum distillates 30-minutee 3,500 c 13.6
- Annual 350 c <0.01
Butyl acetate 30-minutee 1,850 c 87
- Annual 710 c 0.01
Butyl alcohol 30-minutee 1,220 c 31.6
- Annual 150 c 0.01
Chlorodifluoromethane 30-minutee 18,000 c 4.9
- Annual 1,800 c <0.01
Cyanogen 30-minutee 210 c 161.8
- Annual 21 c 0.01
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (Continued)
Dichlorodifluoromethane 30-minutee 49,500 c 23.3
- Annual 4,950 c <0.01
Diesel 30-minutee 90 c 2.4
- Annual 9 c <0.01
Epoxy solvent 30-minutee f 16.5
- Annual f <0.01
Ethyl alcohol 30-minutee 18,800 c 12.2
- Annual 1,880 c <0.01
Freon TF 30-minutee f 24.8
- Annual f 0.02
Hydrocarbons 30-minutee f 1,812
- Annual f 0.08
Hydrogen chloride 30-minutee 75 c 232.3
- Annual 0.1c 0.01
Isopropyl alcohol 30-minutee 7,856 c 127.3
- Annual 980 c 0.02
Methyl alcohol 30-minutee 2,620 c 178.3
- Annual 262 c 0.11
Methyl ethyl ketone 30-minutee 3,900 c 92.8
- Annual 590 c 0.02
Tert-butyl-ether 30-minutee f 1.9
- Annual f 0.01
Tetrahydrofuran 30-minutee 5,900 c 29.6
- Annual 590 c 0.02
Toluene 30-minutee 3,750 c 236.2
- Annual 375 c 0.13
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 30-minutee 10,000 c 7.3
- Annual 1,000 c <0.01
VM&P naphtha 30-minutee 3,500 c 23.3
- Annual 350 c <0.01
Xylene 30-minutee 3,700 c 44.2
- Annual 435 c 0.01
Acoustic Conditions. Major noise emission sources within Pantex include various industrial
facilities, equipment, and machines. No sound-level measurements have been made around
Pantex. At the site boundary, away from most of the industrial facilities at Pantex, noise
emitted from the site would be barely distinguishable from background noise levels.
However, some noise from explosives detonation can be heard at residences north of the
site.
The acoustic environment along the Pantex boundary and at nearby residences away from
traffic noise is assumed to be that of a rural location with typical day/night levels in
the range of 35 to 50 dBA (EPA1974a:B-4). Traffic is the primary source of noise at the
site boundary and at residences near roads. The contribution of plant traffic to traffic
noise levels in the area is small. However, traffic noise is expected to dominate sound
levels along major roads in the area such as U.S. Route 60. The residents that have the
highest potential for being affected by noise from plant traffic along access routes to
Pantex are those living along Farm-to-Market Roads 2373 and683.
Other sources of noise include aircraft, wind, insect activity, and agricultural activity.
Except for the prohibition of nuisance noise, neither the State of Texas nor its local
governments have established specific numerical environmental noise standards applicable
to Pantex.

4.5.2.4 Water Resources
This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources at Pantex.
Surface Water. There are no streams or rivers at Pantex, and all site water requirements
are met by groundwater. All surface water drains to playas, natural closed depressions
that collect runoff to form ephemeral lakes. There are six playas associated with Pantex.
Playas 1 through 5 are located on the main site, and Pantex Lake (also a playa) is located
approximately 3 miles northeast of the main site (figure 4.5.1-1) (PX DOE 1992a).
The Pantex Plant Wastewater Treatment Facility is discharging approximately 400,000GPD
(146MGY) of treated sanitary waste effluent to Playa1, which is a known wetland. Discharge
to Playa1 is continuous. Building discharges and stormwater runoff are directed to
Playas1, 2, and4. Playa3 receives stormwater runoff from the Pantex Burning Ground.
Current Pantex activities do not involve Playa5 or Pantex Lake, although wastewater has
been discharged to Pantex Lake in the past. There are also a number of playas adjacent to
Pantex that receive drainage from perimeter portions of the site (PX DOE 1992a). Playas
recharge groundwater, although the rate of recharge is unknown. The Texas Bureau of
Economic Geology is currently conducting a study to determine this rate (PX Battelle
1992a).
Since the 1960s, reclaimed waste effluent has been used for cooling water processes on the
Texas High Plains. There are two potential sources of reusable wastewater available in the
vicinity of Pantex Plant: the Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Pantex
Plant Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the south side of Amarillo,
approximately 20miles from Pantex. Currently the plant is discharging approximately 7MGD
(2,225MGY) of advanced secondary treated water that has gone through a filter treatment
and is then discharged to the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River. This amount is
anticipated to increase to 12MGD (4,380MGY) by 2010. An agreement has been negotiated with
the city of Amarillo to develop this wastewater to support Pantex operations.
Because there are no onsite or nearby flowing streams, floodplains exist only in
association with the playas. A previous floodplain assessment concluded that the only
incidence of flooding would be at some sites southeast of Playa 3 and some relict World
War II bunkers southwest of Playa 4 (PX DOE 1982a). This limited flooding would not affect
the operations of Pantex (PX Battelle 1992a). Information about the 500-year flood is
unavailable; however, a site-specific assessment is currently being considered that may
address the 500-year flood event for Pantex.
Surface Water Quality. The NPDES program of the CWA is administered by the EPA in the
State of Texas. In addition, discharge of wastewaters to waters defined as "Waters of the
United States" within the State of Texas requires a wastewater discharge permit from the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission in accordance with the Texas Water Code
(PX Battelle 1992a).
Pantex submitted an NPDES permit application for Playas 1, 2, and 4 in November 1990 that
is still under EPA Region 6 review. Pantex also submitted an NPDES stormwater discharge
permit application in October 1991 for Playa 3. This application is also under EPA Region
6 review.
The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission allows Pantex to discharge
wastewaters into Playas 1 and 2. On December 26, 1990, Pantex filed an application to
modify its wastewater discharge permit to allow discharge of both industrial wastewater
and rainwater runoff into Playa 4. An application for a renewal of the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission wastewater discharge permit 2296 is on file and is
currently under negotiation.
The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission's annual wastewater inspection in
1991 noted two deficiencies with permit requirements, one for pH excursions in effluent
outside of the 6 to 9 range, and another for no delineation of the extent of the natural
clay liner of the playas to indicate permeable areas. Both deficiencies have been
corrected.
Surface water monitoring is conducted at all five playas at the main plant and Pantex Lake
as well as at Bushland Playa, an offsite control playa used for comparative purposes.
There are some differences in the parameters monitored among the playas, but the results
of 1991 monitoring activities at Playa 1 are presented as representative of the water
quality of the playas at Pantex (table 4.5.2.4-1) (PX DOE 1992a). Bushland playa was dry
during 1991. No parameters exceeded applicable water quality criteria.
Table 4.5.2.4-1.-Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring Data for Playa 1 at Pantex
Plant, 1991
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Average Water
Measure Criteria Body Concentration
Alpha (gross, dissolved) pCi/l 15 6.09
Alpha (gross, suspended) pCi/l NA 3.00
Ammonia (as N) mg/l NA <0.4
Arsenic mg/l 0.05 <0.011
Barium mg/l 1 c <0.18
Beta (gross, dissolved) pCi/l 50 20.70
Beta (gross, suspended) pCi/l NA 5.64
Cadmium mg/l 0.005b <0.005
Chloride mg/l 250 89
Chromium mg/l 0.1b <0.008
Copper mg/l 1.3b <0.009
Cyanide mg/l 0.2b <0.005
Fluoride mg/l 2.0c 2.1
HMX* mg/l NA <0.020
Iron mg/l 0.3e 5.5
Lead mg/l 0.015b <0.006
Manganese mg/l 0.05e 0.35
Mercury mg/l 0.002b <0.0001
Oil and grease mg/l NA <1
PETN* mg/l NA <0.40
Plutonium-239, -240 pCi/l 1.2 0
Radium-226 pCi/l 4.0f 0.60
Radium-228 pCi/l 4.0f 1.10
RDX* mg/l NA <0.020
Selenium mg/l 0.01c <0.005
Silver mg/l 0.05c <0.005
Sulfate (as SO4) mg/l 250 e <11
TNT* mg/l NA <0.020
Total organic carbon mg/l NA 20
Tritium pCi/l 20,000 b 70
Uranium-234 pCi/l 20 f 4.26
Uranium-238 pCi/l 24 f 2.20
Zinc mg/l 5 e <0.025
Figure (Page 4-295)
Figure 4.5.2.4-1.-Potentiometric Surface of the Ogallala Aquifer at Pantex Plant.
Surface Water Rights and Permits. Water rights in Texas fall under the Doctrine of Prior
Appropriations. Under this doctrine, the user who first appropriated water for a
beneficial use has priority to use available water supply over a user claiming rights at a
later time. Courts also recognize riparian rights legally granted from Spanish-American
Agreements. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission is the administrator for
water rights and is the permit-issuing authority.
Groundwater. Pantex is located on the Texas High Plains aquifer, which is the southernmost
extension of a regional aquifer that extends from Texas to South Dakota (PX WDB 1993a).
The two principal waterbearing units beneath Pantex and adjacent areas are the Ogallala
aquifer and the Dockum Group aquifer (PX DOE 1983a). Deep wells, completed at depths of
600 to 850 feet into the Ogallala Formation, have provided the water supply at Pantex for
over 40years. In 1990, the recoverable volume of water in storage in the Ogallala aquifer
in the High Plains aquifer system was estimated at approximately 136x106 million gallons
(417 million acre-feet).
The Ogallala aquifer beneath Pantex has not been classified by EPA. However, it is the
only source of drinking water at Pantex. Depth to water in the Ogallala aquifer ranges
from 340 feet at the southern boundary of Pantex to 460 feet at the northern boundary. The
saturated thickness of the Ogallala Formation ranges from 50 feet to more than 400 feet
and in some areas is capable of producing yields in excess of 1,000 gpm (525.6MGY) (PX DOE
1983a). Estimates of annual recharge rates to the Ogallala aquifer vary from 0.01to 1.6
inches per year based on earlier studies that investigated slow regional infiltration of
precipitation and recent studies that explored percolation of water through playa lakes
(Native 1990) and leakage from the Dockum Group aquifer into the Ogallala aquifer (PX WDB
1993a).
The withdrawal of water from the Ogallala aquifer continues to exceed recharge, causing
water levels to decline in the Pantex area at a rate of approximately 2 to 5 feet per
year. During 1980 to 1990, the city of Amarillo well field north of Pantex experienced up
to 60 feet of water-level decline, causing a depression in the groundwater surface
northeast of Pantex (PXWDB 1991a). This depression has caused the groundwater flow
direction beneath Pantex to shift from the southeast to the present northeast direction
(DOE 1991a). Figure 4.5.2.4-1 shows the potentiometric surface of the Ogallala aquifer
beneath Pantex.
Recently an agreement between Pantex and the city of Amarillo was negotiated to develop
reclaimed wastewater from the city of Amarillo Hollywood Road Waste Treatment Plant.
Currently, the waste treatment plant is discharging approximately 2,555MGY of the
advanced treated wastewater and will be discharging approximately 4,380MGY by 2010. The
use of reclaimed wastewater will reduce the amount of future Pantex groundwater
withdrawals and slow the annual decline rate of the Ogallala aquifer.
Groundwater Quality. Pantex's groundwater monitoring program includes monitoring wells,
onsite Ogallala production wells, and onsite drinking wells distributed throughout the
facility. Wells located in the vicinity of the proposed TSS are shown in figure 4.5.2.4-1.
Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells are analyzed for a standard suite
of parameters and constituents, including volatile organics, high explosives, pesti-
cides, herbicides, semi-volatile organics, trace metal, radioactive materials (gross alpha
and gross beta), and field parameters (total dissolved solids and pH).
The groundwater of the perched zone and the Ogallala aquifer beneath Pantex is monitored
for both organic and radiological constituents. No radiological and only limited metal
concentrations have been found in some of the wells monitoring the Ogallala aquifer. Table
4.5.2.4-2 shows the water quality in the Ogallala aquifer. Groundwater samples from the
perched zone, however, contain a variety of constituents that are either above background
levels or drinking water standards or not naturally occurring. These include:
1,2-dichloroethane; chromium; iron; and the RDX and HMX (PX DOE 1991d). Table 4.5.2.4-3
shows the water quality in the perched zone. No maps of the perched zone contaminant
levels are currently available as to the extent of contamination.
Table 4.5.2.4-2.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data for the Ogallala Aquifer Wells at
Pantex Plant, 1990
- Unit of Water Quality Drinking Water Monitoring
Measure Criteria and
Standards
Parameter - - Well No. Well No. Well No. Well No.
WR-23 WR-28 WR-39 WR-40
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 0-2 0 0-3 0
Barium mg/l 2 b 0.11-0.14 0.11-0.14 0.01-0.15 0.3-0.16
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-1
Chromium mg/l 0.1b <0.005-0.007 <0.005-0.009 <0.005 <0.005-0.006
Copper mg/l 1.3b 0.038-0.910 <0.005-0.021 <0.005-0.005 <0.005-0.006
1,2 Dichloroethane mg/l 0.005b <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
HMX mg/l NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020
Iron mg/l 0.3 <0.01-0.19 <0.01-0.03 0.26-2.70 0.12-2.10
Lead mg/l 0.015b <0.005-0.022 <0.005-0.028 <0.005-0.066 <0.005
Nitrate mg/l 10 b 1.2-1.5 1.3-1.5 0.75-1.4 1.1-1.3
pH pH units 6.5-8.5 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.8
RDX mg/l NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020
Sulfate mg/l 250 d 18-19 18-22 9-21 11-21
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500 d 288 292 273 288
Total organic carbons mg/l NA g g <1.0-7 <1-24
Total organic halogens mg/l NA g g <3,000-10,000 <3,000-24,000
Trichloroethylene mg/l 0.005b <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Tritium pCi/l 20,000 b 30-150 20-250 120-220 20-300
Uranium-233, -234, pCi/l 20 1.5-2.4 1.7-1.9 1.6-2.2 1.8-2.4
-235, -238
Zinc mg/l 5 d 0.023-0.160 0.042-0.110 0.61-10 0.170-1.30
Table 4.5.2.4-3.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring for the Perched Zone Wells at Pantex
Plant, 1990
Contaminant Unit of Water Quality Well No. Well No. Well No.
Measure Criteria and WR-44 WR-45 WR-20
Standards
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 0-1 0-1 0-5
Barium mg/l 2 b 0.12-0.17 0.19-0.23 0.13-0.18
Beta (gross) pCi/l 50 0-1 0-2 0-2
Chromium mg/l 0.1b <0.005-0.005 <0.005-0.014 0.062-0.120
Copper mg/l 1.3 <0.005-0.003 <0.005-0.005 <0.005-0.003
1,2 Dichloroethane mg/l 0.005b <0.005 <0.005 <0.005-0.010
HMX mg/l NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020-0.083
Iron mg/l 0.3d 0.01-0.09 <0.04-0.21 <0.005-5.00
Lead mg/l 0.015b <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Nitrate mg/l 10 b 0.83-2.10 0.93-1.30 1.80-2.70
pH pH units 6.5-8.5 7.8 7.6 7.8
RDX mg/l NA <0.020 <0.020 0.73-2.40
Sulfate mg/l 250 d 6-15 13-25 16-27
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500 d 190-230 380-430 270-340
Total organic carbons mg/l NA <0.005 1-5.0 <1.0-5.6
Total organic halogens mg/l NA <3,000-21,000 5,000-36,000 19,000-40,000
Trichloroethylene mg/l 0.005b <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Tritium pCi/l 20,000 b 60-220 20-200 0-160
Uranium-233, -234, -235, -238 pCi/l 20 0.8-1.6 2-2.6 0.8-4.9
Zinc mg/l 5 d 0.013-0.970 0.006-1.30 <0.005-0.040
Groundwater Availability, Use, and Rights. Five production wells in the northeast corner
of Pantex serve the plant's industrial and potable water needs. In 1991, the plant pumped
303 million gallons of water from the Ogallala aquifer, while the city of Amarillo pumped
4.9 billion gallons from its well field located immediately north of the plant. The
estimated sustainable groundwater producing capacity of the Ogallala is approximately 0.53
BGY. Pantex Lake, located adjacent to the Amarillo water-well field, is available for
drilling additional water wells if needed for future operations.
The Ogallala Formation is also a source for municipal and industrial water to nearby towns
and cities and irrigation water to nearby farms. In the Pantex area, the cities of
Amarillo and Canyon maintain community water systems. The city of Amarillo draws its raw
water from groundwater and Lake Meredith and has the capacity to supply 75MGD. The city of
Canyon maintains the capacity to supply approximately 7 MGD from its own wells and may
purchase up to 5 MGD from the city of Amarillo.
Groundwater is controlled by the individual landowner in Texas. The Texas Department of
Health and the Texas Water Development Board are the two state agencies with major
involvement in groundwater fact finding, data gathering, and analysis. Groundwater
management is the responsibility of local jurisdictions through Groundwater Management
Districts. The Pantex facility is located in Panhandle Groundwater District 3, which has
the authority to require permits and limit the quantity of water pumped. Presently, the
Panhandle Groundwater District does not limit the quantity of water pumped.

4.5.2.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. Pantex is located on the southern High Plains of the Texas panhandle. The
topography at Pantex consists of flat to gently rolling plains; there are no unique
landforms. The only distinctive features are playas that are spaced more or less uniformly
over the site. The playas are about 1,500 to 2,000 feet across with clay bottoms and
depths to 30 feet.
The site itself is underlain by the Blackwater Draw Formation. At Pantex this geologic
formation consists of a sequence of buried soils with an upper unit of mostly silt, clay,
and caliche and a 20-foot lower unit of silty sand with caliche. The Ogallala Formation
underlies the Blackwater Draw Formation.
No capable faults within the definition of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, are present in the
vicinity of Pantex. The plant is located at the edge of a large Permian fault block, but
there is no indication of faulting in the immediate area in the last 250 million years.
Pantex lies on the boundary between Seismic Zones 0 and 1 (figure 4.2.2.5-2). Since 1906,
only nine earthquakes of Richter magnitude 3.0 or greater have been recorded in the more
seismically active Amarillo Highlands 20 miles northeast of Pantex. Seismicity in the Palo
Duro Basin and at Pantex is low. There is no volcanic hazard at Pantex.
Soils. Pantex is underlain by soils of the PullmanRandall association. These soils are
typically deep, very low permeability clays and clay loams. Pullman soils underlie most of
the plant area, but Randall soils occur in the vicinity of the playas and depressions.
Water and wind erosion and shrink-swell potential is moderate-to-severe for most of the
soil units (PXUSDA 1962a; PX USDA 1980a). However, the soils are acceptable for standard
construction techniques.

4.5.2.6 Biotic Resources
The following description of biotic resources at Pantex includes terrestrial resources,
wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. Scientific names of
species identified in the text are presented in appendix C. Also presented in appendixC is
a list of threatened and endangered species that may occur on the site or in the vicinity
of Pantex.
Terrestrial Resources. Pantex is located within a treeless portion of the High Plains that
is classified as mixed prairie. The High Plains vegetational area is a southern extension
of the short- and mid-grass prairies of the Western Great Plains. The primary vegetation
of the High Plains includes short-grasses (i.e., buffalo-grass and blue grama) and
mid-grasses (i.e., little bluestem, sideoats grama, and western wheatgrass) (PX DOE
1991a:2). Twenty-three percent of the site, including land leased from Texas Tech
University, has been developed. Much of the remainder of the site has been disturbed by
past agricultural practices, and is currently being managed as native and improved pasture
or cultivated by the University or its tenant farmers (PX DOE 1983a:3-20,3-23). Small
areas of undisturbed vegetation, primarily grasses and herbs, exist around playas. Plant
communities on the site have not been mapped. A total of 229 plant species have been
identified on the site (PX DOE 1993c:2).
Terrestrial wildlife species occurring on Pantex include 7 amphibians, 8 reptiles, 43
birds, and 19mammals (PX DOE 1994c:2-5; PX DOE 1994d:7-11). Common bird species known to
occur in the vicinity of Pantex include the western meadowlark, mourning dove, horned
lark, and several species of sparrows. Common species of mammals found in the vicinity of
Pantex include the black-tailed jackrabbit, black-tailed prairie dog, and hispid cotton
rat PX DOE 1991a). Among the game animals occurring onsite are cottontails, scaled and
bobwhite quail, mourning dove, and numerous waterfowl species. Hunting is not permitted at
Pantex. Common raptors on Pantex include the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and
burrowing owl (PX DOE 1994b). Carnivores present include the badger and coyote. A variety
of migratory birds has been found at Pantex. Migratory birds, their nests and eggs, are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eagles are similarly protected by the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Wetlands. Wetlands at Pantex are associated with the five playa basins occurring on the
site (figure 4.5.1-1), and Pantex Lake (also a playa), located approximately 3 miles
northeast of the site. The National Wetland Inventory map identifies playas 1through 5 and
part of Pantex Lake as wetlands (PXDOI nda). Playas 1, 2, and 3 are classified by the
USFWS as palustrine (nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and emergent
vegetation) systems. The larger playas, 4 and 5, and Pantex Lake are classified as
lacustrine (lakes, ponds, and other enclosed open waters at least 20 acres in extent and
not dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation) systems. Playas 1, 2, and 4
currently receive wastewater discharge (section 4.5.3.4). There are numerous smaller
wetlands (approximately 10 acres or less) located on western and southwestern parts of
Pantex in areas that are largely grazed or farmed (PXDOI nda). These wetlands are
classified as palustrine systems. Two of these wetlands are located near the southern-most
proposed TSS. Situated along the Central Flyway Migratory Route, the Pantex playas are
important to migratory birds and provide valuable habitat for nesting and wintering birds
and waterfowl.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic habitat is limited to four ephemeral playas, one permanent
playa, and several ditches (figure 4.5.1-1). Although the playas and ditches may provide
habitat for amphibians and macroinvertebrates, they do not support any fish populations.
Pantex Lake, located 3 miles northeast of the site, also does not contain any fish.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Eighteen Federal- or state-listed threatened,
endangered, and special status species have been identified on the site and in the
vicinity of Pantex (appendix table C-5). Table 4.5.2.6-1 lists the species (including two
subspecies of peregrine falcon) that may occur on the site or near the proposed TSS.
Field surveillance would be required to determine their presence. No critical habitat for
threatened and endangered species, as defined in the Endangered Species Act (50CFR 17.11;
50 CFR 17.12), exists on Pantex.
The bald eagle is a winter resident that has been observed foraging at playas on the site
each year. The whooping crane, an infrequent migrant in the Texas panhandle, was observed
foraging onsite and in the surrounding area in the fall of 1990. Migratory peregrine
falcons (undetermined subspecies) have been observed hunting shorebirds and waterfowl near
area playas.
Table 4.5.2.6-1.-Federal- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special
Status Species That May be Found On the Site or In the Vicinity of Proposed Tritium
Supply Site on Pantex Plant
Species Status Potential Habitat/Location
- Federal State -
Mammals
Swift fox C2 NL Open plains
Birds
American peregrine falcon E E Forages at playas, migrant
Arctic peregrine falcon T T Forages at playas, migrant
Bald eagleb,c T E Playa, winter resident
Black ternb C2 NL Forages at playas, migrant
Ferruginous hawkb C2 NL Forages in shortgrass prairie
Loggerhead shrikeb C2 NL Semi-open areas with lookout perch
White-faced ibisb C2 T Forages at playas
Whooping craneb,c E E Forages at playas, rare migrant
Reptiles
Texas horned lizardb C2 ST Arid open country
Federal candidate species observed on Pantex include the swift fox, black tern,
ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, white-faced ibis, and Texas horned lizard. Possible
swift fox dens have been found on Pantex. The Texas horned lizard is known to reside on
the site and the loggerhead shrike is a common permanent resident which probably nests
onsite. The ferruginous hawk forages in shortgrass prairie, and the black tern and
white-faced ibis forage at the playas.
There is little undisturbed habitat at Pantex that would accommodate any of the
threatened, endangered, and other special status species listed in table 4.5.2.6-1. Most
of these species are attracted to the playas, which provide water and foraging habitat.
According to a recent floristic survey (PXDOE1993c), there are no Federal- or state-listed
plant species known to occur on Pantex. However, there are three cactus species at Pantex
that may be proposed for a watchlist of potentially threatened plant species.

4.5.2.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric site types identified at Pantex include small
temporary campsites and limited activity locations characterized by surface scatters of
artifacts. Archaeological surveys at Pantex have systematically covered approximately
one-third of the facility. Fifty-five prehistoric sites have been recorded, some of which
contain heat-altered rock that suggests food processing. These prehistoric campsites tend
to be clustered near the Pantex playas. Twenty-three sites have been tested, and one has
been determined potentially eligible for the NRHP. Prehistoric sites are not specifically
known in the proposed project locations, though some possibility of their presence exists.
Historic Resources. The Pantex facility was originally constructed in 1942, as a World War
II bomb-loading plant on land claimed from local farmers. Remains of eight of these
farmsteads have been recorded as historic archaeological sites, none of which have been
evaluated for NRHP eligibility. One of these is located within proposed Industrial Site C
(figure 4.5.2.1-3). Additional sites are possible in the project areas, but are not
likely.
The entire Pantex site has been surveyed for World War II-era structures and foundations,
and all such properties have been systematically recorded. The Texas SHPO has listed 45
of these structures as potentially eligible for NRHP listing. No World War II-era
properties are in the proposed industrial sites for this project.
The Cold War/Nuclear Technology historic context has not yet been defined for Pantex. When
this occurs, it is probable that a number of plant structures will be determined
NRHP-eligible.
Native American Resources. Historic Native American groups known to have occupied or used
the Pantex region included Apache, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa and Kiowa-Comanche.
Native American resources associated with these groups have not yet been identified at
Pantex, but the remains of temporary campsites, hunting locations, ceremonial locations,
or isolated burials are possible. In addition, the Caddo, Delaware and Wichita have
expressed an interest in Native American resources at Pantex.
Paleontological Resources. The surficial geology of the Pantex area consists of silts,
clays, and sands of the Blackwater Draw Formation. In other areas of the High Plains this
formation contains Late Pleistocene vertebrate remains, including bison, camel, horse,
mammoth, and mastodon, with occasional and significant evidence of their use by early
humans. Evidence of woolly mammoth has recently been found north of Pantex (PX 1992a:7),
and a recent archaeological testing program at the Pantex Plant recovered possible bison
bones eroding from one small incised drainage near a playa. These remains have not yet
been positively identified as paleontological or cultural materials.

4.5.2.8 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic characteristics presented for Pantex include employment and local economy,
population, housing, public finance, and local transportation. Statistics for economy
characteristics are presented for the regional economic area that encompasses 15counties
around Pantex (appendix table D.2.1-2). The regional economic area is a broad labor and
product market-based region linked by trade among economic sectors within the region.
Statistics for population and housing, public finance, and local transportation are based
on the ROI, a 3-county area in which 90 percent of all Pantex employees reside: Carson
County (5 percent) and Potter and Randall Counties (85 percent). (See figure 4.5-1 for a
map of counties and cities). Fiscal characteristics of the jurisdictions in the ROI are
presented in the public finance section in appendix tables D.3-62 and D.3-63. The
independent school districts most likely to be affected by the proposed action include
Groom, Panhandle, White Deer, Amarillo, and Canyon. Assumptions, assessment methodologies,
and supporting data are presented in appendix D.
Regional Economy Characteristics. Employment and local economy statistics for the Pantex
regional economic area are presented in appendix table D.3-53, and summarized in figure
4.5.2.8-1. Between 1970 and 1990, the civilian labor force in the regional economic area
increased approximately 43 percent. In 1990, the unemployment rate in the regional
economic area was lower than the State of Texas rate. The 1990 per capita income in the
regional economic area was approximately 6 percent higher than the state's per capita
income.
As shown in figure 4.5.2.8-1, the percentage of total employment involving farming and
governmental activities in the regional economic area was approximately the same as the
percentage for the state. Nonfarm private sector activities of manufacturing, retail
trade, and services in the regional economic area were greater than the state. In 1990,
Pantex employed 2,394 persons (1.6 percent of the total regional economic area
employment), increasing from 1,630persons in 1970. Historical and future employment at
Pantex and the distribution of Pantex employees by place of residence in the ROI are
presented in appendix tables D.2.1-1 and D.3-52, respectively.
Population and Housing. Population and housing distribution in the ROI is presented in
appendix tables D.3-56 and D.3-59, and summarized in figure 4.5.2.8-2. The percent
increase in population in the ROI from 1970 to 1990 was approximately half the state
percent increase except for Randall County, which experienced a 66-percent increase. The
percentage increase in housing units in the ROI between 1970 and 1990 was approximately
28 percent lower than the state increase except for Randall County, which experienced a
118-percent increase. Homeowner and rental vacancy rates in the ROI in 1990 were similar
to those experienced by the state.
Public Finance. Financial characteristics of the local jurisdictions in the ROI that are
most likely to be affected by the proposed action include total revenues and expenditures
of each jurisdiction's general fund, special revenue funds, and, as applicable, debt
service, capital project, and expendable trust funds. School district boundaries may or
may not coincide with county or city boundaries, but the districts are presented under
the county where they primarily provide services. Major revenue and expenditure fund
categories for counties, cities, and school districts are presented in appendix tables
D.3-62 and D.3-63, and figure 4.5.2.8-3 summarizes local government's revenues less its
expenditures.
Local Transportation. Vehicular access to Pantex is provided by Farm-to-Market Roads 683
to the west and 2373 to the east. Both roads connect with Farm- to-Market Road 293 to the
north and U.S. Highway 60 to the south (figure 4.5-1). Road segments providing access to
Pantex experience varying levels of service. Traffic on State Route 60 generally expe-
riences slightly more congestion than other access routes. Potential disruptions to the
traffic flow caused by accidents or maintenance activities are usually minor. No major
improvements are scheduled for roadway segments providing immediate access to Pantex
(figure 4.5.1-1).
Amarillo receives public transport service from Amarillo City Transit; however, no service
is provided to Pantex. Major railroads in the ROI include the Burlington-Northern
Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. The mainline of the Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad parallels the southern boundary of Pantex and provides
direct access to the site. There are no navigable waterways within the ROI capable of
accommodating material transports to the plant.
Amarillo International Airport receives jet air passenger and cargo service from national
and local carriers. eeveral smaller private airports are located throughout the ROI (DOT
1991a).

4.5.2.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
The following provides a description of the radiation and hazardous chemical environment
at Pantex. Also included are discussions of health effects studies, emergency
preparedness considerations, and an accident history.
Figure (Page 4-302)
Figure 4.5.2.8-1.-Economy for Pantex Plant Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-303)
Figure 4.5.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Pantex Plant Region of Influence [Page 1 of
2].
Figure (Page 4-304)
Figure 4.5.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Pantex Plant Region of Influence [Page 2 of
2].
Figure (Page 4-305)
Figure 4.5.2.8-3.-1992 Local Government Public Finance for Pantex Plant Region of
Influence.
Table 4.5.2.9-1.-Sources of Radiation Exposure to Individuals in the Vicinity, Unrelated
to Pantex Plant Operations
Source Committed
Effective Dose
Equivalent
(mrem/yr)
Natural Background Radiation
Cosmic and external terrestrial 107
radiation
Internal terrestrial radiation 39
Radon in homes (inhaled) 200
Other Background Radiation
Diagnostic x-rays and nuclear 53
medicine
Weapons test fallout <1
Air travel 1
Consumer and industrial products 10
Total 411
Radiation Environment. Major sources of background radiation exposure to individuals in
the vicinity of Pantex are shown in table 4.5.2.9-1. All annual doses to individuals from
background radiation are expected to remain constant over time. Accordingly, the
incremental total dose to the population would result only from changes in the size of the
population. Background radiation doses are unrelated to Pantex operations.
Releases of radionuclides into the environment from Pantex operations provide another
source of radiation exposure to people in the vicinity of Pantex. The radionuclides and
quantities released from Pantex operations in 1992 are listed in the Pantex Plant Site
Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1992 (RPT7). The doses to the public resulting from
these releases are given in table 4.5.2.9-3. These doses fall within radiological limits
(DOE Order 5400.5) and are small in comparison to background radiation. The releases
listed in the 1992 report were used in the development of the reference environment (No
Action) radiological releases at Pantex in 2010 (section 4.5.3.9).
Based on a risk estimator of 500 cancer deaths per 1million person-rem to the public
(appendix section E.2), the fatal cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the
public due to radiological releases from Pantex operations in 1992 is estimated to be
approximately 1.4x10-11. That is, the estimated probability of this person dying of cancer
at some point in the future from radiation exposure associated with 1 year of Pantex
operations is less than 14chances in 1 trillion. (Note that it takes several to many years
from the time of exposure to radiation for a cancer to manifest itself.)
Approximately 2.5x10-8 excess fatal cancers were estimated from normal operations in 1992
to the population living within 50 miles of Pantex. To place this number into
perspective, it can be compared with the number of fatal cancers expected in this
population from all causes. The 1990 mortality rate associated with cancer for the U.S.
population was 0.2percent per year (Almanac 1993a:839). Based on this mortality rate, the
number of fatal cancers from all causes expected to occur during 1992 in the population
living within 50 miles of Pantex was 550. This number of expected fatal cancers is much
higher than the estimated 2.5x10-8 fatal cancers that could result from Pantex operations
in 1992.
Workers at Pantex receive the same dose as the general public from background radiation,
but also receive an additional dose from working in the facilities. Table 4.5.2.9-3
includes the average, maximum, and total occupational doses to Pantex workers from
operations in 1992. These doses fall within radiological limits (10 CFR 835). Based on a
risk estimator of 400 fatal cancers per 1million person-rem among workers (appendix
section E.2), the number of excess fatal cancers to Pantex workers from operations in 1992
is estimated to be 0.0.
A more detailed presentation of the radiation environment, including background exposures
and radiological releases and doses, is presented in the Pantex Plant Site Environmental
Report for Calendar Year 1992 (RPT7). In addition, the concentrations of radioactivity in
various environmental media (e.g., air, water, and soil) in the site region (onsite and
offsite) are presented in the same reference. Pantex operations contribute only small
amounts of radioactivity to all these media. Past discharges to Playa 1 (see figure
4.5.1-1) were substantial, but mainly nonradiological. However, this playa is located
onsite and is not used as a drinking water source. Appropriate monitoring is conducted to
ensure that contamination of any kind from this playa will not reach drinking water
supplies.
Table 4.5.2.9-2.-Doses to the General Public from Normal Operation at Pantex Plant, 1992
(committed effective dose equivalent)
- Atmospheric Releases Liquid Releases Total
Affected Environment Standard Actual Standarda Actualb Standarda Actual
Maximally exposed 10 2.7x10-5 4 0.0 100 2.7x10-5
individual (mrem)
Population within 50 None 5.0x10-5 None 0.0 100 5.0x10-5
miles (person-rem)
Average individual within None 1.8x10-7 None 0.0 None 1.8x10-7
50 miles (mrem)
Table 4.5.2.9-3.-Doses to the Worker Onsite from Normal Operation at Pantex Plant, 1992
(committed effective dose equivalent)
- Onsite Releases and
Direct Radiation
Affected Environment Standard Actual
Average worker (mrem) None 21.1
Maximally exposed worker 5,000 1,000
(mrem)
Total workers (person-rem) None 51
Chemical Environment. The background chemical environment important to human health
consists of: the atmosphere, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be inhaled;
drinking water, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be ingested; and other
environmental media with which people may come in contact; e.g., surface waters during
swimming, soil through direct contact, or via the food pathway. The baseline data for
assessing potential health impacts from the chemical environment are those presented in
sections 4.5.2.3 and 4.5.2.4.
Health impacts to the public can be minimized through effective administrative and design
controls for decreasing pollutant releases to the environment and achieving compliance
with permit requirements. The effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use
of monitoring information and inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts to the
public may occur during normal operations at Pantex via inhalation of air containing
pollutants released to the atmosphere by Pantex operations. Risks to public health from
other possible pathways such as ingestion of contaminated drinking water or by direct
exposure are low relative to the inhalation pathway.
Baseline air emission concentrations for hazardous/toxic air pollutants and their
applicable standards are presented in section 4.5.2.3. These concentrations are
estimates of the highest existing offsite concentrations and represent the highest
concentrations to which members of the public could be exposed. All annual concentrations
are in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. Information about estimating
health impacts from hazardous/toxic chemicals is presented in appendix section E.3.
Health impacts to Pantex workers during normal operation may include those from inhalation
of the workplace atmosphere, drinking Pantex potable water, and possible other contact
with hazardous materials associated with particular work assignments. The potential for
health impacts varies from facility to facility and from worker to worker, and available
information is not sufficient to allow a meaningful estimation and summation of these
impacts. However, workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through
appropriate training, protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. Pantex
workers are also protected by adherence to occupational standards that limit workplace
atmospheric and drinking water concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Moni-
toring ensures that these standards are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements (DOE
Order 3790.1B) ensure that conditions in the workplace are as free as possible from
recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause illness or physical harm. Therefore,
worker health conditions at Pantex are expected to be substantially better than required
by the standards.
Health Effects Studies. One mortality and one cancer incidence epidemiologic study on the
general population in communities surrounding Pantex have been performed and one study on
workers has been done. No significant excess cancer mortality was found and the analysis
on excess cancer incidence had too few cases to be considered reliable. Workers were
reported to show a non-statistically significant excess of brain cancer and leukemia in
the one study conducted, but the small number of cases could be attributed to chance
alone. For a more detailed description of the studies reviewed and the findings, refer to
appendix section E.4.5.
Accident History. There have been no plutonium-dispersing detonation accidents during
nuclear weapons operations at Pantex. In 1989, during a weapon disassembly and retirement
operation, a release of deuterium-tritium in the assembly cell occurred. As a result, four
workers received negligible doses and a fifth worker received a dose of approximately
1.4 mrem. This was the first accidental release of radioactivity to occur at Pantex in
25 years.
Emergency Preparedness. In order to handle accidents, each DOE site has established an
emergency management program. This program has been developed and maintained to ensure
adequate response to accident conditions and to provide response efforts for accidents not
specifically considered. The emergency management program incorporates activities
associated with planning, preparedness, and response. Section 4.1.9 provides a description
of DOE's emergency preparedness program.
Pantex has an Emergency Management Plan with guidance on implementation provided by a
series of Emergency Preparedness Procedures manuals to protect life and property within
the facility, the health and welfare of surrounding areas, and the defense interests of
the Nation during any credible emergency situation. Formal mutual assistance agreements
have been made with the Amarillo Fire Department, the National Guard, and St. Anthony's
Hospital. Under accident conditions, an emergency coordinating team of DOE and Pantex
contractor management personnel would initiate the Pantex Emergency Plan and coordinate
all onsite actions.
If offsite areas could be affected, the Texas Department of Public Safety would be
notified immediately, and would make emergency announcements to the public and local
governmental agencies in accordance with Annex R of the State of Texas Emergency Man-
agement Plan. Pantex has radiological assistance teams with a total of 46 personnel who
are equipped and trained to respond to an accident involving radioactive contamination
either onsite or offsite.
In addition, the Joint Nuclear Accident Coordination Center in Albuquerque, NM, can be
called upon should the need arise. This would mobilize radiation emergency response teams
from DOE, DOD, and other participating Federal agencies (PX DOE 1983a).

4.5.2.10 Waste Management
This section outlines the major environmental regulatory structure and ongoing waste
management activities for Pantex. A more detailed discussion of the ongoing waste
management operations is provided in appendix section H.2.4. Table 4.5.2.10-1 presents a
summary of waste management activities at Pantex for 1992.
Table 4.5.2.10-1.-Waste Management at Pantex Plant
Category 1992 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Low-level
Liquid 14 Solidification 14 Staged for 113 NA NA
(3,300 gal) (3,300 GPY) processing (23,000 gal)
Solid 220 Compaction 220 Staged Included in liquid Shipped offsite NA
for shipment low-level to NTS
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid 18 None-onsite Planned Staged for 95 NA NA
(3,600 gal) encapsulation processing (19,000 gal)
pending
Solid 48 Compaction and 1.6 Staged Included in liquid Shipped offsite NA
incineration for shipment mixed LLW
Hazardous
Liquid 180 Incineration Variable Staged 308 Shipped offsite NA
(36,100 gal) for shipment (62,000 gal)
Solid 720 Incinerationb Variable Staged Included in liquid Shipped offsite NA
for shipment hazardous waste
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 542,000 Evaporation and 1,030,000 None NA Lagoon and 1,200,000 yd3/yr
(109,300,000 gal) filtration (207,000,000 GPY) NPDES outfall (237,000,000 GPY)
(stormwater)
Solid 500 Compaction and 270,000 None NA Landfill (offsite) NA
incineration
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 54,400 Carbon absorption/ Included in liquid None NA Lagoon and NPDES Included in liquid
(11,000,000 gal) filtration sanitary waste outfall sanitary
Solid 8,500 Compaction and Included in solid None NA Landfill (onsite) Expandable
incineration sanitary waste - construction debris
only
The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address
compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at Pantex. The
Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory
compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain
schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties
for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones.
EPA Region 6 on July, 29, 1991, proposed Pantex for listing on the NPL of Superfund
cleanup sites. Independent evaluations questioned this proposed listing and DOE
dissented on the proposal. In September 1991, DOE submitted to EPA its technical comments
regarding the proposed listing. EPA placed Pantex on the NPL on May 31, 1994.
Pantex's waste management goals are to minimize the volumes of wastes it generates to the
extent that is technologically and economically practicable, recycle those wastes
applicable to the best available technology, minimize contamination of existing or
proposed real property and facilities, minimize exposure and associated risk to human
health and the environment to as low as reasonably achievable, and ensure safe and
efficient long-term management of all wastes. Pantex manages the following waste catego-
ries: low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous. A discussion of the waste management
operations associated with each of these categories follows.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. Pantex does not generate or manage spent nuclear fuel.
High-Level Waste. Pantex does not generate or manage HLW.
Transuranic Waste. Pantex does not generate or manage TRU waste as a result of normal
operations. In the unlikely event that any TRU waste is generated, there are established
provisions to manage this waste.
Low-Level Waste. LLW generated at Pantex consists of contaminated parts from weapons
assembly and disassembly functions and radioactive waste materials associated with these
functions, such as protective clothing, cleaning materials, filters, and other similar
materials. As shown in table 4.5.2.10-1, Pantex generates a small quantity of liquid LLW.
Liquid LLW is being stored onsite awaiting a planned solidification process. Compactible
components are processed at Pantex's Solid Waste Compaction Facility and stored along with
the noncompactible components for shipment to a DOE-approved disposal site and/or a
commercial vendor. Pantex's LLW is presently shipped to NTS for disposal.
Mixed Low-Level Waste. Mixed LLW is generated during various component testing functions.
These wastes consist primarily of small quantities of materials such as
radioactively-contaminated solvents and wipes contaminated by organic solvents. Mixed LLW
is currently stored onsite in RCRA-permitted facilities (PX Battelle 1992a:2-4). Pantex
has received exemptions to DOE Order 5280.2A for mixed waste shipments to two
RCRA-permitted commercial facilities. Pantex is currently developing its Site Treatment
Plan with the State of Texas and the EPA in order to provide mixed waste treatment capa-
bility for all mixed waste streams and to comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act
of 1992 and RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal requirements.
Hazardous Waste. Pantex received a RCRA Part B hazardous waste permit from the EPA and the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission on April 25, 1991. This permit authorizes
Pantex to manage hazardous and industrial solid wastes listed in the permit. The permit
also requires Pantex to notify the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission of the
discovery of any release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents that may have
occurred from any solid waste management unit. The hazardous waste permit specifically
excluded the 17 RCRA units at the high explosives burning ground that are currently
operated under interim status with a written grant of authority from the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission. Pantex has submitted a request to the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission for a RCRA Part B permit modification to add these units
at the Burning Ground. A decision on this modification has not been reached.
Most of the hazardous waste generated by Pantex results from HE operations; however,
electroplating, photographic, and various other operations also generate additional
hazardous waste streams. Liquid hazardous wastes, generally HE-contaminated wastewater,
are filtered and settled to remove the majority of the HE and then treated at Pantex's
wastewater treatment plant. This procedure is in compliance with the RCRA
Administrative Order on Consent issued by EPA on September 7, 1989. The resulting solid
HE-contaminated residue, along with other HE-contaminated solid hazardous waste (such as
filters, cleaning materials, and protective clothing), HE scrap, and retired HE components
are burned at Pantex's Burning Ground. Ash, debris, and residue resulting from this
burning is transported offsite for approved disposal at a commercial RCRA-permitted
facility (PX MH 1990b:2). All other hazardous wastes generated at Pantex, including
various chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, and other hazardous constituents, are
manifested and shipped offsite by DOT-certified transporters for recycle or disposal at a
commercial RCRA-permitted facility.
Nonhazardous Waste. Nonhazardous solid and liquid sanitary wastes are generated at Pantex.
Sewage and some pretreated industrial wastewater is treated at the wastewater treatment
plant. Liquid effluent from the plant flows into a lagoon, which then either evaporates or
infiltrates into the ground. Liquid industrial waste is also treated in a tank system that
removes metals from plating solutions and then neutralizes this solution. The effluent
from this process is discharged to a playa, which is permitted by the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission. Stormwater discharges are regulated by a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination system permit (PX Battelle 1992a:1-4,5-1). When the
wastewater treatment plant is upgraded, all industrial waste and sewage will be treated at
that one location.
Nonhazardous solid waste generated onsite consists primarily of paper, cardboard,
construction wastes, and cafeteria waste. Only construction wastes are disposed of
onsite. Prior to late 1989, sanitary waste was disposed of at the onsite sanitary
landfill. Since then, sanitary waste has been transported to the city of Amarillo
landfill for disposal. Waste asbestos is sent to an offsite permitted landfill (PX MH
1991c:20).

4.5.3 Environmental Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts of constructing and operating various
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex which are described in
sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. It begins by describing potential impacts to existing and
planned facilities at Pantex, followed by descriptions of potential impacts and the
environmental impacts of the proposed action on potentially affected environmental
resources. The section concludes by describing the potential impacts of tritium supply
and recycling on human health during normal operation, the consequences of facility
accidents, and regulatory considerations and waste management. Each description addresses
the effects of No Action and the potential impacts and environmental impacts of
constructing and operating a tritium supply and collocated recycling facilities or a
tritium supply facility alone at Pantex.

4.5.3.1 Land Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at Pantex would
affect land resources, including land use and visual resources. As discussed in section
4.5.2.1, the proposed facilities could be located in any of three industrial sites.
Potential land use impacts for each of these areas are discussed below. In general, each
of these three areas contains sufficient land area to accommodate any of the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities (section 4.5.2.1). The proposed sites
would meet and/or exceed a 1-mile buffer zone between plant operations and site boundary.
The following sections describe effects of the proposed action on land resources.
Land Use
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned land use activities at
Pantex. Any impacts to land use from these actions would be independent of and unaffected
by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Any one of the tritium supply technologies and collocated
recycling facilities (section 3.4) or tritium supply alone could be sited within one of
the three designated areas located in the existing industrial core (figure 4.5.2.1-2).
Table 4.5.3.1-1 shows the land area required for the tritium supply and recycling
facilities. The land area affected ranges from 360 acres for the MHTGR to 173 acres for
the APT. An additional 196 acres would be required if the tritium supply facility is col-
located with a new recycling facility. As shown in the table, adequate land exists at each
of the three designated areas. The only land use impact would be the displacement of
existing agricultural uses on soils classified as prime farmland.
Table 4.5.3.1-1.-Potential Changes to Land Use Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies
and Recycling at Pantex Plant
Indicator Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Land requirements 260 360 350 173 196
(acres)
Industrial sites A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Available land, 45 34 29 62 47 40 60 46 39 30 23 19 34 26 22
(percent)
Total available land 3.3 4.5 4.4 2.2 2.5
(percent)
No tritium facilities would be constructed offsite, and offsite land use would not be
directly affected. Land is available within the region that could be converted to
residential developments to house workers. Such development would be subject to city land
use controls and zoning ordinances, which vary by city jurisdiction, and is unregulated in
county jurisdictions.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity to
meet a tritium supply requirement less than baseline, or the construction and operation of
a Phased APT would not change potential baseline tritium requirement land use impacts.
Land requirements would be the same in both operation scenarios.
Multipurpose Reactor. The land requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR (section
4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3) with recycling would be 925 and 675 acres, respectively. The site
requirements for both the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR exceed the 600- acre proposed TSS
study area. The multipurpose ALWR with recycling would exceed the available land in
industrial Site A. The MHTGR would exceed the available land in Industrial Sites A, B, and
C. The major land-use impacts would be the displacement of soils classified as prime
farmland and the change in land-use designation from agricultural to industrial. The 925
and 675 acres represent approximately 7 and 5 percent, respectively, of the total
available land at Pantex. Construction and operation of the multipurpose MHTGR or ALWR
would not affect grazing allotments, other agricultural activities, or other land uses on
the site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Facilities that are turned over to waste management outside
the protected area could be totally removed so the land could be reclaimed for
agricultural uses. New facilities could be designed to incorporate new technologies
and be reduced in size.
Visual Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the existing landscape characteristics would remain the same,
consistent with VRM Class 4 (mixed use of industrial and open space) (figure 4.5.2.1-3).
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of any of the proposed tritium
supply technologies and collocated recycling facilities or tritium supply alone would be
consistent with the existing views that already include large industrial facilities. Of
the tritium supply technologies, the APT would be much less visually obtrusive because of
its low profile structures and cooling system (figure 3.4.2.4-1). The key viewpoint is
located 1.5 miles southeast of Pantex at the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 2377 and
U.S. Route 60, which is designated a Texas Plains Trail and a scenic road. Pantex is
noted as a point of interest. Tritium facilities in any of the three industrial areas
would probably be visible from the key viewpoint. There would be no change to the VRM
classification and no apparent change of the visual baseline from the key viewpoint.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline visual impacts would not change due to operation
of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity or the construction and operation of a
Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because no change in VRM classification is anticipated, no
mitigation measures are proposed.

4.5.3.2 Site Infrastructure
This section discusses the site infrastructure for No Action and the modifications needed
for actions due to construction and operation of new tritium supply and recycling
facilities. With a new electrical substation, additional electrical transmission lines,
and nominal increases to fuel procurement, the Pantex infrastructure would be capable of
supporting any of the proposed technologies selected for the site. A comparison of site
infrastructure and facilities resource needs for No Action and the proposed tritium supply
alternatives is presented in table 4.5.3.2-1.
No Action. The missions discussed in section 3.3.5 would continue under No Action. It is
anticipated that certain process improvements to be implemented in the near future would
eliminate specific effluents and emissions and reduce or eliminate some waste streams.
These process improvements would result in reduced utilities infrastructure requirements
for Pantex. Estimated reductions are shown in table 4.5.3.2-1. No modifications are
necessary under No Action. The existing site infrastructure would adequately support all
No Action missions.
Table 4.5.3.2-1.-Modifications to Site Infrastructure for Tritium Supply Technologies and
Recycling at Pantex Plant
Alternative Transportation Electrical Fuel
- Road Railroad Energy Peak Load Oil Natural Gas Coal
(miles) (miles) (MWh/yr) (MWe) (GPY) (million ft3/yr) (tons/yr)
Current Resources 47 17 77,000 13 274,000 520 0
No Action
Total site requirement 47 17 70,000 12 260,000 470 0
Change from current 0 0 -7,000 -1 -14,000 -50 0
resources
Heavy Water Reactor
Total site requirement 47 17 698,000 97 392,000 717 0
Change from current 0 0 621,000 84 118,000 197 0
resources
Modular High
Temperature Gas-
Cooled Reactor
Total site requirement 47 17 518,000 74 391,000 483 0
Change from current 0 0 441,000 61 117,000 -37 0
resources
Large Advanced Light
Water Reactor
Total site requirement 47 17 1,258,000 168 510,000 477 0
Change from current 0 0 1,181,000 155 236,000 -43 0
resources
Small Advanced Light
Water Reactor
Total site requirement 47 17 738,000 103 420,000 477 0
Change from current 0 0 661,000 90 146,000 -43 0
resources
Full Accelerator
Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 47 17 3,898,000 578 323,200 477 0
Change from current 0 0 3,821,000 565 49,200 -43 0
resources
Phased Accelerator
Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 47 17 2,558,000 383 323,200 477 0
Change from current 0 0 2,481,000 370 49,200 -43 0
resources
Note: A negative number (-) indicates that sufficient resources exist to meet the demands.
Source: DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; PX 1993a:2.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The modifications to the infrastructure at Pantex to support
the various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are summarized in table
4.5.3.2-1. For each technology under consideration, additional electrical energy and
electrical load capability would be required to support the new site mission. Table
4.5.3.2-2 summarizes the demands the mission would place on the subregional electrical
power pool. The West Central Power Pool would be able to meet the additional Pantex
requirements for any of the tritium supply technologies. The alternatives would require
between 1.53 and 13.93 percent of the subregional power pool capacity margin, and between
0.47 and 4.31 percent of the Southwest Power Pool regional capacity margin. However, to
make the additional energy and power available at Pantex within the required time frame,
approximately 9 miles of electrical transmission lines would need to be rerouted and
connected to a new electrical substation. With this new substation, Pantex could
accommodate anticipated electrical requirements for each of the technologies under
consideration. Additional natural gas and fuel oil requirements could be satisfied through
increased procurement through normal contractual means.
Table 4.5.3.2-2.-Impacts on Subregional Electrical Power Pool from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant
Tritium Supply Technology Peak Power Capacity Annual Energy Total Electricity
and Recycling Required Margin Required Production
(MWe) (percent) (MWh) (percent)
Heavy Water Reactor 85 2.09 628,000 0.58
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled 62 1.53 448,000 0.42
Reactor
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor 156 3.84 1,188,000 1.10
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor 91 2.24 668,000 0.62
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium 566 13.93 3,828,000 3.56
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium 371 9.13 2,488,000 2.31
Source: DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; DOE 1995g; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; PX 1993a:2.
Coal requirements specified for the HWR are for providing steam energy. If the HWR is
selected for Pantex, this requirement could be satisfied using the existing natural gas
steam-producing facilities. No other modifications would be necessary.
Tritium Supply Alone. If new tritium recycling facilities are not collocated with the
tritium supply facilities at Pantex, and the upgraded recycling facilities at SRS is
utilized, the overall impact at Pantex would be reduced. Onsite transportation network and
electrical transmission line requirements would not be affected. The electrical power
requirements associated with each of the technologies would decrease by 88,000 MWh per
year with the peak load decreasing by 16 MWe. This represents a reduction in the total
site peak power requirement of between 3 and 22 percent with no appreciable change to the
capacity margin of the subregional power pool. Even with these reductions, additional
power would still be required from the West Central Power Pool but the impact would be
marginally less than previously discussed. The natural gas requirement would decrease by
7 million ft3 per year and the fuel oil requirement would decrease by 50,000 gallons per
year. This represents a decrease in the overall site requirement of less than 2 percent
for natural gas and from 10 to 15percent for fuel oil.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event that only the steady state component of the
baseline tritium requirement is required, the impacts on the site infrastructure for some
supply technologies would change. There would be no appreciable change for the HWR, MHTGR,
and ALWR technologies. The Phased APT would reduce electrical consumption by
approximately 35 percent but the fuel, onsite transportation infrastructure, and power
line requirements would not change.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or the ALWR multipurpose reactor option described in
section 4.8.3 could be sited at Pantex. The site infrastructure impacts would vary
depending on the technology.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility described in section 4.8.3.1 along with three additional
MHTGR reactor modules. Fabrication of the plutonium-oxide fuel could be accomplished
in the fuel fabrication facility already included in the tritium supply MHTGR design.
Operation of this facility along with the six module MHTGR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 373,000MW per year (55 percent)
and the total site fuel requirement by about 651,000 GPY (16 percent) over that for
operation of the three module tritium supply MHTGR.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. Operation of this facility along with the ALWR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 20,000 MWh per year (less than 2
percent) and the total site fuel requirement by about 830,000 GPY (20 percent) over that
for operation of the tritium supply ALWR.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated gas-fired power plant at Pantex
to provide the necessary power for the APT could be construction (see section 4.8.2.2).
This would decrease the annual amount of electricity required to be purchased from
commercial sources by up to 3,740,000 MWh per year for the Full APT and 2,400,000 MWh for
the Phased APT. This gas plant would require 54,200million ft3 per year of natural gas to
provide the full APT requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year and 34,800 million ft3 per year
of natural gas to provide the full APT requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year and 344,800
million ft3 per year of natural gas to provide the Phased APT requirement of 2,400,000 MWh
per year. Since this is a large increase (70 to 100 times) over normal usage, the existing
gas line would likely have to be expanded.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The siting of new tritium supply and recycling facilities
would require only minor modifications to the existing site infrastructure. Siting of
electrical transmission lines could follow existing rights-of-way to minimize impacts to
natural resources. Where new rights-of-way would need to be constructed, alignment would
consider existing sensitive habitat (e.g., wetlands and prime farmland) to minimize the
potential for impacts.

4.5.3.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Construction and operation of a tritium supply and recycling facility at Pantex would
generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the potential to exceed Federal
and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. To determine the impacts on air
quality, criteria and toxic/hazardous concentrations from each technology have been
compared with Federal and state standards and guidelines. Impacts for radiological
airborne emissions are discussed in section 4.5.3.9.
In general, all of the proposed technologies would emit the same types of air pollutants
during construction. Emissions would typically not exceed Federal, state, or local air
quality regulations or guidelines, except that PM10 concentrations may be close to or
exceed the 24-hour standard during peak construction periods, which is not uncommon for
large construction projects.
During operation, impacts from each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities with respect to the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous air
pollutants are predicted to be in compliance with Federal, state, and local air quality
regulations or guidelines. The estimated pollutant concentrations presented in table
4.5.3.3-1 for each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities indicate
little difference between technologies with respect to impacts to air quality.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect
ambient air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to
existing sources. Based on the emission rates presented in appendix table B.1.4-4,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for each of the proposed
alternatives at Pantex. This may require "offsets," reductions of existing emissions, to
permit any additional or new emission source.
Noise emissions during either construction or operation are expected to be low. Air
quality and acoustic impacts for each technology are described separately. Supporting data
for the air quality and acoustics analysis, including modeling results, are presented in
appendix B.
Air Quality
An analysis was conducted of the potential air quality impacts of emissions from each of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. The air quality modeling
analysis used the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model recommended by EPA. The
resulting air quality concentrations were then evaluated against local, state, air quality
regulations, and NAAQS (40 CFR 50). The potential exceedance of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (40CFR52.21) increments for PM10, SO2, or NO2 was also determined.
No Action. No Action utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations in the year
2010 assuming continuation of site missions as described in section 3.3.4. These data
reflect conservative estimates of criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions at Pantex. The
emission rates for the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented
in appendix table B.1.4-4. Table 4.5.3.3-1 presents the No Action concentrations.
Pollutant concentrations are in compliance with all air quality regulations and guidelines
except the 30-minute hydrogen chloride standard. It is conservatively assumed that PM10
concentrations are equal to TSP concentrations. Emissions of hydrogen chloride result from
the open air burning of explosives.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Alternatives for Pantex consist of four candidate
technologies: HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT, alone or collocated with tritium recycling
facilities. Air pollutants would be emitted during construction of the tritium supply and
recycling facilities. The principal sources of such emissions during construction include
the following:
Fugitive dust from land clearing, site preparation, excavation, wind erosion of exposed
ground surfaces, and operation of a concrete batch plant.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, construction equipment, vehicles delivering
construction material, and vehicles carrying construction workers.
PM10 concentrations are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient standard
during the peak construction period. Exceedances would be expected to occur during dry and
windy conditions. Appropriate control measures would be followed, such as watering to
reduce emissions. With the exception of PM10, it is expected that concentrations of all
other pollutants at the Pantex boundary would remain within applicable Federal and state
ambient air quality standards.
Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of each of the technologies
include all or part of the following:
Increased operation of existing boilers to generate additional steam for space heating.
Operation of diesel generators and periodic testing of emergency diesel generators.
Recycling operations.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, vehicles delivering supplies and bringing employees
to work.
Appendix table B.1.4-4, presents emissions from each of the proposed tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. There are no gaseous releases associated with the
APT (SNL 1995a), although emissions are associated with operation of the tritium supply
facility included with the APT and with recycling facilities. Emissions from the Large
ALWR were used to determine pollutant concentrations since these represent the maximum
emission rates from either the Large or Small ALWR. Consequences from operation of each
of the tritium supply and recycling facilities at Pantex are presented in table 4.5.3.3-1.
Pollutant concentrations, combined with the No Action concentrations, are in compliance
with Federal and state standards except for the 30-minute standard for hydrogen chloride.
Pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of tritium supply technologies alone
(HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT) consist of criteria pollutants from the operation of boilers
and diesel generators and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions from facility processes.
Criteria pollutant emissions from the MHTGR are the highest among the other tritium supply
technologies and would increase existing total site criteria pollutant emissions by
greater than 100percent above No Action emissions. Concentrations of criteria and
toxic/hazardous pollutants, added to No Action concentrations, are in compliance with
Federal and state standards except the 30-minute hydrogen chloride standard.
Table 4.5.3.3-1.-Estimated Cumulative Concentrations of Pollutants Resulting from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling Including No Action at Pantex Plant
Pollutant Averaging - 2010 Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Time No Action
(ug/m3)
- - Most Stringent - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Regulation or (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) Recycling
Guideline (ug/m3)
(ug/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 1,352 1,374 1,427 1,380 1,361 9
- 1-hour 40,000 7,836 7,964 8,269 7,997 7,886 50
Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 b
Quarter
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 2 2 3 3 2 0.2
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 b b b b b b
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 27 27 27 27 27 0.04
- 24-hour 150 114 116 115 116 115 0.9
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 <0.01
- 24-hour 365 24 25 25 25 24 0.1
- 3-hour 1,300 194 196 196 198 195 0.6
Mandated by Texas
Hydrogen fluoride 30-day 0.8 c c c c c b
- 7-day 1.6 c c c c c b
- 24-hour 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 b
- 12-hour 3.7 c c c c c b
Hazardous and Other
Toxic Compounds
Acetone 30-minute 5,900 341.1 341.1 341.1 363.3 341.1 b
- Annual 590 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 b
Acetylene 30-minuted 26,620 b 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
- Annual 2,660 b 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Aliphatic hydrocarbons 30-minuted e 19 19 19 19 19 b
- Annual e <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Ammonia 30-minuted 170 b b b 11.7 b b
- Annual 17 b b b 0.03 b b
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (continued)
Aromatic hydrocarbons 30-minuted e 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 b
- Annual e <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Aromatic petroleum 30-minuted 3,500 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 b
distillate
- Annual 350 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
2-Butoxyethanol 30-minuted 1,210 208.9 208.9 208.9 208.9 208.9 b
- Annual 121 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 b
Butyl acetate 30-minuted 1,850 87 87 87 87 87 b
- Annual 710 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 b
Butyl alcohol 30-minuted 1,220 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 b
- Annual 150 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 b
Chlorodifluoromethane 30-minuted 18,000 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 b
- Annual 1,800 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Cyanogen 30-minuted 210 161.8 161.8 161.8 161.8 161.8 b
- Annual 21 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 b
Cyclohexane 30-minuted 1,435 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 b
- Annual 340 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Dichlorodifluoromethane 30-minuted 49,500 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 b
- Annual 4,950 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Diesel fuel 30-minuted 90 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 b
- Annual 9 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Epoxy solvent 30-minuted e 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 b
- Annual e <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Ethyl alcohol 30-minuted 18,800 12.2 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 2.6
- Annual 1,880 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Freon TF 30-minuted e 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 b
- Annual e 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 b
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (continued)
Hydrocarbons 30-minuted e 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 b
- Annual e 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 b
Hydrogen chloride 30-minuted 75 232.3 232.3 232.3 232.3 232.3 b
- Annual 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 b
Isopropyl alcohol 30-minuted 7,856 127.3 127.3 127.3 127.3 127.3 b
- Annual 980 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 b
Methane 30-minuted e b 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
- Annual e b 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Methyl alcohol 30-minuted 2,620 178.3 181.0 181.0 181.0 181.0 2.6
- Annual 262 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01
Methyl ethyl ketone 30-minuted 3,900 92.8 92.8 92.8 92.8 92.8 b
- Annual 590 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 b
Methyl isobutyl ketone 30-minuted 2,050 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 b
- Annual 205 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Nitric acid 30-minuted 52 b 13.3 b 155.3 b b
- Annual 5.2 b 0.03 <0.01 0.41 b b
Tetrahydrofuran 30-minuted 5,900 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 b
- Annual 590 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 b
Toluene 30-minuted 3,750 236.2 236.2 236.2 236.2 236.2 b
- Annual 375 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 b
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30-minuted 19,100 8.3 10.5 9.0 59.3 8.3 b
- Annual 1,910 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 b
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 30-minuted 76,000 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 b
Trifluoroethane
- Annual 7,600 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 30-minuted 10,000 7.3 101.6 7.3 7.3 7.3 b
- Annual 1,000 <0.01 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (continued)
VM&P naphtha 30-minuted 3,500 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 b
- Annual 350 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Xylene 30-minuted 3,700 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 b
- Annual 435 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b
Less Than Baseline Operations. Air emissions from the HWR would be reduced slightly when
operated at reduced capacity. However, the reduction would be negligible because most
emissions are attributed to support equipment and facilities that are not related to the
reactor operating level. The MHTGR or ALWR would have no change in air emissions because
it would continue to operate at the same level as the baseline requirement to maintain
power levels for steam or electric production. The Phased APT construction and operation
emissions and impacts would be the same as the Full APT.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Operation of a 500 to 600 MWe natural gas
electric generating facility (section 4.8.2.2) would generate a substantial amount of
emissions consisting of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These emissions would be controlled using the best available control technology to
minimize impacts and comply with the NAAQS and state mandated emission standards.
Estimated emissions are based upon emission factors for a large controlled gas turbine
(EPA 1995a; SPS 1995a). Table B.1.3.1-3 presents the emission factors and resulting annual
emission rates for a 600 MWe natural gas-fired turbine power plant.
For a natural gas-fired power plant located at Pantex, the increase in carbon monoxide
emissions with respect to the 2010 No Action emissions at Pantex would be approximately
443 percent (75 tons per year); for nitrogen oxides the increase would be approximately
628 percent (314 tons per year); for particulate matter the increase would be approxi-
mately 7,799 percent (179 tons per year); for sulfur dioxide the increase would be
approximately 538`-percent (5 ton per year); and for volatile organic compounds the
increase would be approximately 1,538 percent (215 tons per year). In addition, the gas
turbine generating facility would generate 126 tons per year of methane, 58 tons per year
of ammonia, 29`tons per year of nonmethane hydrocarbons, and 24 tons per year of
formaldehyde.
Any power plant facility constructed to meet the power needs of the APT would be required
to meet the Federal NAAQS and state mandated regulations for toxic/hazardous pollutants.
Appropriate pollution control equipment would be incorporated into the design of that
facility to meet these standards.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures during construction include:
watering to reduce dust emissions; applying nontoxic soil stabilizers to all inactive
construction areas; cover, water or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed piles (i.e.,
gravel, sand, and dirt); suspend all excavation and grading operations when wind speeds
warrant; pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by
construction equipment; and using electricity from power poles rather than temporary
gasoline and diesel power generators. Potential mitigation measures during operation
include incorporating additional HEPA filters to reduce particulate emissions from
processing facilities; substituting cleaning solvents for those which present health
hazards or exceed the applicable standards; and switching from coal or fuel oil to
natural gas to reduce criteria pollutants.
Acoustics
The location of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities relative to the
site boundary and sensitive receptors were examined to determine the potential for onsite
and offsite impacts.
No Action. The continuation of operations at Pantex would result in no appreciable change
in traffic noise and onsite operational noise sources from current levels (section
4.5.2.3). Sources of nontraffic noise associated with operations are located at sufficient
distances from offsite noise-sensitive receptors that the contribution to offsite noise
levels would continue to be small.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Noise sources during construction may include
heavy-construction equipment and increased traffic. Increased traffic would occur onsite
and along major offsite transportation routes used to bring construction material and
workers to the site.
Most nontraffic noise sources associated with operation of any tritium supply,
technologies, and recycling facilities would be located at sufficient distance from
offsite areas that the contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be small.
Due to the size of the site, noise emissions from construction and operation activities
would not be expected to cause annoyance to the public.
Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes would be considered in
tiered NEPA documents. Some nontraffic noise sources associated with construction and
operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities, may be located
close enough to offsite noise receptors that they could experience some increase in noise
levels.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline noise impacts would not change due to reactors
operating at reduced capacity or the construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential measures to minimize noise impacts on workers
include the use of standard silencing packages on construction equipment and providing
workers in noisy environments with appropriate hearing protection devices meeting OSHA
standards. As required, noise levels would be measured in worker areas, and a hearing
protection program would be conducted.

4.5.3.4 Water Resources
Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex would affect surface water
and groundwater resources. All water required for construction or operation would be
supplied from reclaimed wastewater. Reclaimed wastewater from the city of Amarillo
Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment Plant will be used to accommodate water requirements
at Pantex which have been projected to increase from 2,555 MGY to 4,380 MGY by the year
2010. The proposed sites for the tritium supply and recycling facilities would be outside
the 100-year floodplain. Information on the location of the 500-year floodplain at Pantex
is currently not available.
During construction, treated sanitary wastewater would be discharged to playa lakes.
Although the potential impacts to surface waters during the construction phase for any
of the proposed facilities would be erosion of disturbed land and sedimentation in
drainage channels, the relatively dry climate and application of appropriate management
measures should preclude adverse impacts. All wastewater would be treated and either
recycled for cooling system makeup or released to playa lakes. No wastewater would be
discharged to surface waters during operation of tritium facilities; therefore, no impacts
to surface water quality are expected. Stormwater runoff would be collected and treated if
necessary before discharge to natural drainage channels.
Table 4.5.3.4-1 presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the
potential changes to water resources at Pantex resulting from the proposed tritium supply
and recycling facilities. Resource requirements for each tritium supply technology shown
in this table represent the total requirements at the site, including No Action. Resource
requirements for tritium recycling are added to these values to obtain the water
resource requirements for assessing impacts associated with combined tritium supply and
recycling.
Surface Water
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to surface water resources are
anticipated beyond the effects of existing and future activities which are independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action. A description of the activities that would continue
at Pantex is provided in section 3.3.5. No demands on surface water supplies would occur;
however, wastewater discharges to Playas 1, 2, and possibly 4, would continue.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. There are no unique construction characteristics associated
with water requirements and discharges among any of the candidate technologies. No surface
water would be withdrawn for any construction or operation activities associated with
any of the tritium supply technologies whether collocated with recycling facilities or
sited alone. Consequently, it is not anticipated that there would be any impacts to
surface water availability or surface water quality. Nonhazardous wastewater generated
during construction and operation of the tritium facilities would either be recycled or
treated and released to the playa lakes. The potential impacts to surface water during the
construction phase for any of the tritium supply technologies would be erosion of
disturbed land and sedimentation in drainage channels. The potential for erosion would
be greatest for the construction of the MHTGR (table 4.5.3.1-1).
Table 4.5.3.4-1.-Potential Changes to Water Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant [Page 1 of 2]
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Affected Resource Indicator No HWR MHTGR Large Small Full Phased Tritium
Action ALWRa ALWRa APT APT Recycling
Construction (2005)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed
wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater
Total water requirement (MGY) 286 21.3 17.8 33.3 20 8.3 8.3 1.5
Percent of projected available 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
reclaimed wastewater (4,380 MGY)
Percent of county projected pumpage 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
(22,306 MGY)
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to playas 183 199 196 210 198 183 183 0.9
(MGY)
Percent change in flow of wastewater 0 9 7 15 8 <1 <1 NA
to playas
NPDES permit required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Operation (2010)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed Reclaimed
wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater wastewater
Total water requirement (MGY) 286 48 30 90 50 1,200 770 14
Percent of projected available 0 1 1 2 2 28 18 NA
reclaimed wastewater (4,380 MGY)
Percent of county projected pumpage 1.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
(22,306 MGY)
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to playasd 183 231 213 273 233 183 183 0
(MGY)
Percent change in flow of wastewater 0 26 16 49 27 <1 <1 NA
to playas
NPDES permit requiredd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Floodplain
Actions in 100-year floodplain NA No No No No No No NA
Critical actions in 500-year floodplain NA Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain NA
Floodplain assessment required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year
To minimize impacts of soil erosion, standard construction stormwater management and
erosion control measures would be employed. The dry climate and application of appropriate
management measures should preclude adverse impacts from stormwater runoff. It is
anticipated that impacts from runoff would be temporary and manageable. Nonhazardous
wastewater, including sanitary wastewater, generated during the construction of either the
collocated tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities (which ranges from 28.4MGY
for the Large ALWR to 1.2 MGY for the APT) or the tritium supply facilities alone (which
ranges from 27.5MGY for the Large ALWR to 0.3MGY for the APT) would be discharged to
playas. Discharge of wastewater generated during construction of these facilities to
playas would not result in an exceedance of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission-permitted limit of 1.05 MGD.
During operation, utility, process, and sanitary wastewater for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR
not recycled would be treated prior to discharge into the playas. However, cooling system
blowdown and sanitary wastewater for the APT would be treated and recycled for reuse as
cooling system makeup. The treated effluent from the process wastewater treatment would be
discharged to playas. Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with the NPDES permit
and other discharge requirements. The extent to which treated effluent or stormwater would
be recycled for reuse within the plant would be determined during site-specific studies.
An analysis of wastewater discharged to the playas indicated that the volume of the
release would be within the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission-permitted
limit of 1.05 MGD. Stormwater runoff from either the collocated tritium supply and
recycling facilities or the tritium supply alone would be collected in detention ponds.
Runoff from site support facilities outside the main plant, except those that require
onsite management measures by regulation such as sanitary wastewater plants and landfill
areas, would be discharged directly to natural drainage channels. Uncontaminated
stormwater runoff would be released to natural drainage channels. Contaminated runoff
would be retained, treated in the radioactive waste treatment system, and released. All
discharges to playas would be monitored and subject to NPDES permit requirements.
No construction activities would take place in areas delineated as 100-year floodplains.
However, there is no information on the location of the 500-year floodplain at Pantex.
Because operation of the tritium supply facility may constitute a critical action, an
assessment of the 500-year floodplain should be made before construction activities are
initiated. This study would be conducted in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline surface water impacts described previously for the
construction and operation phases would not change due to changes in reactor operating
capacity, or construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or ALWR a multipurpose reactor option at Pantex would
require a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility to be constructed in conjunction with the reactors. Water
use for both of the reactors and support facilities would be obtained from reclaimed
wastewater resources.
All wastewater during construction and operation would be treated prior to discharge to
the playas, with no impacts to groundwater quality expected. Discharges of wastewater
generated during construction and operation of these facilities would not result in
exceedance of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission-permitted limit of
1.05 MGD.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2, could be used to support the
technology at Pantex. Water requirements (approximately 80 MGY) for the natural gas-
fired power plant would be obtained from reclaimed wastewater from the Hollywood Road
Wastewater Treatment Plant. No surface water would be used for the project. Operation of
the Full APT (with tritium recycling) and the dedicated power plant would require
approximately 1,294 MGY or 30 percent of the projected available reclaimed wastewater
(4,380MGY) from the Hollywood Road Plant. This amount would be an increase of 5 percent
over the amount of water required for the Full APT (with tritium recycling) without the
dedicated power plant (1,214 MGY).
Demineralized backwash generated during operations would contain dilute concentrations
of trace metals, and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium and sulfate. With
the appropriate wastewater treatment prior to discharge to the playas, no impacts to
surface water quality are expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because appropriate erosion and runoff management measures
would be implemented during construction to comply with NPDES stormwater management
regulations, no additional mitigation measures should be necessary. Stormwater measures
include erosion control measures such as silt fences, dikes, and sediment traps to divert
runoff away from disturbed areas and stabilization practices that cover soils with
materials such as riprap or mulch, in order to prevent direct exposure of soils to runoff.
Groundwater
No Action. Under No Action, baseline conditions and operations, described in section
3.3.5, would continue at the plant, and current groundwater usage of 257 MGY would
increase to 286 MGY by the year 2005. Groundwater used would continue to be withdrawn from
the Ogallala aquifer through wells located on the Pantex property. No additional impacts
to groundwater quality are anticipated since there are no direct discharges to
groundwater.
Groundwater Availability and Use
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Groundwater would not be used for construction and operation
of the proposed facilities. Tertiary treated sanitary wastewater would be available from
the city of Amarillo Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although not strictly
groundwater or surface water, the reclaimed wastewater is discussed under this section
because Pantex would still be withdrawing approximately 286 MGY from the aquifer in the
year 2000.
Construction water requirements for either the collocated tritium supply and recycling
facilities or the tritium supply alone are small relative to the projected available
wastewater (4,380 MGY) from the city of Amarillo Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment
Plant. As shown in table 4.5.3.4-1, construction of either a Large ALWR with recycling
(34.8 MGY) or a Large ALWR alone (33.3 MGY) would represent approximately 4 percent of the
projected available reclaimed wastewater (4,380MGY).
Reclaimed wastewater required for both construction and operation and the percent increase
in projected water use for each technology are shown in table 4.5.3.4-1. Operating the
HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR, collocated with recycling or alone, would be less than 3 percent of
the projected available reclaimed wastewater (4,380 MGY). Operating a Full APT (with
tritium recycling) at 3/8 capacity would require the highest groundwater withdrawal (1,214
MGY) and would be 28 percent of the projected available recycled wastewater. However, the
more likely operating scenario for the APT would be to operate at 3/8 level for 5 years
(requiring total site reclaimed wastewater of 1,214 MGY), to operate at 3/16 capacity for
30 years (requiring 784 MGY), and then to not operate for 5 years. Over the 40-year
operating period, the average total site reclaimed wastewater required would be 1,026 MGY,
or 23percent of the available projected reclaimed wastewater (4,380MGY).
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR at reduced capacity to meet a tritium
supply requirement less than baseline would not change the operation water requirements or
the quantity of water discharges. The MHTGR or ALWR water requirements and discharges
would not change from the baseline; therefore, the potential impacts would remain the
same.
Operation of the Phased APT (with tritium recycling) would require 784 MGY which is 18
percent of the projected available reclaimed wastewater (table4.5.3.4-1). This is
approximately two-thirds of the 28-percent increase required by the Full APT. All other
requirements of the Phased APT are identical to those of the Full APT.
Groundwater Quality
Tritium Supply and Recycling. As discussed in the surface water section, construction and
operation of the tritium facilities would not result in direct discharges to
groundwater. However, treated wastewater discharged to playas could percolate into the
groundwater. All contaminants that have entered the aquifer are expected to move
downgradient to the north, away from existing facilities. Because no groundwater would be
withdrawn for the project from the aquifer, the project would have no effect on plume
migration. Pantex will continue to evaluate groundwater contamination in both the Perch
and Ogallala aquifers.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Potential groundwater quality impacts described
previously would not change due to changes in reactor operating capacities, or the
construction and operation of a Phased APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. For the multipurpose MHTGR, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would be constructed and operated to support the 6reactors. Water used during construction
(24.33MGY) and operation (64 MGY) would be a 35 and 113 percent increase, respectively,
over the water use for the MHTGR tritium supply facility, and 0.55 and 1.5 percent,
respectively, of the projected available reclaimed wastewater from the Hollywood Road
Plant (4,380 MGY).
Nonhazardous wastewater, including sanitary wastewater, generated during construction
and operation of the multipurpose MHTGR and Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would be
discharged to playas. Discharge of wastewater generated during construction and
operation of these facilities would not result in an exceedance of the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission-permitted limit of 1.05 MGD.
Water requirements during construction and operation of an ALWR multipurpose reactor would
be the same as previously discussed for an ALWR tritium supply facility. However, as
discussed in section 4.8.3, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would have to be constructed and operated in conjunction with an ALWR
multipurpose reactor. A Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility would
require an additional 0.5 MGY of water during construction and 10 MGY during operation,
which would be a 1.5 and 11 percent increase, respectively, over the water use for the
ALWR tritium facility and 0.8 and 2.3 percent, respectively, of the projected available
reclaimed wastewater from the Hollywood Road Plant (4,380 MGY).
Nonhazardous wastewater, including sanitary wastewater, generated during the
construction (3.3 MGY) and operation (10 MGY) of the Pit Disassem-
bly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility would be a slight increase over the
ALWR tritium supply facility, but would not result in an exceedance of the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission-permitted limit of 1.05 MGD.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant as discussed in section 4.8.2.2, could be used to support the
technology at Pantex. Water requirements (approximately 80 MGY) for the natural gas-
fired power plant would be obtained from reclaimed wastewater from the Hollywood Road
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Groundwater, except for that projected for No Action, would
not be required to support the project. Therefore, no impacts to the declining water
levels of the Ogallala aquifer would occur due to the tritium project. As previously men-
tioned, operation of the Full APT (with tritium recycling) and the dedicated power plant
would require approximately 1,294 MGY or 30 percent of the projected available reclaimed
wastewater from the Hollywood Road Plant (4,380 MGY). This amount would be an increase of
7 percent over the amount of water required for the Full APT without the dedicated power
plant (1,214 MGY).
Demineralized backwash generated during operations would contain dilute concentrations
of trace metals, and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium and sulfate. With
the appropriate wastewater treatment prior to discharge to the playas, no impacts to
groundwater quality are expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Impacts from reclaimed wastewater usage would not require
mitigation. However, mitigation measures to reduce wastewater seepage could include
building lined evaporation ponds.

4.5.3.5 Geology and Soils
Construction of tritium facilities at Pantex would have no impact on geological resources
described in section 4.5.2.5. Hazards posed by geological conditions would be
negligible. Construction would disturb up to a few hundred surface acres of soil, the
amount depending on the tritium supply technology and recycling facilities. Control
measures would be used to minimize soil erosion. Impacts would depend on the specific soil
units in the disturbed area, the extent of land disturbing activities, and the amount of
soil disturbed. Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the construction
and operation of the tritium supply and recycling facilities are discussed below.
No Action. Under No Action DOE would continue existing and planned activities at Pantex.
Any impacts to geology and soils from these actions would be independent of and unaffected
by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would not affect geological
conditions. Design of the facilities would ensure that they would not be adversely
affected by geologic conditions.
There are no known capable faults within the boundaries of Pantex. There is little
chance for ground rupture as a result of an earthquake; minor ground shaking is more
likely but is not anticipated during the life of the project. Intensities of more than IV
on the modified Mercalli scale are not likely at Pantex. Ground shaking could affect the
integrity of poorly designed or nonreinforced structures but would not affect newly
designed facilities. Based on the seismic history of the area, a very low seismic risk
exists at Pantex but should not preclude safe construction and operation of tritium supply
and collocated recycling facilities or tritium supply alone. In addition, all facilities
would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE
Order 5480.28 and accompanying safety guides.
Volcanic activity has not occurred in the area for millions of years and is extremely
unlikely to impact the project. It is also highly unlikely that landslides, sinkhole
development, or other nontectonic events would affect project activities. Slopes and
underlying foundation materials are stable.
Properties and conditions of soils underlying the proposed sites have no limitations on
construction with the exception of a moderate-to-severe shrink-swell potential in nearly
all areas. This factor would be considered in facility design and site preparation. Soils
would be impacted during construction of any of the facilities. The amount of acreage that
would be potentially disturbed by the tritium supply technologies and tritium recycling
facilities is shown in table 4.5.3.1-1. Soils therefore would not adversely affect the
safe operation of project activities.
The surface area of soil disturbance from construction of new facilities would be as
much as 562 acres for a MHTGR collocated with recycling facilities. Disturbance would
occur at building, parking, and construction laydown areas, destroying the soil profile
and leading to a possible temporary increase in erosion as a result of stormwater runoff
and wind action. Soil losses would depend on frequency of storms; wind velocities; size
and location of the facilities with respect to drainage and wind patterns; slopes,
shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and, particularly during the
construction period, the duration of time the soil is bare. Construction of both the
MHTGR and the APT would also necessitate deep excavations to accommodate reactor modules
and an accelerator tunnel, respectively (sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.4). A considerable
volume of soil would be removed as a result of excavations. Most of the material removed
would be sand or shale fragments derived from bedrock and could be stockpiled for use as
fill. Some of this material could be used to cover the accelerator tunnel of the APT.
Site-specific NEPA studies would evaluate in detail impacts to geology and soils at Pantex
resulting from deep excavations required for the MHTGR and the APT and would identify
appropriate mitigation measures.
Net soil disturbance during operations would be less than for construction, because areas
temporarily used for laydown would be restored. Although erosion from stormwater runoff
and wind action could occur occasionally during operations, they are anticipated to be
minimal.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures would be used to minimize soil loss.
Wind erosion is likely to occur on an intermittent basis, depending on the wind
velocities, the amount of soil exposed, and the effectiveness of control measures.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Under the less than baseline tritium requirement operation,
geological and soil impacts would not change for the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR technologies.
Disturbed acreage for the Phased APT would be the same as the baseline tritium requirement
for the Full APT; therefore, impacts would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. The multipurpose MHTGR would disturb an additional 270 acres of land
to accommodate the construction of three additional reactor modules and a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility. The additional land area disturbances would result in the
destruction of the soil profile and potential temporary increase in erosion as a result of
stormwater runoff and wind action. The three additional reactor modules would also
double the excavation requirements over that for the tritium supply MHTGR. The excavated
soil would substantially increase the volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal.
Impacts on ground water resources from the excavation are not expected.
Construction impacts for the multipurpose ALWR would be the same as those described for
the tritium supply ALWR. Additional soil impacts would be expected from the construction
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility needed to
support the multipurpose ALWR. Approximately 129 acres would be disturbed for the new
facility, destroying the soil profile and leading to a possible temporary increase in
erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on
frequency of storms; wind velocity; location of the facility with respect to drainage and
wind pattern; slope, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and the duration
of time the soil is bare.
Soil impacts during operation are expected to be minimal. Appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures would be used to minimize any long-term soil losses.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be required to control erosion of
soil, especially during construction. Potential mitigation measures include standard
practices for erosion, sediment, and dust control such as silt fences, sediment traps,
runoff diversion dikes, drainageways, Sedimentation ponds, establishment of ground cover
and windbreaks, grading of slopes, and construction of berms or other controls appropriate
to the sites. Standard control for wind erosion, such as wetting the surface, would be
done on a day-to-day basis. Exposing only small areas for limited periods of time, as
necessary, could also reduce erosional effects. After the construction period, long-term
control measures could include grading, revegetation, or landscaping.

4.5.3.6 Biotic Resources
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at Pantex would have
the potential to affect biotic resources. Impacts resulting from the construction of the
HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or Full APT to meet the baseline tritium requirement would occur only at
the beginning of the project lifecycle. The less than baseline tritium requirement, Phased
APT could incur some additional construction-related impacts if expansion is needed to
meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential impacts would be minor since the
expansion would occur in the already developed main plant site. Impacts to terrestrial
resources would result from the loss of habitat during construction and operation.
Wastewater discharge to the playas could cause a general degradation of the naturally
occurring ephemeral wetland system and an increase in open water habitat. The only
consistently occurring Federal-listed threatened or endangered species that would
potentially be disturbed by the proposed action are wintering bald eagles that forage at
playas. Several special-status species could be affected, primarily through the loss of
potential foraging, denning, and nesting habitat or by the destruction of less mobile
species during construction. Where impacts could occur, mitigation measures would be
developed in consultation with the USFWS. This consultation would be conducted at the
site-specific level in tiered NEPA documents. Table 4.5.3.6-1 summarizes the potential
changes to biotic resources resulting from the proposed action. In general, no major
difference in impacts to biotic resources exists among the four tritium supply tech-
nologies and recycling facilities.
The following discussion of impacts from a multipurpose reactor and a dedicated power
plant for the APT applies to the biotic resources at Pantex as a whole. Where potential
impacts to a specific biotic resource are notable for the tritium supply technologies, the
discussion on multipurpose reactors identifies the potential impacts to the same resource.
Multipurpose Reactor. The selection of the multipurpose reactor option could result in
additional impacts to biotic resources at Pantex. The MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility and the ALWR Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
would require an additional 129 acres of land. However, it is expected that during the
design phase, land requirements for this facility would be substantially reduced with
integrated into the reactor and recycling facility design. In addition an MHTGR would
require three additional modules which would displace about 240 acres. Thus, total land
requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors would be 931 and 691 acres,
respectively. In general, impacts to terrestrial resources would be similar to, but
greater than, those described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Table 4.5.3.6-1.-Potential Impacts to Biotic Resources During Construction and Operation
Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant
Affected - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Resource Indicator
- No HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Action Recycling
Acres of habitat disturbed 0 462 562a 552a 375a 202
Wetlands potentially None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
impacted
Aquatic resources potentially None None None None None None
impacted
Number of threatened and 0/0 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6
endangered species
potentially affected
The fuel fabrication facility supporting the multipurpose reactor would result in some
additional wastewater being discharged to site playas. Selection of a MHTGR or ALWR as
the multipurpose reactor would not result in wastewater discharge beyond that associated
with the fuel fabrication facility. Mitigation measures would be required to address these
additional impacts.
For both the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactor options, impacts to threatened and
endangered species would be similar to, but greater than, those described for the tritium
supply and recycling facility. This is the case since more land would be required.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated natural gas-fired power plant,
similar to that described in section 4.8.2.2, could be an option to support an APT at
Pantex. This facility, which would be constructed on the proposed TSS, would occupy 25
acres of land. Construction of the gas-fired power plant would increase the land
disturbance associated with the APT from 375 to 400 acres. This would result in a slight
increase in impacts to biotic resources over those described for the tritium supply and
recycling facility. Infrastructure requirements, such as parking and laydown areas, would
be incorporated into and take advantage of similar requirements associated with the APT
power plant. Rights-of-way would be sited to take advantage of existing corridors to the
maximum extent practical.
Terrestrial Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the mission described in section 3.3.4 would continue. This
would result in no additional impacts to terrestrial resources. Vegetation bordering
playas would remain and those portions of the site currently used for agricultural
purposes would be maintained. These areas would continue to provide the same amount of
wildlife habitat as in the past.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT
and recycling facilities at the proposed TSS would result in the disturbance of 462, 562,
552, and 375 acres, respectively, or between 2.5 and 3.7 percent of the site (table
4.5.3.6-1). The acreage includes areas on which plant facilities would be constructed, as
well as areas revegetated following construction. Vegetation within the proposed TSS would
be lost during land clearing activities. Since development would not occur on playas, new
construction would take place on open land, agricultural land, or previously developed
areas.
Constructing any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would have
some adverse effects on animal populations. Less mobile animals within the project area,
such as reptiles and small mammals, would be destroyed during land clearing activities.
Construction activities would cause larger mammals and birds in the construction area and
adjacent areas to move to similar habitat nearby. Nests of migratory birds and young
animals living within the proposed TSS could be lost during construction. Areas that
would be re-established as farmland or revegetated upon completion of construction would
be recolonized by animal species present in nearby, undisturbed habitats.
Activities associated with facility operation, such as noise and human presence, could
affect wildlife living immediately adjacent to the facility. These disturbances may
cause some species to move from the area.
A nonevaporative cooling design is proposed for all tritium supply technologies at Pantex
except for the APT. While there would be no impacts to vegetation from salt drift from an
HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR, this may not be the case for the APT. A total of 10 separate cooling
towers would be located along the length of the facility (section 3.4.2.4). Since design
parameters for these towers are not known at this time, it is not possible to estimate
impacts. This would be determined in future tiered NEPA documentation.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to terrestrial resources but less than those described for a collocated tritium
supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since 202 fewer acres of habitat
would be disturbed.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MWTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction-related impacts of the less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT
would be similar to those described above. Some additional construction-related impacts
could occur if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential
impacts would be minor since the expansion activities would occur in the already developed
main plant site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Loss of habitat due to construction and operation of any of
the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities may be mitigated by returning
land to agricultural use or revegetating disturbed areas, as appropriate. Disturbance to
wildlife living in areas adjacent to the new facilities may be reduced by limiting worker
access to these areas. It may be necessary to survey the proposed TSS for the nests of
migratory birds prior to clearing operations and/or avoid clearing operations during the
breeding season.
Wetlands
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.4 would continue. No new
impacts to wetlands would occur. Wastewater discharges to Playas 1, 2, and 4 would
continue in compliance with the current Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
permit and the pending NPDES permit.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Impacts to wetlands (e.g., sedimentation) may result from
land disturbances and treated wastewater disposal during construction.
Construction-related ground disturbance increases the potential for sediment runoff to the
playa wetlands. This impact would be controlled through the implementation of standard
soil erosion and sediment control measures. Playas 1 through 5 would be avoided during
construction. Depending on the final site layout, smaller areas of potential wetlands
indicated on site National Wetlands Inventory maps could be impacted. Determination of the
extent and jurisdictional status of these small wetlands would require site evaluation and
concurrence by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any potential impacts to wetlands
resulting from construction activities would be mitigated according to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requirements.
During construction, the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would discharge treated wastewater to
the playas (section 4.5.3.4). Part of the discharge water would be lost to the atmosphere
due to the high regional evapotranspiration rate. However, temporary impacts to the playas
could include shifts in the composition of wetland plant communities and limited increases
in the area of open water. The plant community shifts would favor plants tolerant of
longer and deeper inundation. Furthermore, disturbed plant communities provide an
opportunity for establishment of invasive exotic plant species. These changes would alter
the naturally occurring ephemeral wetland system characteristic of the playas.
During operation of any of the four technologies, treated wastewater would be discharged
to the playa basins (section 4.5.3.4). The discharge of wastewater to the playas could
adversely affect the playa ecosystem. Impacts to playa wetlands could include shifts in
the composition of wetland plant communities, opportunities for establishment of exotic
vegetation, and increases in the areas of open water. Any discharge to the playa(s) would
be required to conform to water quality requirements of NPDES and Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission permits. For the APT tritium supply alternative it is also
possible, depending on the location of the cooling tower, that salt drift could impact
wetlands. Impacts to wetlands would depend upon the sensitivity of plant species
present, but could lead to a shift in species composition.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to wetlands but slightly less than those described for a collocated tritium supply
and recycling facility. This is the case since both land and water requirements would be
less.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have similar wetland impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would have
similar wetland impacts but potentially slightly less than the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Construction and operation activities would be designed to
avoid or minimize, as much as possible, any potential impacts to wetlands. Any unavoidable
impacts would be mitigated according to DOE policy set forth in 10CFR 1022 and in
accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements. Mitigation could include
creation of lined evaporation ponds to limit areas of open water in playas or restoration
or creation of compensatory wetlands to offset any unavoidable wetland losses. All
effluent discharges to wetlands would be regulated through the provision of NPDES and
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission permits.
Aquatic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.4 would continue. This
would not change the condition of aquatic resources at Pantex.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction of tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would result in discharges of wastewater to the playas. As discussed for
wetlands, the discharges could potentially result in a small increase in open water area.
During construction, aquatic communities resulting from the creation of open water
bodies would be temporary in nature. Playas could also be affected by sediment runoff
during construction; however, this impact would be controlled through the use of soil
erosion and sediment control measures.
During operation, discharges to playas would not be sufficient to create large permanent
areas of aquatic habitat, but may increase the availability of habitat for amphibians.
Discharges to playas would conform to the requirements of NPDES and Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission permits.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to playas, but slightly less than those described for a collocated tritium supply
and recycling facility. This is the case since both land and water requirements would be
less.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have similar impacts to aquatic resources at Pantex.
Construction and operation of a Phased APT would have similar aquatic resource impacts,
but potentially slightly less than the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential impacts to aquatic resources would be mitigated
through the implementation of a soil erosion and sediment control plan. All discharges
would be required to meet NPDES and Texas Water Commission permit requirements.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.4 would continue. There
would be no changes to the current status of threatened and endangered species at Pantex
described in section 4.5.2.6.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The bald eagle is the only consistently occurring
Federal-listed species that has the potential to be affected by construction activities.
Bald eagles avoid areas where humans are active; thus, wintering eagles would not be
expected to forage at playas during project construction.
Six Federal candidate (Category 2) species may be affected by construction activities.
Similar to the bald eagle, the black tern and white-faced ibis may be discouraged from
foraging at site playas during construction. The ferruginous hawk also would lose some
foraging habitat (i.e., grasslands and agricultural areas) and the possible disturbance
of prairie dog towns could reduce a relied-upon food source. The swift fox and loggerhead
shrike would also lose potential foraging and denning or nesting habitat. The Texas horned
lizard is less mobile and would be destroyed during land-clearing activities. Pre-
activity surveys would be required prior to construction to determine the occurrence of
these species in the area to be disturbed.
During operation, the ferruginous hawk and swift fox would not use areas in close
proximity to the operating plant. New fencing would create foraging lookout perches for
loggerhead shrikes.
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility alone would result in similar
impacts to threatened and endangered species, but slightly less than those described for a
collocated tritium supply and recycling facility. Impacts would be less since fewer acres
of habitat would be disturbed.
Less than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would be expected to result in similar impacts to threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species as described for the baseline tritium production
requirement. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would also have similar impacts on
these species.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Since most impacts are temporary in nature, few mitigative
efforts would be required for threatened and endangered species that may occur at Pantex.
Consultation with the USFWS would be pursued as required and, if deemed necessary, a
detailed plan to mitigate impacts to Federal-listed threatened and endangered species at
Pantex would be developed. No critical habitat has been designated for threatened and
endangered species at Pantex.

4.5.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance
during construction, building modifications, visual intrusion of the project to the
historic setting or environmental context, visual and audio intrusions to Native
American resources, reduced access to traditional use areas, and unauthorized artifact
collecting and vandalism. Intensive cultural resources surveys and site evaluations have
not been completed for the majority of the proposed TSS. Site-specific surveys and
evaluations would be conducted in conjunction with tiered NEPA documentation. Although the
location and acreage for the proposed tritium supply facility or the combined tritium
supply and recycling facilities will vary, their potential effects on cultural and
paleontological resources are based primarily on the amount of ground disturbance;
therefore, the facilities with the greatest ground disturbance will have the greatest
potential effect on cultural and paleontological resources. A small number of NRHP-
eligible prehistoric and historic properties, or important Native American or
paleontological resources may be affected by the proposed action.
Multipurpose Reactor. Total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors
would be 931 and 691 acres, respectively. NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites,
Native American resources, and paleontological resources may occur within these acreages
and may be effected by the construction of a multipurpose reactor. In general, impacts to
prehistoric and historic resources, Native American resources, and paleontological
resources would be similar to, but potentially greater than, those described for the
tritium supply and recycling facility.
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at Pantex.
Any impacts to prehistoric and historic resources from these missions would be independent
of and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Land disturbance at Pantex for the proposed tritium
facilities (section 3.4) would range from 173 acres for the APT to 360 acres for the MHTGR
(section 4.5.3.1). Acreages for the HWR and ALWR would be 260 and 350, respectively.
Acreage required by the recycling facilities would be an additional 196 acres. Potentially
NRHP-eligible prehistoric or historic archaeological properties may occur within the
acreages that would be disturbed during construction. Such NRHP-eligible properties would
be identified through project-specific inventories and evaluations, and any
project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Operation of
facilities does not involve additional ground disturbance, increased activity or building
modification; therefore, prehistoric or historic properties would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to prehistoric and historic resources
would be expected from operating the HWR at reduced capacity. Impacts for the MHTGR or
ALWR would also not change from those described for the baseline requirement because the
MHTGR or ALWR would not be a reduced size or operate at reduced capacity.
Construction and operation of the Phased APT would not change the expected impacts from
the baseline tritium requirement since the disturbed area would be the same.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If any NRHP-eligible properties cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, and would result in an adverse effect, then a Memorandum of
Agreement would need to be negotiated among DOE, the Texas SHPO, and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation describing and implementing intensive inventory and evalu-
ation studies, data recovery plans, site treatments, and monitoring programs. The
appropriate level of data recovery for mitigation would be determined through consultation
with the Texas SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in accordance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Native American Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at Pantex.
Any impacts to Native American resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Some Native American resources could occur within any areas
disturbed during construction of the tritium supply plant or combined tritium supply and
recycling facilities. Such resources may include campsites, ritual or traditional use
areas, or burials. Operation of tritium facilities may create visual intrusions on sacred
sites in the vicinity or reduce access to traditional use areas. Specific concerns about
the presence, type, and locations of Native American resources would be identified through
consultation with affected Native American groups, and any project-related effects would
be addressed through direct consultation with the affected group(s) in tiered NEPA
documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to Native American resources would not change due
to less than baseline operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR. Construction and operation of
a Phased APT would have similar impacts on Native American resources as those described
for the baseline requirement Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If Native American resources cannot be avoided through
project design or siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to reduce project effects on
them would be determined in consultation with the affected Native American groups. In
accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, such mitigations may include, but not be limited
to, appropriate relocation of human remains, planting vegetation screens to reduce
visual or noise intrusions, increasing access to traditional use areas during
operations, or transplanting or harvesting important Native American plant resources.
Paleontological Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at Pantex.
Any impacts to paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Paleontological resources may occur within the acreages
disturbed during construction of the tritium supply plant or combined tritium supply and
recycling facilities. Any project-related effects to scientifically important
paleontological resources would be identified in tiered NEPA documentation and addressed
through project-specific evaluation studies. Operation of tritium facilities does not
involve additional ground disturbance or increased activity; therefore, paleontological
resources would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to paleontological resources would be
expected due to reduced operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or construction of a Phased
APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because scientifically important buried paleontological
materials could be affected, paleontological monitoring of construction activities and
data recovery of fossil remains would be appropriate mitigation measures. 4 4 Amarillo

4.5.3.8 Socioeconomics
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling facilities at
Pantex would affect socioeconomics in the region. Section 3.2 provides descriptions for No
Action, the tritium supply technologies, and tritium recycling. Siting a tritium supply
technology with or without the recycling facilities at Pantex would create changes in some
of the communities in both the ROI and the regional economic area. The in-migrating
population could increase the demand for housing units. Additionally, there could be an
associated increased burden on community infrastructure and subsequent effects on the
public finances of local governments in the ROI. The increase of population could also
burden transportation routes in the ROI.
During the construction period, the greater changes in socioeconomic characteristics would
result from the ALWR and APT. During operation, the ALWR, HWR, and MHTGR would exhibit
similar characteristics. The APT would result in the smallest changes during operation.
None of these tritium supply technologies would increase population, the need for
additional housing, or local government spending in the ROI beyond 7 percent over No
Action during peak construction or operation. Although the greatest percent increases in
employment, population and housing, and public finance during construction and operation
occur in the peak years of 2005 and 2010, respectively, the annual average increases over
the construction period (2001 to 2005) are between 1and 3 percent average growth annually
and less than 1 percent average annual growth during operation (2010 to 2050). Between
peak construction (2005) and full operation (2010) annual average growth would vary from
decreases of 1 percent to increases of 1 percent.
The effects of locating any of the tritium supply technologies alone or with recycling
facilities at Pantex are summarized in section 4.5.3. The following sections describe the
effects that locating one of these technologies would have on the local region's economy
and employment, population, housing, public finances, and local transportation.
Employment and Local Economy
Changes in employment and levels of economic activity in the 15-county regional economic
area from the proposed location of a tritium supply technology and recycling facility at
Pantex are described in this section. Although specialized personnel, materials, and
services required for construction and operation would be imported from outside the area,
a significant portion of these requirements would be available in this regional economic
area. Figures 4.5.3.8-1 and 4.5.3.8-2 present the potential changes in employment and
local economy that would occur with all of the technologies.
No Action. Under No Action, employment at Pantex increased to approximately 3,400 persons
in 1994. This is an increase of approximately 1,000 persons over the 1990 employment.
Pantex employment is projected to decrease to 1,790 persons in 2010 and remain at this
level through 2020. Historical and future employment projections at Pantex are found in
appendix table D.2.1-1. The total Pantex payroll was approximately $174 million in 1994
and is projected to decrease to $85 million in 2010.
Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow less than 1 percent
annually between 2001 and 2009, reaching 167,800 persons, and then decrease slightly (much
less than 1 percent) annually between 2010 and 2020, reaching 162,000persons. The
unemployment rate in the regional economic area is expected to remain at 4.6 percent
between 2001 and 2020. Per capita income is projected to increase from $22,300 to $25,700
during this 20-year period. No Action estimates are presented in appendix table D.3-53.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Construction activities would begin between 2001 and 2003
and would be completed between 2007 and 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation
of the new facilities would begin in 2007 or 2008, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at this level into the future.
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex would
create new jobs (direct) at the site. Indirect job opportunities, such as community
support services, also would be created in the regional economic area as a result of these
new jobs. The total new jobs (direct and indirect) created would reduce unemployment and
increase income in the economic region surrounding Pantex during both the construction and
operation periods of the proposed action.
Construction. Siting tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex would
require a total of approximately 7,400 to 13,600 worker-years of activity over a 5- to
9-year construction period. This construction-related employment would indirectly create
other jobs in the regional economic area and total employment would grow at an annual
average rate of 1 to 2 percent until the peak year of 2005. Between 2005 and 2010,
employment would decrease by less than 1 percent annually. Figure 4.5.3.8-1 gives the
estimates of total jobs (direct and indirect) that would be created during peak construc-
tion (2005) for each of the tritium supply technologies with recycling and the recycling
facility's contribution to employment growth.
As employment opportunities grow in the regional economic area due to the proposed action,
the unemployment rate would be reduced from the No Action estimate of 4.6 percent.
Figure 4.5.3.8-2 presents a comparison of unemployment rates for the different tritium
supply technologies and recycling during peak construction in 2005. During the project's
peak construction phase, the unemployment rate would range from 2.7 to 2.2 percent,
depending upon the tritium supply technologies with recycling selected.
Income in the regional economic area would also increase, particularly during peak
construction, as shown in figure 4.5.3.8-2. Per capita income is expected to increase at
an annual average of 1percent until the peak construction year (2005) and between 2005 and
2010.
Operation. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as construction neared
completion and the construction-related employment would begin phasing out. It is expected
that full operation employment would peak in 2010 and continue at this level into the
future. Figure 4.5.3.8-1 gives the total project-related jobs projections (direct and
indirect) for each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities for 2010.
Total employment in the regional economic area would decrease slightly over the next 10
years at an annual average decrease of less than 1 percent, similar to the No Action
annual rate of decrease.
Creation of additional job opportunities would reduce the unemployment rate below that
projected for No Action. Figure 4.5.3.8-2 presents the differences in unemployment rates
during the first year of full operation employment (2010) for each of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities. From 2010 to 2020, unemployment would be reduced
from the No Action projection of 4.6 percent to between 2.8 and 2.5 percent, depending
upon the technology selected for the proposed action.
Income also would increase slightly in the regional economic area as a result of the
proposed action. Per capita income differences for tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities for 2010 are given in figure 4.5.3.8-2. Per capita income annual
average increases would be less than 1 percent between 2010 to 2020 for any of the tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities located at Pantex. The No Action projected
annual average increase during the same period would also be less than 1 percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Construction of a tritium supply technology only without a recycling
facility would begin between 2001 and 2003 and would be completed between 2007 and 2009.
Employment for the operation of the facility would begin in 2007 and reach full employment
by 2010. Locating any of the tritium supply technologies at Pantex would create new jobs
at the site and indirectly create other jobs in the region. However, this job creation and
the additional economic effects that would occur would be less than the effects expected
with the collocation of tritium supply with the recycling facility.
Construction. Construction of a tritium supply technology alone would require a total of
6,380 to 12,600worker-years of activity over a 5- to 9-year period. New jobs would be
created at an annual average rate of 1 to 2 percent until the peak year of construction,
2005. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would range from no employment growth to an annual
average decrease of 1 percent for the four technologies. Appendix table D.3-54 presents
the estimates of total employment that would be created during peak construction in 2005,
or these new jobs can be calculated by subtracting the tritium recycling contribution from
tritium supply technologies and recycling in figure 4.5.3.8-1.
Figure (Page 4-339)
Figure 4.5.3.8-1.-Total Project-Related Employment (Direct and Indirect) and Percentage
Increase Over No Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Pantex Plant
Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-340)
Figure 4.5.3.8-2.-Unemployment Rate, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Increase Over No
Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Pantex Plant Regional Economic
Area.
Although the construction of the facility would create new jobs, the effects would not be
enough to greatly affect the unemployment rate projected for No Action. Additionally, per
capita income in the region would rise only slightly above the per capita income increase
estimated for No Action. Estimates of unemployment rate and per capita income are
presented in appendix table D.3-54 or can be derived for tritium supply alternatives by
subtracting the tritium recycling contributions in figures 4.5.3.8-2.
Operation. Operation employment for the tritium supply technology only would begin phasing
in at the end of the construction period and be at full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Estimates for full
employment in 2010 are presented in appendix table D.3-54. Total project related jobs
(direct and indirect) for the tritium supply technologies alone can be calculated by
subtracting the tritium supply contribution in figure 4.5.3.8-1.
The addition of new jobs during operation would reduce the unemployment rate below the
projection for No Action. The unemployment rate for 2010, the first year of full operation
employment, is given in appendix table D.3-54 or can be derived by subtracting the
tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.5.3.8-2.
The creation of new jobs as a result of the tritium supply operation would also increase
income slightly over the No Action estimates. Appendix table D.3-54 gives the per capita
income for the tritium recycling facility for 2010. Per capita income growth can also be
calculated by subtracting the tritium recycling contribution in figure 4.5.3.8-2. From
2010 through 2020, per capita income annual increases would be 1 percent, the same annual
increase projected under No Action.
Less Than Baseline Operation. Tritium supply technologies that provide less than the
baseline tritium operation capacities are described in section 3.1. These options may or
may not be collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The options include lowering
the power in the HWR, using fewer target rods in the MHTGR or ALWR, and the phased
approach for the APT.
Construction. The less than baseline operations case for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would
have the same construction workforce requirements as discussed in the tritium supply and
recycling and tritium supply only sections. Therefore, employment and economic effects in
the region would be the same.
The Phased APT would require the same total number of construction workers as the Full
APT, but the construction period would span 1999 to 2008 instead of 2003 to 2007.
Additionally, peak construction would occur in 2003 instead of 2005. The effects on the
regional economic area's employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income as a
result of constructing the Phased APT are presented in appendix table D.3-54. Appendix
tableD.3-55 presents the effects on employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income
for constructing the Phased APT with tritium recycling facilities. Generally, average
annual increases in employment and income would be similar to those for the Full APT, but
these increases are over a longer period of time. These increases are between less than 1
percent and 2 percent, respectively.
Operation. Operation workforce requirements for the less than baseline tritium requirement
case for the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and the Phased APT would be the same as those described in
the tritium supply and recycling and tritium supply only sections. Thus, regional
employment and economic effects would be the same.
Multipurpose Reactor. Construction activities for the multipurpose reactor would begin in
2001 and would be completed by 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation of the
multipurpose reactor would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue at
that level into the future. Because this option would perform three processes, it would
result in greater changes in employment and local economy characteristics than any of the
four tritium supply technologies.
Construction. Siting the multipurpose reactor and a recycling facility at Pantex would
require 19,140 worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. The multipurpose reactor
alone would require 18,150worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. Employment
characteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during con-
struction of the multipurpose reactor alone and with a tritium recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-54a and D.3-55a, respectively. From the first year of
construction to the peak year (2005), annual average increases in employment and per
capita income would range 1 to 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would decrease
annually by less than 1 percent and per capita income would increase on an annual average
of 1 percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with or
without a recycling facility would be 2.2 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the APT power plant would begin phasing in toward the
end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full employment is
expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of the APT
power plant alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables
D.3-54a and D.3-55a, respectively. During operation annual employment would decrease
annually by less than 1percent and annual average growth in per capita income would be
less than 1 percent. The unemployment rate for the multipurpose reactor alone and with a
recycling facility would be 2.4 percent and 2.9percent, respectively.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Construction activities for the APT power
plant would begin in 2003 and would be completed by 2007. Phasing in of employment for the
operation of the APT power plant would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at that level into the future. This option is similar to the APT with an addition
of a gas power plant. The changes in employment and local economy would be similar, but
greater than those resulting from the APT.
Construction. Siting this option with a recycling facility at Pantex would require 7,600
worker-years of activity over a 5-year period. The APT power plant alone would require
6,600 worker-years of activity of a 5-year period. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of this
option alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables
D.3-54aand D.3-55a, respectively. From the first year of construction to the peak year
(2005), annual average increases in employment and per capita income would range from less
than 1 to 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment would decrease annually by less
than 1percent and per capita income would increase on an annual average of 1 percent. The
unemployment rate during peak construction for this option with or without a recycling
facility would be 2 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the APT power plant would begin phasing in toward the
end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full employment is
expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of the APT
power plant alone and with a tritium recycling facility are presented in appendix tables
D.3-54a and D.3-55a, respectively. During operation annual employment would decrease by
less than 1 percent annually and annual average growth in per capita income would be less
than 1 percent. The unemployment rate for the APT power plant alone and with a recycling
facility would be 2.7 percent and 3.7percent, respectively.
Population and Housing
Changes to ROI population and housing expected from the proposed action are described in
this section. Additional population could be expected to in-migrate to the Pantex region
and these people would be expected to reside in cities and counties within the ROI in the
same relative proportion as the existing population. Increases to population could lead to
a demand for additional housing units beyond existing vacant housing available during
construction or operation phases of the proposed action. Figures 4.5.3.8-3 and 4.5.3.8-4
present the changes in population and housing over No Action for the tritium supply
technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Population and housing annual average increases between 2001 and 2009 are
projected to be less than 1 percent. Future annual average increases are also projected to
be much less than 1 percent between 2010 and 2020. Population in the ROI is estimated to
reach 205,100 in 2010 and 209,000 in 2020. Total housing units in the ROI are estimated to
reach 88,400 in 2010, and 90,000 in 2020. No Action estimates are presented in appendix
tables D.3-56 and D.3-59.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. It is expected that the proposed action at Pantex would
increase population and housing demands in the ROI (7 percent) over No Action projections
during peak construction. The effects are expected to be fewer (2 percent) during the
operation phase of the proposed action.
Construction. Construction activities would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period. Figure
4.5.3.8-3 illustrates that during peak construction (2005), the ALWR and APT would create
the largest population and housing demand increases over No Action, and the HWR and MHTGR
would have the least effects. The increase in population could require some additional
housing units beyond what is currently available in the existing housing mix. However, any
requirements for additional housing units would be at annual average increases of less
than 1 percent in the first 3years of construction of the ALWR and APT, followed by an
approximately less than 1 percent decrease until peak operation. The other tritium supply
technologies would also have annual average population and housing demand growth of less
than 1percent. Therefore, there would not be any major effects on any of the ROI
communities.
Operation. Operation of a tritium supply technology and recycling facility is expected to
reach full employment by 2010. In-migrating population is expected to demand housing units
similar to the existing housing mix in the ROI. Figure 4.5.3.8-4 shows the population
increases and potential demand for additional housing units over No Action projections
(much less than 1 percent) in this peak year. Given that the operation of the proposed
action would be phased in over a 4-year period, it is expected that existing vacancies
would absorb much of this new demand and that No Action requirements would be exceeded by
very few units.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating only a tritium supply technology at Pantex would not
increase population or housing demands in the ROI more than 6 percent over No Action
projections during the construction or operation periods.
Construction. Construction activities for the tritium supply technologies alone would be
much lower than if collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The greatest increase
in population and housing demand would occur during peak construction in 2005. Appendix
tables D.3-57 and D.3-60 show that available vacancies in the existing housing mix would
probably accommodate the expected population growth. Estimated growth in the ROI is much
less than 1 percent over the No Action projection.
Operation. Full employment levels for tritium supply technologies alone would be reached
by 2010. Inmigrating population would be expected to require housing units similar to
the existing mix in the ROI, but these requirements would be lower than those for any of
the tritium supply technologies with the recycling facilities. Potential demand for
housing units is very small (much less than 1 percent) in the first year of full
employment as illustrated in appendix tables D.3-57 and D.3-60. It is expected that
existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment would be phased in
from 2007 through 2010.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Population increases and housing demands would be the same
or lower during construction and operation of tritium supply technologies operated at less
than baseline tritium requirements than the alternatives discussed in the tritium supply
and recycling and tritium supply only sections.
Construction. Population increases and housing demands would be the same as those given in
figure 4.5.3.8-3 for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The Phased APT would increase population
and housing demand during construction to the same level as the Full APT, but this would
occur over a longer construction period with lower average annual increases (less than 1
percent). Also, the peak construction year would be 2003 instead of 2005. The effects of
the Phased APT on population and housing are given in appendix tables D.3-57 and D.3-60,
respectively. Appendix tables D.3-58 and D.3-61 present the results of constructing the
Phased APT with the tritium recycling facilities.
Figure (Page 4-344)
Figure 4.5.3.8-3.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase over No Action During
Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Pantex Plant Region
of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-345)
Figure 4.5.3.8-4.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase over No Action at Full
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Pantex Plant Region of
Influence, 2010.
Operation. The effects on population and housing of operating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and
Phased APT at less than baseline tritium requirements would be the same as those given in
figure 4.5.3.8-4.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a recycling
facility at Pantex would not increase population and housing demands more than 10 percent
over No Action projections during the construction period and 4 percent during operation.
Construction. Because this option would perform three processes, it would result in
greater changes in population and housing characteristics than any of the four tritium
supply technologies. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
multipurpose reactor with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix
tables D.3-57a, D.3-58a, D.3-60a, and D.3-61a. Population and housing growth in the ROI
would be at an annual average rate of 2 percent until 2005 and would decrease by 1 percent
annually between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the multipurpose reactor would be reached by 2010.
As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-57a, D.3-58a, D.3-60a, and D.3-61a, potential
demand for housing units would be less than 4 percent in the first year of full
employment. It is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as
employment would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a recycling facility at Pantex would not increase population and housing demands
more than 5 percent over No Action projections during the construction period and 1
percent during operation.
Construction. This option is similar to the APT with an addition of a gas power plant. The
changes in population and housing demands would be similar, but greater than those
resulting from the APT. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
the APT power plant with and without recycling facilities are presented in appendix tables
D.3-57a, D.3-58a, D.3-60a, and D.3-61a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be
at an annual average rate of 3 percent until 2005 and would be flat between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the APT power plant would be reached by 2010. As
illustrated in appendix tables D.3-57a, D.3-58a, D.3-60a, and D.3-61a, potential demand
for housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full employment. It
is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment
would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Public Finance
Fiscal changes could occur in some ROI local jurisdictions from the proposed action.
Factors influencing these changes include residence of project-related employees and
their dependents, cost and duration of construction, and economic conditions in the ROI
once the new facilities are operational.
Adding the proposed action to Pantex would increase population, resulting in more revenues
for ROI local jurisdictions. Additional population would also increase public service
expenditures. Figures 4.5.3.8-5 through 4.5.3.8-8 present the potential fiscal changes
that would occur with the different tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities.
No Action. Appendix tables D.3-62 and D.3-63 present the 1992 public finances for ROI
local jurisdictions. Appendix tables D.3-64 through D.3-67, and D.3-68, through D.3-71
present the impacts from the tritium supply technologies with or without recycling
facilities compared to No Action during construction and operation for the local counties,
cities, and school districts. Between 2001 and 2005, most ROI counties, cities, and school
districts are projected to increase total revenues on an annual average of less than 1
percent. Total expenditures are projected to increase on an annual average of less than 1
percent for all ROI counties, cities, and school districts between 2001 and 2005.
Between 2010 and 2020, projected annual average increases in total revenues are less than
1 percent for most counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI. Total expenditures
are projected to increase, on an average, by less than 1 percent for ROI jurisdictions
between 2010 and 2020.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at Pantex would create some fiscal
benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI. Some local government finances would be
affected during the construction and operation phases of the proposed action. Con-
struction-related effects on revenues and expenditures could span a 5- to 9-year period
with the peak occurring in 2005. The effects of the operation phase would peak in 2010 and
remain at this level throughout the life of the proposed action.
Construction. The public finances of counties, cities, and school districts within the ROI
would be affected by the construction-related activities associated with the proposed
action. Initially, there would be slight increases to some local government jurisdictions'
revenues and expenditures, which would peak in 2005 and then decline as construction
neared completion. Figures 4.5.3.8-5 and 4.5.3.8-7 give the revenue and expenditure
changes of the ROI local government jurisdictions over No Action during peak construction
for the four tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities. Over the construction
phase of the proposed action, revenues and expenditures would increase at an annual
average of 1 percent to 3percent. Between 2005 and 2010 total revenues and expenditures in
the ROI would decrease 1percent annually. Under the No Action estimates, local government
revenues and expenditures would increase on an annual average of less than 1 percent until
peak construction (2005) and between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. The effects on the ROI local government finances of phasing in operation
together with the phasing out of construction would be fewer than the effects at peak or
full operation (2005). The effects that the four tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would have on county, city, and school district revenues and expenditures are
presented in figures 4.5.3.8-6 and 4.5.3.8-8. Between 2010 and 2020, revenues are expected
to increase slightly at an average annual rate of less than 1 percent for all ROI
jurisdictions. Expenditures would also increase through 2020 at an annual average of less
than 1 percent. No Action local government revenues would also increase at an average
annual rate of less than 1 percent, and expenditures would grow annually at less than 1
percent.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating the tritium supply without the recycling facilities at
Pantex would create some fiscal benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI, but these
effects would be less than the effect of collocation with tritium recycling.
Construction. Construction-related effects on the revenues and expenditures of counties,
cities, and school districts would be less than the effects from locating tritium supply
technologies with recycling facilities. Appendix tables D.3-64 and D.3-66 present the
revenue and expenditure changes of the ROI local governments over No Action during peak
construction of the tritium supply technologies alone.
Operation. The operation phase of the tritium supply technologies alone would affect the
public finances of counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI, but these effects
would be less than those occurring with the recycling facilities. Appendix tables D.3-65
and D.3-67 present the effects that operation would have on these local jurisdictions in
2010. From 2010 to 2020, annual growth in revenues and expenditures would be flat. No
Action local government revenues and expenditures would increase at an average annual rate
of less than 1 percent.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The fiscal benefits that local jurisdictions would accrue
from the location of a tritium supply technology alone or collocated with recycling
would be the same or less if the tritium supply technology is operated at less than
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction. Increases in local jurisdictions' revenues and expenditures would be the
same as those given in figures 4.5.3.8-5 and 4.5.3.8-7 if the HWR, ALWR, or MHTGR is
built. If the Phased APT is constructed, the effects would peak in 2003 instead of 2005,
and the annual average increases would be lower (less than 1 percent). Appendix tables
D.3-64 through D.3-67 give the revenue and expenditure changes as a result of constructing
the Phased APT for all ROI jurisdictions. Revenue and expenditure changes resulting from
the construction of the Phased APT with tritium recycling are presented in appendix tables
D.3-68 through D.3-71.
Operation. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and Phased APT at less than baseline tritium
requirements would have the same effects on local jurisdictions' finances as those
presented in figures 4.5.3.8-6 and 4.5.3.8-8.
Figure (Page 4-348)
Figure 4.5.3.8-5.-County and City Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase over
No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for
Pantex Plant Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-349)
Figure 4.5.3.8-6.-County and City Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase over
No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for Pantex
Plant Region of Influence, 2010.
Figure (Page 4-350)
Figure 4.5.3.8-7.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase over
No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling for
Pantex Plant, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-351)
Figure 4.5.3.8-8.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase over
No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Pantex
Plant, 2010.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with or without a tritium
recycling facility at Pantex would create greater changes in public finance
characteristics than the four tritium supply technologies because this option would
perform three processes. Public finance characteristics for the multipurpose reactor with
and without a recycling facility are presented in appendix tables D.3-64a through D.3-71a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually from 1 to 3 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would generally decrease annually by less
than 1 percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to be flat for most cities, counties, and school
districts.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with or
without a tritium recycling facility at Pantex would create similar, but greater changes
in public finance characteristics than the APT tritium supply technology. Public finance
characteristics for the APT power plant with and without a recycling facility are
presented in appendix tables D.3-64a through D.3-71a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 2 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, revenues and expenditures would decrease annually by less than 1
percent for most jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to be flat for most cities, counties, and school
districts.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Adding new missions to Pantex would create new jobs and
generally benefit the local economy through increased earnings in the ROI. Some
mitigation measures may be required, such as Federal aid to local school districts where
additional school age children would attend as a result of the proposed action. These new
missions at Pantex would increase population and the demand for additional housing units.
Temporary housing units and mobile homes would help to alleviate the demand for new
housing during the construction phase of the proposed action. Generally, construction
would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period with peak construction occurring in 2005.
Phasing the start of operation employment and training between 2005 and 2010 would reduce
the annual level of housing demand and smooth the peak and valley effect that would occur
between peak construction and full operation.
Local Transportation
The following is a description of the effects on local transportation resulting from
locating new missions at Pantex. Construction and operation of a tritium supply
technology and recycling facility are expected to increase traffic volume and flow on site
access routes.
No Action. Under No Action, the worker population at Pantex would not increase. Therefore,
any increases in traffic would not be the result of DOE-related activities at Pantex.
Access to the 4-lane U.S. Highway 60 is 2 miles from the nearest access gate. The nearest
interstate highway is 7 miles via 2- and 4-lane roads that pass through rural areas. The
ROI could be affected by winter weather conditions that could restrict access to the
plant. Traffic conditions on site access roads would remain as described in section
4.5.2.8.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action would result in increases, depending on
the tritium supply technology, of worker population at the site. Traffic conditions on
site access roads leading to and from Pantex would worsen due to increased traffic volume
and flow. Locating the MHTGR or ALWR at Pantex would have the greatest effect on traffic
volume and flow.
Tritium Supply Alone. Locating a tritium supply technology without the recycling facility
at Pantex would result in increased worker population and traffic. However, the effects on
traffic would be less than those from siting the tritium recycling facility with any one
of the supply technologies.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The effects on traffic volume and flow would be the same
whether or not the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR were operated at baseline or less than baseline
tritium requirements. Construction of the Phased APT would increase traffic volume and
flow during the construction phase but less than for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation of traffic conditions may be necessary due to
the proposed action at Pantex. Potential mitigation of impacts to the local transportation
network could include widening and extension of Farm-to-Market Road 683, the primary
access route to Pantex, as well as possible realignment of roadways and construction of
interchanges at U.S. Highway 60 roadway intersections overburdened by increased vehicle
traffic and congestion (PX DOT 1991a).

4.5.3.9 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents
This section describes the impacts of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
resulting from either normal operation or accidents at facilities involved with tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex. The section first describes the
impacts from normal operations followed by a description of impacts from facility
accidents.
During normal operation at Pantex, all tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities would result in impacts that are within regulatory limits. The risk of adverse
health effects to the public and to workers would be small.
For facility accident impacts, the results indicate that for all technologies, the risk of
fatal cancers (taking into account both the probability of the accident and its
consequences), from an accidental release of radioactive or hazardous chemical substance
at Pantex is low when compared to fatal cancers from all causes, even for a severe
accident.
The impact methodology is described in section 4.1.9. Summaries of the radiological and
chemical impacts associated with normal operation are presented in tables 4.5.3.9-1 and
4.5.3.9-2, respectively. Summaries of impacts associated with postulated accidents are
given in tables 4.5.3.9-3 and 4.5.3.9-4. Detailed results are presented in appendixE for
normal operation and in appendix F for accidents.
Normal Operation
No Action. The current missions at Pantex are described in section 3.3.4. Site
representation has identified facilities that will continue to operate and others, if any,
that will become operational by 2010. Based on that information, the radiological releases
for 2010 and beyond were developed and used in the impact assessments.
Radiological Impacts. As shown in table 4.5.3.9-1, No Action would result in a calculated
annual dose of 1.3x10-3 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public, which projects
to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 2.6x10-8 from 40 years of total site operation. This
annual dose is within radiological limits and is 3.8x10-4 percent of the natural
background radiation received by the average person near Pantex.
The population dose from total site operation in 2030 was calculated to be 5.7x10-4
person-rem, which projects to an estimated 1.1x10-5 fatal cancers over 40 years of total
site operation. This population dose would be approximately 5.7x10-7 percent of the annual
dose received by the surrounding population from natural background radiation.
The annual average dose to a site worker from No Action would be 15 mrem, which projects
to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 2.4x10-4 from 40 years of site operation. The annual
dose to the total site workforce would be 37 person-rem, which projects to in an estimated
0.59 fatal cancers from 40 years of total site operation. The estimated worker doses are
based on the measured annual average worker doses at Pantex from 1989 to 1992 and the
projected employment for 2010.
Table 4.5.3.9-1.-Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting from
Normal Operation of Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling -
- No HWR MHTGR Large Small Full APT Phased Tritium
Action ALWR ALWR APT Recycling
Affected - - - - - Helium-3 SILC Helium-3 -
Environment Target Target Target
System System System
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Dose (mrem/yr) 1.3x10-3 3.8 2.4 4.9 4.8 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.4
Percent of natural background 3.8x10-4 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.42 0.61 0.42 0.40
40-Year Fatal cancer risk 2.6x10-8 7.6x10-5 4.8x10-5 9.8x10-5 9.6x10-5 2.9x10-5 4.2x10-5 2.9x10-5 2.8x10-5
Population Within 50 Miles
Year 2030
Dose (person-rem) 5.7x10-4 28 16 37 35 9.2 14 9.2 9.0
Percent of natural backgroundd 5.7x10-7 0.028 0.016 0.037 0.035 9.3x10-3 0.014 9.3x10-3 9.0x10-3
40-Year Fatal cancers 1.1x10-5 0.55 0.31 0.73 0.69 0.18 0.27 0.18
0.18
Average site worker dosec 15 25 22 68 46 25 25 25 4
(mrem/yr)
40-Year Fatal cancer risk 2.4x10-4 4.0x10-4 3.5x10-4 1.1x10-3 7.4x10-4 3.9x10-4 4.0x10-4 3.9x10-4 6.4x10-5
Total site workforce dose 37 78 67 210 140 77 79 77 1.6
(person-rem/yr)
40-Year Fatal cancers 0.59 1.2 1.1 3.3 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.026
Table 4.5.3.9-2.-Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting
from Normal Operation at Pantex Plant
Health Impact No Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling, -
Action
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Hazard Index 3.7x10-3 4.1x10-3 3.7x10-3 7.5x10-3 3.8x10-3 3.2x10-5
Cancer risk 1.8x10-9 1.8x10-9 1.8x10-9 1.8x10-9 1.8x10-9 0
Worker Onsite
Hazard Index 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 1.6x10-5
Cancer risk 7.7x10-7 7.7x10-7 7.7x10-7 7.7x10-7 7.7x10-7 0
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. As shown in table 4.5.3.9-2, No Action would result in a
calculated HI of 3.7x10-3 and a cancer risk of 1.8x10-9 to the maximally exposed member of
the public. The worker HI and cancer risk were calculated to be 0.26and 7.7x10-7,
respectively. All values are within the acceptable regulatory health limits. For details
on the derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix table E.3.4-22 and summary
table E.3.4-28.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. There will be no radiological releases during the
construction of either new tritium recycling facilities or new facilities that are
associated with all tritium supply technologies under consideration.
Limited hazardous chemical releases are anticipated as a result of construction
activities. However, their concentration will be well within the regulated exposure limits
and would not result in any adverse health effects. During normal operation, there would
be both radiological and hazardous chemical releases to the environment plus direct
in-plant exposures. The impacts from radiological and hazardous chemicals from each
tritium supply technology considered are the summations of the impacts from the various
facilities in operation for that technology. The resulting doses and potential health
effects to the public and workers from each alternative are described below.
Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from normal operations
of various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex are listed in
table 4.5.3.9-1. The supporting analysis is provided in appendix section E.2.7.2.
The doses to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual site operations at
Pantex range from 1.4 mrem for both the APT with the helium-3 target option and the
Phased APT to 4.9 mrem for the Large ALWR. From 40 years of operation, the corresponding
risks of fatal cancer to this individual would range from 2.9x10-5 to 9.8x10-5. As a
result of total site operations in 2030, the population doses would range from 9.2
person-rem for the same two APT technologies to 37 person-rem for the Large ALWR. The
corresponding numbers of fatal cancers in this population from 40 years of operation would
range from 0.18 to 0.73.
The annual dose to the total site workforce would range from 67 person-rem for the MHTGR
to 210person-rem for the Large ALWR. The corresponding annual average doses to a site
worker would be 22 mrem for the MHTGR and 68 mrem for the Large ALWR. The risks and
numbers of fatal cancers among workers from 40 years of operation are included in table
4.5.3.9-1.
Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation, as described above,
all of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are acceptable for siting
at Pantex. All resulting doses are within radiological limits and are below levels of
natural background radiation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts resulting from normal operation of
various tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities at Pantex are listed in
table 4.5.3.9-2. Locating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT at Pantex would result in HIs to
the maximally exposed member of the public ranging from 3.7x10-3 (MHTGR) to 7.5x10-3
(ALWR) and identical cancer risks of 1.8x10-9 for all technologies. All technologies
operated at Pantex would result in identical HIs of 0.26 for workers and identical cancer
risks of 7.7x10-7. All of these values are within regulatory health limits. For details on
the derivation of the HIs and cancer risks, see appendix E.3.4-22 through E.3.4-26 and
summary table E.3.4-28.
Tritium Supply Alone
Radiological Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes is not collocated with the
tritium supply, the annual dose to the maximally exposed individual would be 1.4 mrem
lower than from operation of both supply and recycling. This is 0.4 percent of the dose
from natural background radiation received by the average person near Pantex. The
estimated risk of fatal cancer to this individual would decrease by 2.8x10-5 over 40 years
of total site operation. Not collocating the tritium recycling processes at Pantex would
result in a decrease of 9 person-rem to the population within 50 miles in year 2030, and
0.18 fewer fatal cancers over 40 years of operation.
If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the tritium supply, the total
annual workforce dose would decrease by 1.6 person-rem, resulting in 0.026 fewer fatal
cancers over the 40 years.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the
supply technologies at Pantex, the cancer risk would remain at 1.8x10-9. The HIs for the
public would be reduced by approximately 0.4 to 0.86 percent for any of the supply
technologies. The worker HIs would be almost unchanged (i.e., 0.006 percent reduction)
and the cancer risk to workers would remain at 7.7x 10-7. Based on the hazardous chemical
impacts, the HIs and cancer risks are all within regulatory limits. For details on the
derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix E, tables E.3.4-24 through E.3.4-26
and summary table E.3.4-28.
If the tritium recycling processes are not collocated with the supply technologies, the
cancer risks to the public and the worker remain the same at 1.8x10-9 and 7.7x10-7
respectively, because the entire cancer risks is due to the No Action contribution. The
HIs for the public would be reduced by 0.84 percent (APT) to 0.42 percent (ALWR) and the
HIs for workers would be virtually unaffected by a 0.006percent reduction for all
technologies. All HI values and cancer risks for the public and worker are within
acceptable health regulatory limits.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The normal operation radiological impacts for the HWR
operating at reduced tritium production capacity to meet a less than baseline operations
requirement would be proportional to the level of operation (approximately 50 percent of
baseline). The MHTGR or ALWR normal operation radiological impacts would not change
because the reactor would maintain power requirements to produce steam or electricity.
The Phased APT is already less than the baseline tritium requirement and thus the impacts
are as presently given in this PEIS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Radioactive and hazardous chemical airborne emissions to
the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing
the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public
exposure from emissions, improved methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the
releases to the environment. Similarly, the use of remote, automated and robotic
production methods are examples of techniques that are being developed which could reduce
worker exposure. Substitution of less toxic/noncancer causing solvents would result in
reductions of the HI and possible complete elimination of the cancer risk.
Facility Accidents
No Action. Under No Action, the risk of accidents at Pantex would be unchanged from that
reported in safety analysis reports for existing facilities.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. The proposed action at Pantex has the potential for
accidents that may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The potential
for and associated consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents have been assessed
for each tritium supply and recycling facilities at Pantex and are summarized in this
section and described in more detail in appendix F. The methodology used in the assessment
is described in section 4.1.9.
The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high-consequence/low-probability to
low-consequence/high-probability events, have been evaluated in terms of the number of
cancer fatalities that may result. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated
to provide an overall measure of accident impacts and is calculated by multiplying the
accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number of
cancer fatalities).
The analyses of accidents for the tritium supply and recycling facilities at Pantex
indicate that, for the high consequence accident, the risk of cancer fatalities to the
public within 50 miles of the site would be 1.5x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table
4.5.3.9-3). This accident risk, which corresponds with the HWR, is low when compared to
the risk of cancer fatalities each year to the same population from all other causes.
Details on the range of accidents for the tritium supply technologies and recycling
facilities at Pantex are presented in appendix F. Each of the technologies has been
analyzed from the standpoint of identifying the consequences of design basis/operational
accidents (using the GENII computer code) and beyond design basis, or severe accidents
(using the MACCS computer code). The severe accident consequences are shown in table
4.5.3.9-3 for each technology. The table also shows the consequences of each accident
for the population and for an individual located at the site boundary during the accident.
The results of the analysis indicate that the HWR has the highest severe accident risk.
The technology with the lowest accident risk is the APT. The tritium recycling facility is
common to all tritium supply technologies but, except for the APT, the consequences and
risks are dominated by reactor accidents. The tritium extraction accident dominates the
accelerator accidents. ¹
Table 4.5.3.9-3.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling High Consequence/Low
Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Pantex Plant
- Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full/Phased Full Tritium Target Tritium
ALWRb, ALWR APT APT Extraction Recycling
Facilityb Facility
Parameter - - - - Helium-3 SILC - -
Target Target
System, Systemb,,
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 0.010 1.0x10-3 0.015 0.029 9.0x10-8 1.4x10-6 1.0x10-4 3.5x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 9.5x10-8 1.6x10-8 2.3x10-9 4.6x10-9 6.4x10-14 1.0x10-12 1.0x10-10 3.5x10-10
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 1.7 0.19 0.72 4.3 1.3x10-5 1.3x10-4 0.014 0.049
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.5x10-5 3.0x10-6 1.1x10-7 6.7x10-7 8.9x10-12 9.6x10-11 1.4x10-8 4.9x10-8
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.024 3.1x10-3 0.023 0.070 2.6x10-7 3.8x10-6 2.9x10-4 1.0x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.2x10-7 5.0x10-8 3.5x10-9 1.1x10-8 1.9x10-13 2.7x10-12 2.9x10-10 1.0x10-9
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.011 1.1x10-3 0.014 0.031 1.0x10-7 1.6x10-6 1.1x10-4 3.9x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.0x10-7 1.8x10-8 2.1x10-9 4.9x10-9 7.1x10-14 1.1x10-12 1.1x10-10 3.9x10-10
Figure (Page 4-359)
Figure 4.5.3.9-1.-High Consequence Accident-Cancer Fatalities Complementary Cumulative
Distribution Functions for Tritium Supply and Recycling Severe Accidents at Pantex Plant.
Figure 4.5.3.9-1 shows the number of latent cancer fatalities that may result for each
technology, including tritium extraction and recycling, if a high consequence accident
were to occur. Specifically, each curve in the figure shows the annual probability
(vertical axis) that the number of cancer fatalities (horizontal axis) will be exceeded if
the accident occurred. The curves reflect the probability of the accident.
The secondary impacts of accidents affect elements of the environment other than humans.
For example, a radiological release may contaminate farmland, surface and underground
water, recreational areas, industrial parks, historical sites, or the habitat of an
endangered species. As a result, farm products may have to be destroyed; the supply of
drinking water may be reduced; recreational areas may be closed; industrial parks may
suffer economic losses; historical sites may have to be closed to visitors; and the
endangered species may move closer to extinction. In the region of Pantex, the natural
background level of radiation (excluding radon) is 107 mrem per year. For a hypothetical
design basis accidental release, the radiation levels exceeding 107 mrem per year extends
beyond the site boundary. The size of the area in which exposure levels would exceed
exposures from natural background radiation is 9.3x107 square meters (22,980 acres).
Tritium Supply Alone. The analyses of reasonably foreseeable high consequence accidents
for the tritium supply facilities at Pantex are presented below.
Heavy Water Reactor. A set of five high consequence accident sequences were postulated for
the HWR. In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there would be an
estimated 1.7 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased like-
lihood of cancer fatality of 0.01 to an individual who may be located at the site boundary
and 0.024 to a collocated worker located within 1,000 meters of the accident. The risk to
the population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is 1.5x10-5
cancer fatalities per year (table 4.5.3.9-3).
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident
sequences were postulated for the MHTGR. In the event that any of these accidents were to
occur, there would be an estimated 0.19 cancer fatalities in the population within 50
miles and an increased likelihood of cancer of 1.0x10-3 to an individual who may be
located at the site boundary and 3.1x10-3 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the
accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the accident into
account, is less than 3.0x10-6 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.5.3.9-3).
Advanced Light Water Reactor. A range of accident sequences with various release
categories was analyzed for the ALWR. One release category for a Large ALWR and one for a
Small ALWR were postulated and were selected to represent the accident consequences for an
ALWR (appendix section F.2.1.3). In the event that such an accident were to occur, there
would be an estimated 0.72 cancer fatalities for the Large ALWR, and 4.3 cancer fatalities
for the Small ALWR, in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of
cancer of 0.015 for the Large and 0.029 for the Small ALWR to an individual who may be
located at the site boundary and 0.023 for a Large ALWR and 0.07 for a Small ALWR to a
collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that
takes the probability of the accident into account, is 1.1x10-7 cancer fatalities per year
for the Large ALWR, and 6.7x10-7 cancer fatalities per year for the Small ALWR (table
4.5.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Helium-3 Target System. The large break loss of
coolant accident with the total loss of the active emergency cooling system and the heat
sink with and without confinement were postulated as the high consequence accident for
this APT and target option. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be
an estimated 1.3x10-5 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 9.0x10-8 to an individual located at the site boundary
and 2.6x10-7 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the
population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the order of
8.9x10-12 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.5.3.9-3).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Spallation-Induced Lithium Conversion Target
System. The large break loss of coolant accident with a successful beam trip and the total
loss of the active emergency cooling system with and without confinement were postulated
as the high consequence accidents for this APT and target option. In the event that this
accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 1.3x10-4 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.4x10-6 to
an individual located at the site boundary and 3.8x10-6 to a collocated worker at 1,000
meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the
accident into account, is on the order of 9.6x10-11 cancer fatalities per year (table
4.5.3.9-3).
Tritium Extraction and Recycling. The tritium extraction facility is required to support
all tritium supply technologies except the APT technology with the helium-3 target system.
The tritium recycling facility is required to support all tritium supply technologies.
The analyses of postulated high consequence accidents for the tritium extraction and
recycling facilities at Pantex are presented below.
Tritium Target Extraction Facility. An earthquake and release of process vessel tritium
inventory was postulated as the high consequence accident. The consequences and risk of
any accident associated with the accelerator beam and target would be much lower. In the
event that this accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.014 cancer
fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer
1.0x10-4 to an individual who may be located at the site boundary and 2.9x10-4 to a col-
located worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes
the probability of the accident into account, is on the order 1.4x10-8 cancer fatalities
per year (table 4.5.3.9-3).
Tritium Recycling Facility. An earthquake induced leak/ignition and fire in the unloading
station carousel reservoir was postulated as the high consequence accident for a tritium
recycling facility. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be an
estimated 0.049 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 3.5x10-4 to an individual located at the site boundary
during and 1.0x10-3 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to
the population, that takes the probability of accident into account, is on the order of
4.9x10-8 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.5.3.9-3).
For comparison purposes with high consequence tritium supply facility accidents, including
extraction and recycling, for the same total population of 287,000 in 2050 within 50
miles of the site, there is a risk of 574 cancer fatalities per year from all other
natural causes.
The analysis of facility accidents for tritium supply at Pantex shows that for high
consequence accidents analyzed using the MACCS computer code, the HWR has the highest
risk and the APT has the lowest risk. The risk of accidents for any of the tritium supply
technologies, tritium extraction, and tritium recycling facilities common to all
technologies is low when compared to the human risk of cancer fatalities from all other
causes.
Design-Basis Accidents. The consequences of operational basis or design-basis accidents
for the tritium extraction and recycling facilities at Pantex are shown in table
4.5.3.9-4. The results in table 4.5.3.9-4 should not be compared with the severe accident
analysis results in table 4.5.3.9-3 because different computer codes using different
calculational approaches were used. More detailed description of design-basis accidents is
included in appendixF.2.2.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Less than baseline tritium operation would have no
significant change to the current accident analyses consequences for the HWR unless the
baseline HWR core design was downsized. The baseline HWR configuration would adjust to the
reduced target throughput requirements by reducing the time that the reactor is required
to operation at 100 percent power. It is not anticipated that the overall risk from
operating the reactor in this mode would decrease significantly. Accident analyses have
not been performed to address accident sequences and initiating events when the reactor
is in the cold shutdown mode. In addition, operator error has a significant effect on
facility risk, and if the reactor is shutdown a high percentage of the time, operator
error may actually increase when the reactor is at power.
Table 4.5.3.9-4.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Low to Moderate Consequence
Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Pantex Plant
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling - -
- HWR, MHTGRb, Large Small Full APT Tritium Target Tritium Recycling
ALWRb, ALWR Extraction Facility
Facilityb
Parameter - - - - SILC Target - -
Systemb,
Accident
Description Fuel Assembly Moderate break in Fuel Handling Fuel Handling Large break loss of Deflagration Hydride Bed
failure during primary system coolant accident Rupture
charge and piping
discharge
operations
Frequency (per year) 1.0x10-3 2.5x10-2 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-3 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 6.2x10-6 4.0x10-9 3.9x10-6 5.2x10-6 negligible 3.9x10-5 1.7x10-7
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 6.2x10-9 1.0x10-10 3.9x10-11 5.2x10-11 negligible 7.8x10-10 3.4x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesi 0.026 1.2x10-5 0.015 0.021 negligible 0.16 7.0x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.6x10-5 3.0x10-7 1.5x10-7 2.1x10-7 negligible 3.2x10-6 1.4x10-7
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 1.2x10-5 1.5x10-8 1.2x10-5 1.6x10-5 negligible 2.4x10-4 8.8x10-7
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 1.2x10-8 3.8x10-10 1.2x10-10 1.6x10-10 negligible 4.8x10-9 1.8x10-10
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 3.5x10-6 4.2x10-9 3.4x10-6 4.4x10-6 negligible 5.6x10-5 2.4x10-11
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 3.5x10-9 1.1x10-10 3.4x10-11 4.4x10-11 negligible 1.1x10-9 4.8x10-15
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the current
accident analyses consequences for the ALWR. The reactor surplus capacity would be used to
generate steam for electric power production.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no change to the MHTGR accident analyses
because the analyses assumed that only one of the modules would be involved in the
accident.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the APT accident
analyses con- sequences. The accident consequences for Full and Phased APT accident with
low to moderate consequences were negligible. For the beyond design basis accident,
there was no difference in the Full and the Phased accident consequences. Review of the
source terms for the Full and the Phased APT indicated that the tritium component of the
source term is identical for both accidents. Review of the MACCS computer code output data
for each accident analysis indicated that the tritium component of the source term
dominated the dose calculation results. The impact of the other source term isotopes on
the dose calculation results is negligible.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The accidents postulated for tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities are based on operations and safety analyses that have been
performed at similar facilities. One of the major design goals for tritium supply and
recycling facilities is to achieve a reduced risk to facility personnel and to public
health and safety to as low as reasonably achievable.
Current estimates are that there would be 180 collocated workers within 1,000 meters
from an accident, 87 collocated workers between 1,000 meters and 2,000 meters of an
accident, and 1,114 collocated workers beyond 2,000 meters of the accident. Involved
workers that are associated with the proposed action would be located in and around the
facility.
Worker exposures that may result from the accidental release of radioactive material will
be minimized through design features and administrative procedures that will be defined
in conjunction with the facility design process. The radiological impacts to involved
workers from accidents could not be quantitatively estimated for this PEIS because the
facility design information needed to support the estimate has not yet been developed. The
impacts on workers from accidents will be analyzed as part of subsequent project-specific
NEPA documentation and in detailed safety analysis documentation that are prepared in
conjunction with the facility design process.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to comply with current
Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and industrial codes and standards. This
would provide facilities that are highly resistant to the effects of severe natural
phenomena, including earthquake, flood, tornado, high wind, as well as credible events as
appropriate to the site, such as fire and explosions, and man-made threats to its
continuing structural integrity for containing materials. Because of the proximity of
Pantex to the Amarillo airport, special provisions may be necessary in the design to
harden the facility against the potential forces of an aircraft crash into the facility.
The tritium supply and recycling facilities would be designed to resist the effects of
severe natural phenomena as well as the effects of man-made threats to its continuing
structural integrity. It also would be designed to provide containment of the tritium
inventory at all times through the use of multiple, high quality confinement barriers to
prevent the accidental release of tritium to the environment. It also would be designed to
produce a lower quantity of waste materials as compared to the tritium facilities of the
existing weapons complex.
In addition, DOE orders specify the requirements for emergency preparedness at DOE
facilities. Pantex has comprehensive emergency plans to protect life and property within
the facility and the health and welfare of surrounding areas. The emergency plans would be
revised to incorporate future DOE requirements and expanded to incorporate the addition
of tritium supply and recycling facilities to Pantex. See section 4.5.2.9 for emergency
preparedness and emergency plan details at Pantex.

4.5.3.10 Waste Management
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities would impact
existing waste management operations, increasing the generation of low-level, mixed
low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous waste, and initiating the generation of spent
nuclear fuel. There are no high-level or TRU wastes associated with the proposed action.
As part of their design, all reactor technologies would provide stabilization and storage
of spent fuel for the life of the facility. Siting tritium supply and recycling
facilities at Pantex would involve the construction of new treatment and staging
facilities for solid LLW generation for all the technologies. New liquid LLW treatment
facilities for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would be necessary. Due to the increased
generation of solid mixed LLW, new or expanded storage facilities would be necessary for
the HWR and ALWR.
All technologies would generate enough solid sanitary waste to shorten the planned
lifetime of the city of Amarillo landfill or require its expansion. All technologies
would require additional or expansion of existing treatment facilities for liquid sanitary
waste. This section provides a description of waste generation, treatment, storage, and
disposal requirements of the tritium supply and recycling facilities and the potential
impacts on waste management. Because Pantex does not currently dispose of radioactive
waste onsite, the incremental increase in shipments of LLW to NTS is estimated. The incre-
mental increased risk due to these shipments is analyzed in section 4.7.
No Action. Under No Action, low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous waste
would continue to be managed from the missions described in section 3.3.4. Table
4.5.3.10-1 lists the projected waste generation rates, and treatment, storage, and
disposal capacities under No Action. Projections for No Action were derived from 1992
environmental data with appropriate adjustments made for those changing operational
requirements where the volume of wastes generated are identifiable. The projection does
not include wastes from future, yet uncharacterized, environmental restoration
activities. Pantex might also store, over the long term, certain quantities of sealed
plutonium pits; however, no impact on waste management is expected since such storage
generates minimal additional waste.
Pantex's assembly/disassembly and high explosives programs would continue to generate
low-level, mixed low-level, and hazardous waste. Compactible components of solid LLW would
continue to be processed at the onsite solid waste compaction facility. Mixed waste would
be treated and disposed of according to the Pantex Site Treatment Plan, which is currently
being developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Although the
predominant workload in 1992 was disassembly operations, the activity levels were assumed
to be representative of projected workload levels that characterize No Action
operations. It is expected that through waste minimization efforts, generation rates would
decrease.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Tritium supply and recycling facilities that would support
the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements (both new and existing facilities) would treat
and package all waste generated in support of this activity into forms that would enable
long-term storage and/or disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and
other relevant statutes as outlined in chapter 5 and in appendix section H.1.2. The
resultant waste effluents are shown in section 3.4. Waste generated during construction
would consist of wastewater, solid nonhazardous, and hazardous waste. The nonhazardous
wastes would be recycled or disposed of as part of the construction project by the
contractor except for solid sanitary waste, which would be sent offsite to the city of
Amarillo sanitary/industrial landfill. The hazardous wastes would be shipped offsite to a
RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. Operation of the three reactor-based
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would generate spent fuel, and all
four technologies would generate low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous
wastes. The volume of the waste streams from tritium supply would vary according to the
tritium supply technology chosen. Table 4.5.3.10-2 lists the total estimated waste volumes
projected to be generated as a result of various tritium supply technologies and
recycling facilities. The incremental waste volumes from the tritium supply technologies
that were added to the No Action projection can be found in appendix section A.2. Table
4.5.3.10-3 lists potential waste management impacts at the time of initial operation of
the tritium facilities.
Table 4.5.3.10-1.-Projected Waste Management for No Action at Pantex Plant, 1992
Category Annual Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
Rate (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
(yd3)
Low-Level
Liquid 2 Solidification 14 Staged for 113 NA NA
(403 gal) (3,300 GPY) processing (23,000 gal)
Solid 25 Compaction 220 Staged for Included in Shipped offsite to NA
shipment low-level NTS
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid 2 None - onsite Planned Staged for 95 NA NA
(403 gal) encapsulation processing (19,000 gal)
pending
Solid 5 Compaction and Planned Staged for Included in Shipped offsite NA
incineration shipment mixed low-level
Hazardous
Liquid 12 Incineration Variable Staged for 308 Shipped offsite NA
(2,420 gal) shipment (62,000 gal)
Solid 63 Incinerationc Variable Staged for Included in Shipped offsite NA
shipment hazardous
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 198,000 Evaporation and 1,030,000 None NA Lagoon and 1,200,000
(39,900,000 gal) filtration (207,000,000 GPY) NPDES outfall (237,000,000 gal)
(stormwater)
Solid 734 Compaction and 270,000 None NA Landfill (offsite) NA
incineration
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 36,600 Carbon absorption/ Included in None NA See liquid sanitary Included in
(7,400,000 gal) filtration liquid sanitary sanitary
Solid 5,830 Compaction and Included in None NA Landfill (onsite) Expandable
incineration solid sanitary
Table 4.5.3.10-2.-Estimated Annual Generated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes for
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Category No Action HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear Fuel None 7 80 55 36 None
Low-Level
Liquid 2 10,400 2,600 24,800 3,910 2
(403 gal) (2,100,000 gal) (525,000 gal) (5,000,000 gal) (790,000 gal) (402 gal)
Solid 25 5,580 1,680 1,090 1,040 919
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid 2 2 2 2 2 2
(403 gal) (409 gal) (409 gal) (409 gal) (409 gal) (409 gal)
Solid 5 127 8 13 13 14
Hazardous
Liquid 12 12 12 12 12 12
(2,420 gal) (2,420 gal) (2,420 gal) (2,420 gal) (2,420 gal) (2,420 gal)
Solid 63 104 164 99 99 67
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 198,000 507,000 417,000 715,000 517,000 1,480,000
(39,900,000 gal) (102,000,000 gal) (84,200,000 gal) (144,000,000 gal) (104,000,000 gal) 299,000,000 gal)
Solid 734 15,700 15,500 15,000 12,300 9,370
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600
(7,400,000 gal) (7,400,000 gal) (7,400,000 gal) (7,400,000 gal) (7,400,000 gal) (7,400,000 gal)
Solid 5,830 18,700 18,600 18,000 15,700 12,200
Spent nuclear fuel storage for the life of the reactors is provided for in the reactor
designs (appendix section A.2.1). Because spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is not planned,
no HLW would be generated. Without plutonium production, no TRU waste would be generated.
The treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed LLW would be in accordance with the Pantex
Plant Site Treatment Plan, which is currently being developed pursuant to the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. LLW would continue to be shipped to NTS for disposal.
Hazardous waste would be treated, staged in new hazardous waste staging facilities, and
shipped offsite to a RCRA-permitted disposal facility. Nonhazardous waste would be treated
utilizing current, expanded, or new facilities.
Heavy Water Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of 7 yd3 per year.
This would add 0.3 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent nuclear fuel
inventory. The HWR would be designed to provide the necessary stabilization and storage of
the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid LLW generated from the
HWR would far exceed the limited existing treatment capability at Pantex. The HWR would
have to provide a liquid radioactive waste treatment capability that would treat the
liquid LLW into a solid form that would meet the waste acceptance criteria of the selected
offsite LLW disposal facility. The solid LLW generated from the HWR would also exceed the
Pantex capability to stage solid LLW prior to shipment to the offsite disposal facility,
which is currently NTS. Expansion of existing facilities or the construction of a new
facility would be examined in a site-specific NEPA analysis. Locating the HWR at Pantex
would require an additional 92 shipments of solid LLW to NTS per year. Assuming a
4,000ft3/acre LLW disposal usage factor, these additional LLW shipments would require
0.6 acres of LLW disposal area at NTS. The 2 percent increase in liquid mixed LLW could be
handled by adding the appropriate treatment capability to planned mixed waste facilities.
The increase in solid mixed LLW from the HWR would require an expansion of the treatment
and storage capabilities currently being studied pursuant to complying with the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The generation of solid hazardous waste could be handled
within the existing capability at Pantex. The capacity of the staging area is
approximately 300 yd3 with hazardous waste continually being shipped offsite. The HWR
would generate larger quantities (factor of 3) of liquid sanitary waste than currently
projected for Pantex under No Action. Additional treatment facilities or expansion of
existing or planned facilities would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA analysis. The HWR
would increase by a factor of 21 the quantities of solid sanitary waste for the city of
Amarillo landfill as compared to No Action. This would cause an increase in the need for
landfill capacity at the city of Amarillo sanitary/industrial landfill.
Siting an HWR without tritium recycling facilities at Pantex would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel and liquid LLW as described
above and in table 4.5.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer
be generated. All remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the
impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid
nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described above and in table
4.5.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by a factor of 208 over No Action
and would exceed the Pantex capability to stage while awaiting shipment to NTS. However,
the total number of additional shipments would be reduced to 86. Approximately 0.6 acres
per year of LLW disposal would still be needed at NTS to accommodate this waste. The
increase in generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from
a factor of 21 to a factor of 11; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to the
planned lifetime of the landfill.
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the
rate of 80 yd3 per year. This would add 0.24 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the
DOE spent nuclear fuel inventory. The MHTGR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generated from the MHTGR would far exceed the limited existing treatment
capability at Pantex. The MHTGR would have to provide a liquid radioactive waste treatment
capability that would treat the liquid LLW into a solid form that would meet the waste
acceptance criteria of the selected offsite LLW disposal facility. The solid LLW generated
from the MHTGR would exceed the Pantex capability (factor of 15 greater) to stage solid
LLW prior to shipment to NTS. Expansion of existing facilities or the construction of a
new facility would be examined in a site-specific NEPA analysis. Locating the MHTGR at
Pantex would require an additional 27 shipments of solid LLW to NTS per year. The
additional LLW shipments would require approximately 0.2 acres per year of LLW disposal at
NTS. The 60-percent increase in solid mixed LLW could be handled within the existing and
planned capability as currently being studied pursuant to complying with the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The approximate tripling of solid hazardous waste volumes
due to the MHGTR could also be handled within the existing and planned capability at
Pantex. The MHTGR would generate larger quantities (factor of 2 greater) of liquid
sanitary wastes than is currently projected for Pantex under No Action. Additional
treatment facilities or expansion of existing or planned facilities would be analyzed in a
site-specific NEPA analysis. The MHTGR would increase by a factor of 21 the quantities of
solid sanitary waste for the city of Amarillo landfill as compared to No Action. This
would cause an increase in the need for landfill capacity at the city of Amarillo
sanitary/industrial landfill.
Table 4.5.3.10-3.-Potential Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Impacts from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling at Pantex Plant [Page 1 of 2]
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Category HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT
- Change from Impact Change from Impact Change from Impact Change from Impact Change from Impact
No Action No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona No Actiona
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Spent Nuclear New New storage New New storage New New storage New New storage None None
Fuel facility facility facility facility
Low-Level
Liquid +521,000 New treatment +130,000 New +1,240,000 New treatment +196,000 New None None
facility treatment facility treatment
facility facility
Solid +22,200 New staging +6,600 New staging +4,240 New staging +4,040 New staging +3,580 New staging
facility, 92 facility, 27 facility, 32 facility, 18 facility, 16
LLW ship- LLW ship- LLW ship- LLW ship- LLW ship-
ments ments ments ments ments
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid +1 None +1 None +1 None +1 None +1 None
Solid +2,440 Expand +60 None +160 None +160 None +176 None
treatment
and storage
Hazardous
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +65 None +160 None +57 None +57 None +6 None
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid +156 Add or expand +111 Add or expand +261 Add or expand +161 Add or expand +651 Add or expand
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
Solid +2,040 Landfill life +2,020 Landfill life +1,950 Landfill life +1,580 Landfill life +1,180 Landfill life
reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or reduced or
expansion expansion expansion expansion expansion
required required required required required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +221 None-Project +220 None-Project +209 None-Project +170 None-Project +110 None-Project
wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are
recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable
Siting an MHTGR without tritium recycling facilities at Pantex would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel and liquid LLW as described
above and in table 4.5.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer
be generated. All remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the
impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid
nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described above and in table 4.5.3.10-3.
The generation of solid LLW would increase by a factor of 53 over No Action and would
still exceed the Pantex capability to stage while awaiting shipment to NTS. However, the
total number of additional shipments would be reduced to 22. Approximately 0.15 acres per
year of LLW disposal would be needed at NTS to accommodate this waste. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of
21 to a factor of 11; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to planned lifetime of
the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
55 yd3 per year. This would add 105 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel for the life of the facility. The
liquid LLW generated from the ALWR would far exceed the limited existing treatment
capability at Pantex. The Large ALWR would have to provide a liquid radioactive treatment
capability. The facility would treat the liquid LLW into a solid form that would meet the
waste acceptance criteria of the LLW disposal facility at NTS. The solid LLW generated
from the ALWR would also exceed the Pantex capability to stage solid LLW prior to
shipment to NTS. Expansion of existing facilities or the construction of a new facility
would be examined in a site-specific NEPA analysis. Locating the Large ALWR at Pantex
would require an additional 32 shipments of solid LLW to NTS per year. The additional LLW
shipments would require approximately 0.2 acres per year of LLW disposal at NTS. The
threefold increase in solid mixed LLW for the Large ALWR could be handled within the
existing capability for staging since Pantex is currently handling about 50 yd3 of mixed
LLW. As seen in table 4.5.3.10-3, the increase in solid hazardous waste volumes could be
handled within the existing and planned capability at Pantex. The capacity of the staging
area is approximately 300 yd3 with hazardous waste continually being shipped offsite. As
in other technologies, the Large ALWR would generate larger quantities (factor of 3) of
liquid sanitary wastes than currently projected for Pantex under No Action. Additional
treatment facilities or expansion of existing or planned facilities would be necessary.
The ALWR would increase by a factor of 21 the quantities of solid sanitary waste for the
city of Amarillo landfill as compared to No Action. This would cause an increase in the
need for landfill capacity at the city of Amarillo sanitary/industrial landfill.
Siting a Large ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at Pantex would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent nuclear fuel and liquid LLW as described
above and in table 4.5.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer
be generated. All remaining waste streams generation rates would decrease; however, the
impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid
nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described above and in table 4.5.3.10-3.
The generation of solid LLW would increase by a factor of 29over No Action and would
exceed the Pantex capability to stage while awaiting shipment to NTS. However, the total
number of additional shipments would be reduced to 26. Approximately 0.18 acres per year
of LLW disposal would be needed at NTS to accommodate this waste. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of
21 to a factor of 9; thus, proportionately decreasing the impact to planned lifetime of
the landfill.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
36 yd3 per year. This would add 68 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Small ALWR facility would be designed to provide the
necessary stabilization and storage of the spent nuclear fuel for the life of the
facility. The liquid LLW generated from the Small ALWR facility would far exceed the
limited existing treatment capability at Pantex. The Small ALWR facility would have to
provide a liquid radioactive treatment capability to convert the liquid LLW into a solid
form that would meet the waste acceptance criteria of the LLW disposal facility at NTS.
The solid LLW generated from the ALWR facility would also exceed the Pantex capability to
stage solid LLW prior to shipment to NTS. Expansion of existing facilities or the
construction of a new facility would be examined in site-specific, tiered NEPA documents.
Locating the Small ALWR facility at Pantex would require an additional 18 shipments of
solid LLW to NTS per year. This increase in LLW shipments would require approximately 0.1
acres of LLW disposal at NTS. The threefold increase in solid mixed LLW for the Small ALWR
could be handled within the existing capability for staging since Pantex is currently
handling about 50 yd3 of mixed LLW. As seen in table 4.5.3.10-3, the slight increase in
solid hazardous waste volumes could be handled within the existing and planned capability
at Pantex since the staging capacity is almost 300 yd3. As in the other technologies, the
Small ALWR would generate larger quantities (factor of 2) of liquid sanitary wastes than
currently projected for Pantex under No Action. Additional treatment facilities or
expansion of existing or planned facilities would be necessary. The ALWR would increase
the quantities of solid sanitary waste for the city of Amarillo landfill as compared to No
Action by a factor of 17. This would cause an increase in the need for landfill capacity
at the city of Amarillo sanitary/industrial landfill.
Siting a Small ALWR without tritium recycling facilities at Pantex would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from spent fuel and liquid LLW as described above
and in table 4.5.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be
generated. All remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the
impacts from solid mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid
nonhazardous wastes would not change from those described above and in table
4.5.3.10-3. The generation of solid LLW would increase by a factor of 27 over No Action
and would exceed the Pantex capability to stage while awaiting shipment to NTS. However,
the total number of additional shipments would be reduced to 13. Approximately 0.09 acres
per year of LLW disposal would be needed at NTS to accommodate this waste. The increase in
generation rate over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of
17 to a factor of almost 7; thus proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned
lifetime of the landfill.
Accelerator Production of Tritium. The APT does not generate spent nuclear fuel. Any
liquid LLW can be solidified at the point of generation. The solid LLW generated from the
APT would exceed the Pantex capability to stage solid LLW prior to shipment to NTS.
Expansion of existing facilities or the construction of a new facility would be examined
in a site-specific NEPA analysis. Locating the APT at Pantex would require an additional
16 shipments of solid LLW to NTS per year. The additional LLW shipments would require 0.1
acres per year of LLW disposal at NTS. The increase from 5 yd3 to 14yd3per year of solid
mixed LLW would not require an expansion of the capability currently being studied
pursuant to complying with the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The slight
increase in solid hazardous waste volumes could be handled within the existing and planned
capability at Pantex. The APT would increase by approximately a factor of 11 the
amounts of liquid sanitary wastes than currently projected for Pantex under No Action.
Additional treatment facilities or expansion of existing or planned facilities would be
necessary. The APT would increase the quantities of solid sanitary waste for the city of
Amarillo landfill as compared to No Action by a factor of 13. This would cause an increase
in the need for landfill capacity at the city of Amarillo sanitary/industrial landfill.
Siting an APT without tritium recycling facilities at Pantex would not affect the
generation of nor change the impacts from liquid LLW as described above and in table
4.5.3.10-3. Liquid mixed LLW and cooling tower blowdown would no longer be generated. All
remaining waste stream generation rates would decrease; however, the impacts from solid
mixed LLW, hazardous wastes, liquid sanitary wastes, and other solid nonhazardous wastes
would not change from those described above and in table 4.5.3.10-3. The generation of
solid LLW would increase by a factor of 23 over No Action and would still exceed the
Pantex capability to stage while awaiting shipment to NTS. However, the total number of
additional shipments would be reduced to 10. Approximately 0.07 acres per year of LLW
disposal would be needed at NTS to accommodate this waste. The increase in generation rate
over No Action for solid sanitary wastes would decrease from a factor of 13 to 3; thus
proportionately decreasing the impact to the planned lifetime of the landfill.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event of a reduced baseline tritium requirement the
waste volumes shown in table 4.5.3.10-2 would not appreciably change as a result of the
HWR operating at less power and the MHTGR and ALWR irradiating fewer target rods. In the
case of a Phased APT using the helium-3 target, the waste volumes are approximately the
same as the Full APT using the helium-3 target.
Multipurpose Reactor
Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. The volume of spent nuclear
fuel generated by the six-reactor module multipurpose MHTGR would be approximately double
the spent nuclear fuel from the three-reactor module tritium supply MHTGR. Similar to the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, the plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time before dry storage, the spent nuclear fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the three-reactor module tritium
supply MHTGR. No increases in waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due
to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to plutonium-oxide reactor fuel. However,
there would be increases in waste generation for all waste categories due to operation of
the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU
wastes from both the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility and the fabrication of
plutonium-oxide fuel. These increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.5.3.10-2
for the tritium supply MHTGR. Table 4.8.3.1-8 provides the quantity of waste effluents
from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility.
In addition, approximately 385 yd3 of mixed TRU and TRU waste would result from the
fabrication of plutonium-oxide fuel. The 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and TRU waste would require
transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available) after they have been
processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria. Since Pantex has a very limited
capability to manage TRU and mixed TRU wastes, additional facilities to handle TRU waste
would be needed. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require 35
truck shipments per year, 18 regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train
shipments per year. One hundred gallons of liquid and 0.2 yd3 of solid mixed LLW would
require treatment in accordance with the Pantex Site Treatment Plan. One additional LLW
shipment every two years and approximately 0.003 acres per year of LLW disposal area at
NTS would be required to dispose of the 10 yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging capacity
exists to accumulate the 1,000gallons of liquid and 1 yd3 of solid hazardous wastes while
awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An additional 87
yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary landfill.
Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be required
if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility is not collocated with the multipurpose
reactor.
Multipurpose Advanced Light Water Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the same rate
with approximately the same amount of residual heavy metal content as the tritium supply
ALWR. The decay heat in the mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could be 10 to 20percent greater
than the heat in spent uraniumoxide fuel assemblies. The increased decay heat load could
reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool and dry storage casks or
increase fuel pool dwell time before dry storage. No increases in waste generation rates
or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to
mixed-oxide reactor fuel. However, there would be increases in waste generation for all
waste categories due to operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU wastes. These
increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.5.3.10-2 for the Large and Small
tritium supply ALWR. As shown in table 4.8.3.1-4, approximately 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available)
after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
Since Pantex has a very limited capability to manage TRU and mixed TRU wastes, additional
facilities to handle TRU waste would be needed. The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU
wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per year, 18 regular train shipments per
year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. Two hundred gallons of liquid and 13 yd3
of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in accordance with the Pantex Site Treatment
Plan. Twenty-five additional LLW shipments per year and approximately 0.16 acres per year
of LLW disposal area at NTS would be required to dispose of the 524yd3 of solid LLW.
Sufficient staging capacity exists to accumulate the 200 gallons of liquid and 13 yd3 of
solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal
facility. An additional 3,920 yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes would require disposal in
the sanitary landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities may be required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility is not collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Each new tritium supply technology and recycling facility
would be designed to process its own waste into a form suitable for storage or disposal
and would use proven waste minimization and pollution prevention technologies to the
extent possible. Some designs produce waste quantities or waste forms that could undergo
additional reductions by utilizing the emerging technologies, thereby further reducing
or mitigating impacts. Therefore, the impacts previously discussed could be substantially
reduced. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would be considered in determining
the final design of any facility constructed as part of the proposed action at Pantex.
Pollution prevention and waste minimization would also be analyzed as part of
site-specific tiered NEPA documents.
Some of the facilities such as Building 11-15A and Building 11-9 are planned to handle
mixed wastes generated from past and current operations and from environmental restoration
activities may be able to treat, store, or dispose of Complex wastes (DOE1993a:5-12).
Utilization of these existing facilities or the need for the construction of new facil-
ities, as appropriate at the time, would be addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA
documents.
The impact to the city of Amarillo sanitary landfill could be mitigated by considering
possible onsite alternatives, financial assistance to the city or other possible offsite
landfills. These alternatives would be addressed in a site-specific tiered NEPA document.

4.6 Savannah River Site
SRS was established in 1950 as a nuclear materials production site and occupies
approximately 198,000acres south of Aiken, SC. The current defense program mission at SRS
is to process tritium and conduct tritium recycling and filling in support of stockpile
requirements. Section 3.3.6 provides a description of all the DOE missions and support
facilities at SRS. The location of SRS within the South Carolina and Georgia region is
illustrated in figure 4.6-1.

4.6.1 Description of Alternatives
Under the proposed action, any of the four tritium supply technologies (HWR, MHTGR, ALWR,
and APT) could be located at SRS. Section 3.4.2 provides a description of these four
technologies. In the event a tritium supply technology is sited at SRS, some of the
tritium recycling support facilities would be upgraded to ensure compliance with ES&H
requirements. The replacement tritium facility (Building 233-H) would not require
upgrading since it meets current ES&H requirements. Figure 4.6.1-1 shows the locations
of existing facilities within SRS and the proposed TSS, and section 3.4.3.2 describes the
tritium recycling facilities upgrade at SRS.
In the event tritium supply facilities are sited at any of the four other candidate sites
(INEL, NTS, ORR, and Pantex), there are two recycling options. One option would be to
upgrade existing recycling facilities located at SRS for continued use. The other option
would be to collocate a new recycling facility with the supply facility. In this case, the
existing tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be phased out and would eventually
require D&D in accordance with DOE guidelines.
Under No Action, SRS would continue to perform the missions described in section 3.3.6 to
include providing stockpile support by recycling tritium and conducting tritium filling.
However, DOE would have no capability to produce new tritium. Future tritium requirements
would be supported, for a limited time, by recycling tritium from weapons returned from
the active stockpile.

4.6.2 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the affected environment at SRS for land resources, air
quality and acoustics, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, cultural
and paleontological resources, and socioeconomics. In addition, the infrastructure at SRS,
the radiation and hazardous chemical environment, and the waste management conditions are
described.

4.6.2.1 Land Resources
The discussion of land resources at SRS includes land use and visual resources.
Land Use. SRS occupies approximately 198,000acres in portions of Aiken, Allendale, and
Barnwell counties in southwestern South Carolina, approximately 16miles southeast of
Augusta, GA. All of the land within SRS is owned by the Federal government and is
administered, managed, and controlled by DOE. Generalized existing land uses at SRS and
in the vicinity are shown in figure 4.6.2.1-1.
SRS land use can be grouped into three major categories: forest/undeveloped, water, and
developed facility locations. Approximately 191,000acres of SRS are undeveloped. Of this
acreage approximately 138,000acres are forest/undeveloped. A forest management program
has been in effect at SRS since 1952, when it was formed through an Interagency Agreement
between DOE (then the Atomic Energy Commission) and the U.S. Forest Service
(WSRC1993a:317). The majority of the woodlands area (53percent of the total site) is in
revenue producing, managed timber production. There are no prime farmlands on SRS.
In 1972, DOE designated the entire SRS as a National Environmental Research Park. The
National Environmental Research Park is used by the national scientific community to
study the impact of human activities on the cypress swamp, and southeastern pine and
hardwood forest ecosystems (DOE1985a:1).
As shown in figure 4.6.2.1-1, the proposed TSS would be located northeast of N-Area within
approximately 600acres of forested lands typical of SRS. The tritium recycling mission is
currently located in H-Area.
Figure (Page 4-373)
Figure 4.6-1.-Savannah River Site, South Carolina, and Region.
Figure (Page 4-374)
Figure 4.6.1-1.-Primary Facilities and Proposed Tritium Supply Site at Savannah River
Site.
Figure (Page 4-375)
Figure 4.6.2.1-1.-Generalized Land Use at Savannah River Site and Vicinity.
Land use bordering SRS is primarily forest and agricultural, although there is a
substantial amount of open water and nonforested wetlands along the Savannah River Valley.
Incorporated and industrial areas are the only other significant land uses in the
vicinity. There is a small amount of urban and residential development bordering SRS.
The closest residences include several located to the west, north, and northeast that are
within 200 feet of the site boundary.
Visual Resources. The SRS landscape is characterized by swampland and upland hills. The
vegetation is composed of bottomland hardwood forests, scrub oak and pine woodlands, and
swamp forests. DOE facilities are scattered throughout SRS and are brightly lit at night.
The developed areas and utility corridors (transmission lines and aboveground pipelines)
of SRS are consistent with Bureau of Land Management's VRM Class 5 designation. The
remainder of SRS generally ranges from VRM Class3 to Class4.
The viewshed consists mainly of agricultural and heavily forested land, with some limited
residential and industrial areas. Views are limited by rolling terrain, normally hazy
atmospheric conditions, and heavy vegetation. DOE facilities are generally not visible
from offsite. The only areas with high visual sensitivity levels that are presently
impacted by DOE facilities are the view corridors of State Highway 125, and SRS Road 1.
The few other areas that have views of SRS facilities are quite distant (5miles or more)
and have low visual sensitivity levels.

4.6.2.2 Site Infrastructure
SRS contains extensive production, service, and research facilities. Not all of these
facilities are in operation or needed today. Section 3.3.6 describes the current missions
at SRS. To support these missions, an extensive infrastructure exists as shown in table
4.6.2.2-1. Of critical importance to the proposed action is the electrical power
infrastructure at each potential site. SRS is located in the Southeastern Electric
Reliability Council Regional Power Pool and draws its power from the Virginia-Carolina
Subregion. Characteristics of this subregion are given in table 4.6.2.2-2.
Table 4.6.2.2-1.-Baseline Characteristics for Savannah River Site
Current Characteristics Value
Land
Area (acres) 198,000
Roads (miles) 150
Railroads (miles) 57
Electrical
Energy consumption (MWh/yr) 659,000
Peak load (MWe) 130
Fuel
Natural gas (ft3/yr) 0
Oil (GPY) 2,412,000
Coal (ton/yr) 230,000
Steam (lb/hr) 2,584,000
Source: SRS 1993a:3.
Table 4.6.2.2-2.-Subregional Power Pool Electrical Summary for Savannah River Site
Type Fuel Production
(percent)
Coal 50
Nuclear 36
Hydro/geothermal 2
Oil/gas 4
Other 8
Total Annual Production: 272,155,000 MWh
Total Annual Load: 284,556,000 MWh
Energy Imported Annually: 13,846,000 MWh
Generating Capacity: 61,931 MWe
Peak Demand: 55,477 MWe
Capacity Margin: 10,443 MWe

4.6.2.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
The following describes existing air quality and acoustics including a review of the
meteorology and climatology in the vicinity of SRS. More detailed discussions of the air
quality and acoustics methodologies, input data, and atmospheric dispersion
characteristics are presented in appendix section B.1.3.6.
Meteorology and Climatology. The SRS region has a temperate climate with short, mild
winters and long, humid summers. Throughout the year, it is frequently affected by warm
and moist maritime air masses. The annual average temperature is 66 F; average daily
temperatures vary from 37.9 F in January to 90.8 F in July. The average annual pre-
cipitation is 49.7 inches (NOAA 1991b:3). Prevailing winds are from the southwest
through westnorthwest and from the northeast and east-northeast. The annual average wind
speed is 12.8 mph. Additional information related to meteorology and climatology at
SRS is presented in appendix section B.1.3.6.
Ambient Air Quality. SRS is located near the center of the Augusta-Aiken Interstate AQCR.
As of 1991, the areas within SRS and its surrounding counties were in attainment with
respect to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants (40CFR 50; 40CFR 81.311; 40CFR 81.341).
Applicable NAAQS and the ambient air quality standards for South Carolina and Georgia are
presented in appendix table B.1.3.1-1.
Since the promulgation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations (40CFR
52.21) in 1977, Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits have not been required for
any new SRS emission sources nor modifications required to existing permits. There are no
known Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas in the vicinity of SRS.
Maximum pollutant concentrations measured during 1985 at onsite air quality monitoring
stations and at nearby monitoring stations outside SRS are listed in appendix table
B.1.3.6-1. All concentrations measured at these stations indicate that ambient con-
centrations in and near SRS are within the NAAQS and applicable state ambient air quality
standards with the exception of ozone (O3). The O3 standard was equaled at one monitoring
station on 1 day in 1985 (SR DOE1986c:166).
The emissions inventory from sources at SRS for criteria pollutants are presented in
appendix table B.1.3.6-2. Historically, the primary emission sources of criteria air
pollutants are the nine coal-burning and the four fuel oil-burning boilers that produce
steam and electricity (A-, D-, H-, K-, and P-Areas), the fuel and target fabrication
facilities (M-Area), and processing facilities (F- and H-Areas). Other emissions and
sources include fugitive particulates from coal piles and coal-processing facilities,
vehicles, and temporary emissions from various construction-related activities.
Hazardous/toxic air pollutant emissions from SRS operations for which an ambient standard
has been adopted by the State of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control include aldehydes (assumed to be formaldehyde), carbon tetrachloride, nitric acid,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. (No ambient standards for hazardous/toxic air pollutants have
been proposed or established by the State of Georgia.) The annual emission rates of
hazardous/toxic air pollutants from existing facilities during 1990 and estimates of
maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations at the site boundary are listed in
appendix table B.1.3.6-3. These estimates are in compliance with applicable standards.
Table 4.6.2.3-1 presents the baseline ambient air concentration for criteria pollutants
and other pollutants of concern at SRS. As shown in the table, baseline concentrations
are in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations.
Acoustic Conditions. Major noise emission sources are primarily located in developed or
active areas and include various industrial facilities, equipment, and machines. Noise
emitted from the site is barely distinguishable from background noise levels at the
boundary. Major noise emission sources outside of active areas consist primarily of
vehicles and rail operations. Some of these offsite noise emissions can be attributed to
SRS activities and have an effect on noise levels along site access highways through the
nearby towns of New Ellenton, Jackson, and Aiken.
Table 4.6.2.3-1.-Comparison of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at Savannah River Site, 1985-1987
Pollutant Averaging Time Most Stringent Baseline
Regulation or Guideline Concentration
(mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 38
- 1-hour 40,000b 154
Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5b c
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100b 22
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235b 235
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50b 28
- 24-hour 150b 64
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80b 16
- 24-hour 365b 266
- 3-hour 1,300b 1,122
Mandated by South Carolina
Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 75 29
Hazardous and Other
Toxic Compounds
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 24-hour 9,550d 3.6
Nitric acid 24-hour 125d 3.2
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 24-hour No standard 1.8
The States of Georgia and South Carolina, and the counties in which SRS is located, have
not established any noise regulations that specify acceptable community noise levels,
with the exception of a provision in the Aiken County Nuisance Ordinance which limits
daytime and nighttime noise by frequency band (appendix table B.2.2.2-1).

4.6.2.4 Water Resources
This section describes the surface water and groundwater resources at SRS.
Surface Water. The most prominent hydrologic feature is the Savannah River, bordering the
site for 20miles to the southwest (figure 4.6.2.4-1). Six major streams flow through SRS
into the Savannah River: Upper Three Runs Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Fourmile Branch, Pen
Branch, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs Creek. Upper Three Runs has two tributaries,
Tims Branch and Tinker Creek; Pen Branch has one tributary, Indian Grave Branch; and Steel
Creek has one tributary, Meyers Branch (WSRC1992a).
SRS withdraws surface water from Savannah River mainly for industrial water cooling
purposes. A small quantity is also removed for drinking water supplies. Total water
supplied from the Savannah River in 1991 was 19,840MGY. Most of the water withdrawn is
returned to the Savannah River through its onsite tributaries. Streams that received
discharges from reactors in the past, especially Fourmile Branch, are still recovering
from scouring or erosion impacts. The average flow of the Savannah River is 10,000 ft3/s.
The lowest recorded flow, 5,368 ft3/s, occurred during a drought period from 1985 to 1988
(SR DOE1990b). The proposed TSS could affect the Fourmile Branch drainage basin, which
also receives effluents from C-, F-, and H-Areas; however, Pen Branch could also receive
discharges.
There are two man-made water bodies on SRS: L-Lake, which discharges to Steel Creek; and
Par Pond, which empties into Lower Three Runs Creek (WSRC1992a).
Figure (Page 4-379)
Figure 4.6.2.4-1.-Surface Water Features and Groundwater Contamination Areas at Savannah
River Site.
There are approximately 190 Carolina bays scattered throughout the site. Carolina bays are
naturally-occurring closed depressions that may hold water (SR NERP 1989a). There are no
direct discharges to the bays; however, some do receive stormwater runoff.
The proposed TSS is outside any 100-year floodplains (SR DOE1990b). Information on the
location of 500-year floodplains is currently not available; however, a site-specific
assessment would be required before constructing any tritium supply and recycling
facilities at SRS.
Surface Water Quality. In the vicinity of SRS, the Savannah River and onsite streams are
classified as fresh water suitable for: primary and secondary contact recreation and as a
source for drinking water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with the
requirements of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control;
fishing and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous and aquatic community
of fauna and flora; and industrial and agricultural uses (SR DHEC 1992a). Table 4.6.2.4-1
lists the surface water monitoring results for the Savannah River. No parameters exceed
South Carolina water quality criteria for the Savannah River (WSRC1992a).
In addition to water quality monitoring, SRS conducts monitoring to ensure compliance with
NPDES permit limits. SRS has three NPDES permits that cover 78 outfalls. Of the 8,329
analyses performed at these outfalls in 1991, seven exceeded permit limits. Noncompliances
were noted for pH, fecal coliforms, oil and grease, biological oxygen demand, flow, and
total suspended solids. Except in the case of pH noncompliance, corrective actions were
taken to prevent future noncompliances (WSRC1992a).
Surface Water Rights and Permits. Surface water rights for the Savannah River are
determined by the Doctrine of Riparian Rights. Under this doctrine, users of water must
not adversely impact quantity or quality of water availability for downstream users.
Groundwater. Several aquifer system naming schemes have been used at SRS. For this PEIS,
the most shallow aquifer will be called the water table. The water table is supported by
the leaky "Green Clay" aquitard, which confines the Congaree aquifer. Below the Congaree
aquifer is the leaky Ellenton aquitard, which contains the Cretaceous (or also in the past
the Tuscaloosa) aquifer. In general, groundwater in the water table flows downward to the
Congaree aquifer or to nearby streams that intersect the water table. Flow in the Congaree
aquifer is downward to the Cretaceous aquifer or horizontally to Upper Three Runs Creek or
the Savannah River, depending on the position at SRS. Groundwater in the Cretaceous
aquifer discharges predominantly along the Savannah River. However, Upper Three Runs Creek
also receives groundwater from the Cretaceous aquifer and this flow creates an upward
gradient between the Cretaceous and Congaree aquifer over a significant portion of SRS
(figure 4.6.2.4-1).
The Cretaceous aquifer is an abundant and important water resource for the SRS region.
Some of the local cities (Aiken, for example) also obtain groundwater from the Cretaceous,
but most of the rural population in the SRS region gets its water from the Congaree or
water table. All groundwater at SRS is classified by the EPA as a Class II water source
(current potential source of drinking water).
Table 4.6.2.4-1.-Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring Data for the Savannah River
at Savannah River Site, 1991
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Average Water Body
Measure Criteria Concentration
Alkalinity mg/l NA 18
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15 0.004
Aluminum mg/l 0.05-0.2 0.79g
Ammonia mg/l NA 0.12
Beta (nonvolatile) pCi/l 50 2.05
Calcium mg/l NA 4.4g
Cesium-137 pCi/l 120 0.0493
Chemical oxygen demand mg/l NA 14
Chloride mg/l 250c 7.2
Chromium mg/l 0.1b <0.02g
Conductivity mmhos/cm NA 81
Dissolved oxygen mg/l >5 7.8
Iron mg/l 0.3c 1.8g
Lead mg/l 0.015b 0.01g
Magnesium mg/l NA 1.4g
Manganese mg/l 0.05c 0.13g
Nitrogen (as NO2/NO3) mg/l NA 0.25
pH pH units 6.5-8.5f 7.5g
Phosphorus mg/l NA 0.09
Plutonium-238 pCi/l 1.6e 0.00028
Plutonium-239 pCi/l 1.2e 0.0007
Sodium mg/l NA 10g
Strontium-90 pCi/l 8b 0.137
Sulfate mg/l 250c 7.8
Suspended solids mg/l NA 16
Temperature C 32.2f 18
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500c 64
Tritium pCi/l 20,000b 3,250
Turbidity turbidity unit 1-5b 10
Zinc mg/l 5c <0.01
Characterization wells installed for preliminary hydrogeologic evaluation of the proposed
TSS indicate that the site is located near a water table divide between Fourmile Branch
and Pen Branch. That is, groundwater in the water table on the northern side of the divide
flows horizontally to Fourmile Branch and on the southern side to Pen Branch. Groundwater
in the water table also flows vertically to the Congaree aquifer which discharges at Upper
Three Runs Creek. The Cretaceous aquifer is protected from any potential contamination at
the proposed TSS by the Ellenton aquitard and the upward hydraulic gradient between the
Cretaceous and Congaree aquifers. Groundwater at the proposed TSS is approximately 20 to
60 feet below the ground surface.
Groundwater Quality. Groundwater data have been obtained from SRS monitoring wells for the
past severalyears. Groundwater quality ranges from excellent (soft and slightly acidic)
to below EPA drinking water standards on several constituents in the vicinity of some
waste sites. The Cretaceous aquifer is generally unaffected except for a small portion
of the A-Area which has trichloroethylene. The Congaree aquifer is contaminated with
trichloroethylene in much of the A- and M-Areas and also with some low levels of tritium
in the General Separations Area. The water table is contaminated with solvents and/or
metals and/or low levels of radionuclides at several waste sites and facilities at the F-
and H-Areas. All contaminated groundwater at SRS discharges to streams on SRS or to the
Savannah River.
Based on the operating history of SRS, groundwater at the proposed TSS should meet
drinking water standards. Also, results of groundwater quality measurements from two of
the 16 TSS characterization wells and comparison with standards or criteria for selected
quality parameters are presented in table 4.6.2.4-2. As noted from that table, when
compared to national primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels, parameter concen-
trations are within acceptable limits except for pH in one of the wells. The elevated pH
is most likely due to the well completion with grout and not actual groundwater impacts.
Table 4.6.2.4-2.-Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data at Savannah River Site, 1991 [Page 1
of 2]
Parameter Unit of Water Quality Well No. Well No.
Measure Criteria and NPM 2 NPM 19Eb
Standards
Alpha (gross) pCi/l 15d <2 <2
Barium mg/l 2 0.008 0.013
Beta (nonvolatile) pCi/l 50 <2 33
Chloride mg/l 250e 0.002 0.003
Iron mg/l 0.3 <0.004 0.036
Lead mg/l 0.015c <0.003 0.003
Manganese mg/l 0.05e 0.015 <0.002
Nitrate mg/l 10c 0.15 0.06
pH pH units 6.5-8.5 6.6 12
Phenols mg/l NA <0.005 <0.005
Sulfate mg/l 250e <0.001 0.037
Total dissolved solids mg/l 500e 0.029 0.023
Total organic halogens mg/l NA <0.005 0.02
Total phosphates mg/l NA 0.09 <0.05
Total radium pCi/l 5 2 1
Tritium pCi/l 20,000c 7,000 700
Groundwater Availability, Use, and Rights. SRS is one of 56 major municipal, industrial,
and agricultural groundwater users in the region. Within a 20-mile radius of the site
the total pumpage for these 56 users averages about 12,900MGY (WSRC1991c). Groundwater use
at SRS totals approximately 3,146MGY, which represents approximately 24percent of the
total groundwater used in the area.
The majority of the water supply systems within the region use groundwater, but the
systems serving Aiken, North Augusta, Columbia County, and Richmond County also draw a
portion of their water supplies from surface water. Currently, most county systems within
the region have average daily demands of 40 to 57percent of their design capacities
(DOE1993f).
Groundwater rights in South Carolina are traditionally associated with property ownership.
The Water Use Reporting and Coordination Act requires all users of 100,000 gallons or more
per day (36MGY) of water to report their withdrawal rates to the South Carolina Water
Resources Commission. SRS groundwater use exceeds this amount, and consequently, reports
its withdrawal rates to the commission (DOE1992e).

4.6.2.5 Geology and Soils
Geology. SRS is located in the Aiken Plateau portion of the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain
east of the Fall Line, a major physiographic and structural feature that separates the
Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, in southeastern South Carolina.
The plateau is highly dissected, with narrow, steepsided valleys separated by broad flat
areas. In the immediate region of SRS there are no known capable faults within the
definition of 10 CFR 100, Appendix A. There is evidence from subsurface mapping and
seismic surveys that suggests the presence of faults beneath SRS. The largest of these is
the Pen Branch fault. However, there is no evidence of movement along this fault within
the last 38millionyears (WSRC1991f).
SRS lies within Seismic Zone 2 (figure 4.2.2.5-2). Since 1985 only three earthquakes, all
of Richter magnitude 3.0 or less, have occurred in the immediate area of SRS. None of
these earthquakes produced any damage at SRS. Historically, two large earthquakes have
occurred within 180miles of SRS. The largest of these two, the Charleston earthquake of
1886, had an estimated magnitude of 7.5. Earthquakes capable of producing structural
damage to any buildings are not likely to occur in the vicinity of SRS (Stephenson 1988a).
There is no volcanic hazard at SRS. The area has not experienced volcanism within the
last 230millionyears.
Soils. The soils of the proposed TSS are mainly sands and sandy loams. The somewhat
excessively drained soils have a thick, sandy surface layer that extends to a depth of 80
inches or more in some areas (SR USDA 1990a). Many of the soils are subject to erosion,
flooding, ponding, and cutbank caving. The soils at SRS are considered acceptable for
standard construction techniques.

4.6.2.6 Biotic Resources
The following describes biotic resources at SRS including terrestrial resources, wetlands,
aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. Within each biotic resource
area the discussion focuses first on SRS as a whole and then the proposed TSS. Scientific
names of species identified in the text are presented in appendix C. Also presented in
appendix C, is a list of threatened and endangered species that may be found on the site
or in the vicinity of SRS.
Terrestrial Resources. Most of SRS has remained undeveloped since it was established in
1950. Only about 5percent of the site is occupied by DOE facilities. Five major plant
communities have been identified at SRS (figure 4.6.2.6-1). Of these, the largest is the
loblolly-longleaf-slash pine community, which covers approximately 65percent of SRS.
This community type, as well as upland hardwood-scrub oak, occurs primarily in upland
areas. Swamp forests and bottomland hardwood forests are found along the Savannah River
and the numerous streams that traverse SRS. More than 1,300 species and variations of
vascular plants have been identified on the site (DOE1992e:4-126,4-128).
Because of the variety of plant communities on the site, as well as the region's mild
climate, SRS supports a diversity and abundance of wildlife including: 43 amphibian, 58
reptile, 213 bird, and 54 mammal species. Common species at SRS include the slimy
salamander, box turtle, Carolina chickadee, common crow, eastern cottontail, and gray fox
(DOE1992e:4-126,4-128; WSRC1993b:3-5,3-39). A number of game animals are found on SRS;
however, only the whitetail deer and feral hog are hunted onsite (DOE1992e:4-128).
Raptors, such as the Cooper's hawk and black vulture, and carnivores, such as the gray
fox and raccoon, are ecologically important groups on SRS. A variety of migratory birds
has been found at SRS. Migratory birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eagles are similarly protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act.
Figure (Page 4-384)
Figure 4.6.2.6-1.-Distribution of Plant Communities at Savannah River Site.
The proposed TSS is located within an area dominated by the loblolly-longleaf-slash pine
community (figure 4.6.2.6-1). Reconnaissance surveys and analysis of aerial photographs
indicate that pine plantations occupy most of the plant cover in the proposed TSS. These
pine plantations contain slash pine and loblolly pine ranging in age from new plantings to
immature trees. Other vegetation types found on the proposed TSS include oldfield,
bottomland hardwood forest, mixed forest, upland deciduous forest, grassland, and emergent
wetland (DOE1992e:4-128). Animals found on the proposed TSS are expected to be similar to
those found in similar habitats elsewhere on SRS.
Wetlands. SRS contains approximately 49,000acres of wetlands, most of which are associated
with flood plains, streams, and impoundments. Wetlands on the site may be divided into
the following categories: bottomland hardwoods, cypress-tupelo, scrub-shrub, emergent,
and open water (WSRC1993b:4-5). The most extensive wetland type is swamp forest associated
with the Savannah River floodplain. Approximately 9,400acres of these wetlands are found
on SRS. Past releases of cooling water effluent into site streams and the Savannah River
swamp have resulted in shifts in plant community composition. Changes have included the
replacement of bald cypress by scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation in the swamp and
reduction in bottomland forests along streams (DOE1992e:4-128; WSRC1989e:3-4).
Carolina bays, a type of wetland unique to the southeastern United States, are also found
on SRS. Approximately 190 Carolina bays have been identified on the site. These natural
shallow depressions occur on interstream areas of SRS and range from lakes to shallow
marshes, herbaceous bogs, shrub bogs, or swamp forests (SR NERP 1989a:9).
A previous tritium reactor study identified approximately 46acres of jurisdictional
wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed TSS. Several of these identified wetlands occur
along intermittent tributaries to Pen Branch and Fourmile Branch and are periodically
flooded bottomland hardwood forest (DOE1992e:4-128,4-129).
Rainbow Bay, a 4-acre Carolina bay situated near the proposed TSS, has been the subject of
a number of ecological studies. Due to its significance as a natural resource, a
600-foot-plus buffer around Rainbow Bay has been established.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic habitat includes man-made ponds, Carolina bays, reservoirs,
and the Savannah River and its tributaries. There are more than 50 man-made impoundments
located throughout the site that mainly support populations of bass and sunfish (SR
DOE1982a). Fewer than 20Carolina bays have permanent fish populations. Species present in
these bays include redfin pickerel, mud sunfish, lake chubsucker, and mosquitofish (SRNERP
1983a:39-43; SR NERP 1989a:37).
Par Pond and L-Lake support similar fish populations including largemouth bass, black
crappie, and various species of pan fish. Commercial and sport fishing are not allowed on
the SRS site (DOE1992e:4-132).
The Savannah River is used for both commercial and sport fishing. Important commercial
species are American shad, hickory shad, and striped bass, all of which are anadromous.
The most important warm water game fish species of the Savannah River are bass, pickerel,
crappie, bream, and catfish (SR DOE1982a:4-28). In the past, water intake structures for
C- and K-Reactors and the D-Area powerhouse caused annual estimated entrainment of
approximately 10percent of the fish eggs and larvae passing the intake canals during the
spawning season. In addition, estimated impingement losses were approximately 7,600 fish
per year (SR DOE1987b:3-31,C-61).
Aquatic habitat in the vicinity of the proposed TSS consists of Fourmile Branch, Pen
Branch, and Rainbow Bay (DOE1992e:4-119,4-129). In the past, Fourmile Branch and Pen
Branch have received thermal effluents from C- and K-Reactors, respectively. During
reactor operation, fish populations in warmed portions of the streams were greatly
reduced, with the mosquitofish the most commonly occurring species. During the shutdown of
the reactors, fish, including largemouth bass, lake chubsucker, chain pickerel, and
redbreast sunfish, have recolonized portions of Pen Branch (WSRC1989e:4-75). DOE entered
into two settlement agreements under the CWA in 1990 agreeing to address high temperature
discharges and related fish kills on SRS (discussed in Appendix section A.1.5). The
K-Reactor cooling tower was completed in 1992 but the reactor is in cold standby with no
provision for restart. Above the reactor outfalls, both Fourmile Branch and Pen Branch are
small streams that have been relatively unaffected by past SRS operations. The dominant
fish in the nonheated upper reaches of Pen Branch include sunfish, bullheads, and
chubsuckers (SR DOE1987b:3-51); species composition of the upper portion of Fourmile
Branch would be expected to be similar.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Sixty-one Federal- and state-listed threatened,
endangered, and other special status species have been identified on and in the vicinity
of SRS (appendix table C-6). Table 4.6.2.6-1 lists the species that may occur in areas on
or near the proposed TSS. Field surveillance would be required to determine their
presence. No critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, as defined in the
Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11; 50 CFR 17.12), exists on SRS. Suitable habitats do
exist in the area of the proposed TSS for a number of Federal candidate and state special
status species as noted in table 4.6.2.6-1.
Table 4.6.2.6-1.-Federal- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special
Status Species That May Be Found On the Site or In the Vicinity of the Proposed Tritium
Supply Site at Savannah River Site
Species Status Known or Potential Habitat/Location
- Federal State -
Mammals
Star-nosed mole NL UN Low wet ground
Birds
Bald eagle T T Active nest on Pen Branch and south of Par
Pond
Cooper's hawk NL UN Broken woodland
Red-cockaded woodpeckerb E SE Pine forest
Wood storkb, E SE Savannah River swamp
Reptiles
American alligator T NL Savannah River swamp
Amphibians
Carolina crawfish frog C2 SC Gopher tortoise and crawfish burrows
Eastern tiger salamanderd NL SC Savannah River swamp and Carolina bays
Pickerel frogd NL UN Savannah River swamp
Fishes
Shortnose sturgeonb,d E SE Savannah River
Plants
Awned meadow-beautyc C2 NL Carolina bays
Beak-rushb (Rhychospora inundata) NL UN Carolina bays
Beak-rushb (Rhychospora tracyi) NL UN Carolina bays
Cypress stump sedged NL UN Savannah River swamp
Elliott's croton NL UN Carolina bays
Florida false loosestrifec NL UN Carolina bays
Gaura NL UN Stream banks, meadows, and roadsides
Green-fringed orchidc NL SL Carolina bays, bottomland hardwoods
Little bur-head NL SL Carolina bays
Nestronia C2 NL Upland woodlands
Quill-leaved swamp potato NL SL Carolina bays
Smooth purple coneflower E NC Open woodlands, roadbanks
Swamp lobelia C2 NL Carolina bays
Trepocarpus NL UN Bottomland hardwoods
Yellow cress NL UN Bottomland hardwoods
Yellow wild indigo NL UN Pine forests, open woods
There are no Federal-listed threatened and endangered species known to occur on the
proposed TSS, however, several may exist in the general vicinity. Bald eagles have been
observed at several locations on SRS, particularly in the vicinity of Par Pond and L-Lake.
Active bald eagle nests are located 7.5miles southwest of the proposed TSS in an area of
Pen Branch and 7.5miles southeast of the TSS just south of Par Pond (WSRC1993b:21-27).
Wood storks foraging in the Savannah River swamp have been observed near the Fourmile
Branch delta 11miles from the proposed TSS. Although suitable forage habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker exists in the proposed TSS, the closest colony is located 8miles
away. The American alligator is a common inhabitant of Par Pond, Beaver Dam Creek, and
the Savannah River swamp, all located 5miles or more from the proposed TSS. No
self-sustaining, reproducing populations of the alligator have been observed in Fourmile
Branch or its delta. The shortnose sturgeon spawns in the Savannah River upstream of SRS,
and larvae of this species have been collected in or near the water intake canals on the
river. However, entrainment or impingement of this species at SRS water intake structures
has not been documented (DOE1992e:4-152). Another Federallisted species, the smooth
purple coneflower, has not been recorded in affected areas but could be found in the
proposed TSS. Awned meadow-beauty have been found near Rainbow Bay located adjacent to the
proposed TSS.
Several state special status species have also been found near Rainbow Bay, including the
Cooper's hawk, two species of beak-rush, Florida false loosestrife, and green-fringed
orchid.

4.6.2.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric site types on SRS consist of villages, base camps,
limited activity sites, quarries, and workshops. An extensive archaeological survey
program began in 1974 encompassing numerous field studies such as reconnaissance survey,
shovel test transects, intensive site testing, and excavation. More than 60percent of
SRS has received some level of cultural resources evaluation. More than 800prehistoric
sites have been identified; however, fewer than 8percent have been evaluated for
eligibility to the NRHP. Of these, 10 prehistoric sites have been determined
NRHP-eligible.
Several cultural resources studies including a reconnaissance survey, an intensive
inventory, and site testing have been conducted for the proposed TSS. Nine prehistoric
sites were recorded but none of these sites were considered NRHP-eligible.
Historic Resources. Types of historic sites include cattle ranches, farmsteads, tenant
dwellings, mills, plantations and slave quarters, rice farming dikes, dams, cattle pens,
ferry locations, towns, churches, schools, cemeteries, commercial building locations,
trash scatters, roads, and logging railroads. Approximately 400 historic sites have been
identified within SRS; approximately 10percent have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Of these, 10 historic sites have been determined NRHP-eligible.
Most historic structures were demolished during the initial establishment of SRS in 1951.
Two 1951 buildings are currently in use. The existing nuclear production facilities are
not likely to be considered NRHP-eligible because they may lack architectural integrity,
may not be representative of a particular style, and may not be contributing features to
the broad theme of the Manhattan Project and initial nuclear production.
At the proposed TSS, five historic sites and two historic sites with prehistoric
components have been recorded. Six sites are late 19th to early 20th century farmsteads.
Three sites have been determined NRHP-eligible because they contribute pertinent
information to postbellum socioeconomic history (SRARP 1989a:81).
Native American Resources. Native American groups with traditional ties to the area
include the Apalachee, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Shawnee, Westo, and Yuchi. At different
times, each of these Native American groups was encouraged by the English to settle in the
area in order to provide protection from the French, Spanish, or other Native American
groups. Main villages of both the Cherokee and Creek were located southwest and northwest
of SRS, but both groups may have used the area for hunting and gathering activities.
During the early 1800s, most of the remaining Native Americans residing in the region were
relocated to the Oklahoma territory.
Native American resources in the region include villages or townsites, ceremonial lodges,
isolated burials, cemeteries, and areas containing traditional plants used for certain
rituals. Literature reviews and consultations with Native American representatives reveal
that there are some concerns related to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act within
the central Savannah River valley; however, no specific sites at SRS have been identified.
The Yuchi Tribal Organization, the National Council of the Muskogee Creek, the Indian
People's Muskogee Tribal Town Confederacy, the Pee Dee Indian Association, the Ma Chis
Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe, and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokees have
expressed concerns for sensitive Native American resources at SRS. The Yuchi and the
Muskogee Creek expressed concern for areas containing several plants traditionally used in
ceremonies (SR DOE1991e:19,21).
Paleontological Resources. Paleontological materials at SRS include: fossil plants,
numerous invertebrate fossils, deposits of giant oysters (Crassostrea gigantissima),
mollusks, and bryozoa. All paleontological materials from SRS are marine invertebrate
deposits and, with the exception of the giant oysters, are relatively common fossils and
are widespread; therefore, the assemblages have relatively low research potential.

4.6.2.8 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic characteristics described for SRS include employment and local economy,
population, housing, public finance, and local transportation. Statistics for the
regional economy characteristics are presented for the regional economic area that encom-
passes 26 counties around SRS (appendix table D.2.1-2). The regional economic area is a
broad labor and product market-based region linked by trade among economic sectors within
the region. Statistics for population and housing, public finance, and local
transportation are presented for the ROI, a 4-county area in which 87percent of all SRS
employees reside: Aiken County (52percent) and Barnwell County (7percent) in the State of
South Carolina; and Columbia County (11percent) and Richmond County (17percent) in the
State of Georgia. (See figure 4.6-1 for a map of counties and cities.) Fiscal
characteristics of the jurisdictions in the ROI are presented in the public finance
section in appendix tables D.3-79 and D.3-80. The school districts most likely to be
affected by the proposed action include those in Aiken, Columbia, and Richmond counties
and Barnwell County Districts 19, 29, and 45. Assumptions, assessment methodologies, and
supporting data are presented in appendixD.
Regional Economy Characteristics. Employment and local economy statistics for the regional
economic area are given in appendix table D.3-73 and summarized in figure 4.6.2.8-1.
Between 1970 and 1990, the civilian labor force in the regional economic area increased 86
percent. The unemployment rate in the regional economic area in 1990 was slightly higher
than the State of South Carolina but about 0.4percent lower than the State of Georgia. The
1990 per capita income in the regional economic area was the same as that of the State of
South Carolina but 12percent below the State of Georgia's per capita income.
As shown in figure 4.6.2.8-1, the percentage of total employment involving farming in the
regional economic area was double thepercent for the States of South Carolina and
Georgia. The percentage in governmental activities was 25percent higher. Non-farm private
sector activities of manufacturing, retail trade, and services were similar in the
regional economic area and the two states, except that manufacturing in the State of South
Carolina represented a 20percent larger share than in either the regional economic area
or the State of Georgia.
Figure (Page 4-389)
Figure 4.6.2.8-1.-Economy for Savannah River Site Regional Economic Area.
In 1990, SRS employed 22,290 persons (4.6percent of the total regional economic area
employment), increasing from 5,737 persons in 1970. Historical and future employment at
SRS and the distribution of SRS employees by place of residence in the ROI are presented
in appendix tables D.2.1-1 and D.3-72, respectively.
Population and Housing. Population and housing distribution in the ROI is presented in
appendix tables D.3-75 and D.3-77 and summarized in figure 4.6.2.8-2. The percentage
increase in population in the ROI from 1970 to 1990 was similar to the States of South
Carolina and Georgia except for Columbia County which experienced a 196-percent
increase. With the exception of two counties, the percentage increase in housing units
between 1970 and 1990 was similar to or just below the percentage increase for the two
states. Columbia County experienced a 252-percent increase which is higher than the
percentage increase for the two states. Conversely, Barnwell County experienced a
2-percent increase which is lower than the percentage increase for the two states.
Homeowner and rental vacancy rates in the ROI in 1990 were similar to these experienced by
the States of South Carolina and Georgia.
Public Finance. Financial characteristics of the local jurisdictions in the ROI that are
most likely to be affected by the proposed action include total revenues and expenditures
of each jurisdiction's general fund, special revenue funds, and, as applicable, debt
service, capitol project, and expendable trust funds. School district boundaries may or
may not coincide with county or city boundaries, but the districts are presented under the
county where they primarily provide services. Major revenue and expenditure fund
categories for counties, cities, and school districts are presented in appendix tables
D.3-79 and D.3-80, and figure 4.6.2.8-3 summarizes local government's revenues less its
expenditures.
Local Transportation. SRS is served by more than 200miles of primary roads and more than
1,000miles of unpaved secondary roads. The primary highways used by SRS commuters are
State Routes 19, 64, and 125; 40, 10, and 50percent of the workers use these routes,
respectively (figure 4.6-1). Significant congestion occurs during peak traffic periods
onsite on Road 1-A and on State Routes 19 and 125 and U.S. Route 278 at SRS access points
(Wilbur Smith Associates 1989). Long delays are also experienced offsite along Interstate
20 and U.S. Routes 1 and 25 where they cross the Savannah River. SRS is currently
implementing changes to remedy the congestion at some access points.
Rail service in the ROI is provided by the Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX
Transportation. SRS is provided rail access via Robbins Station on the CSX Transportation
line. In addition, SRS maintains 50miles of onsite track for internal uses (WSRC1990c).
Waterborne transportation is available via the Savannah River. Currently, the Savannah
River is used primarily for recreation (WSRC1990c). No commercial waterborne vessel
docking facilities exist atSRS.
Columbia Metropolitan Airport in the city of Columbia and Bush Field in the city of
Augusta receive jet air passenger and cargo service from both national and local carriers.
Numerous smaller private airports are located in the ROI (DOT 1991a).

4.6.2.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment
The following provides a description of the radiation and hazardous chemical environment
at SRS. Also included are discussions of health effects studies, emergency preparedness
considerations, and an accident history.
Radiation Environment. Major sources of background radiation exposure to individuals in
the vicinity of SRS are shown in table 4.6.2.9-1. All annual doses to individuals from
background radiation are expected to remain constant over time. Accordingly, the
incremental total dose to the population would result only from changes in the size of
the population. Background radiation doses are unrelated to SRS operations.
Figure (Page 4-391)
Figure 4.6.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Savannah River Site Region of Influence [Page
1 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-392)
Figure 4.6.2.8-2.-Population and Housing for Savannah River Site Region of Influence [Page
2 of 2].
Figure (Page 4-393)
Figure 4.6.2.8-3.-1992 Local Government Public Finance for Savannah River Site Region of
Influence.
Table 4.6.2.9-1.-Sources of Radiation Exposure to Individuals in the Vicinity, Unrelated
to Savannah River Site Operations, 1992
Source Committed
Effective Dose
Equivalent
(mrem/yr)
Natural Background Radiation
Cosmic and cosmogenic radiation 33
External terrestrial radiation 43
Internal terrestrial radiation 39
Radon in homes (inhaled) 200
Other Background Radiation
Diagnostic x-rays and nuclear 53
medicine
Weapons test fallout <1
Air travel 1
Consumer and industrial products 10
Total 380
Releases of radionuclides to the environment from SRS operations provide another source of
radiation exposure to individuals in the vicinity of SRS. The radionuclides and quantities
released from SRS operations in 1992 are listed in the Savannah River Site Environmental
Report for 1992 (WSRC-TR-93-075). The doses to the public resulting from these releases
are presented in table 4.6.2.9-2. These doses fall within radiological limits (DOE Order
5400.5) and are small in comparison to background radiation. The releases listed in the
1992 report were used in the development of the reference environment (No Action)
radiological releases at SRS in the year 2010 (section 4.6.3.9). Based on a risk estimator
of 500 cancer deaths per 1million person-rem to the public (appendix section E.2),
thefatal cancer risk to the maximally exposed member of the public due to radiological
releases from SRS operations in 1992 is estimated to be approximately 1.4x10-7. That is,
the estimated probability of this person dying of cancer at some point in the future from
radiation exposure associated with 1 year of SRS operations is less than 2 chances in
10million. (Note that it takes several to manyyears from the time of exposure to radiation
for a cancer to manifest itself.)
Table 4.6.2.9-2.-Doses to the General Public from Normal Operations at Savannah River
Site, 1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
Affected Environment Atmospheric Releases Liquid Releases Total
- Standard Actual Standarda Actualb, Standarda Actual
Maximally exposed 10 0.14 4 0.13 100 0.27
individual (mrem)
Population within None 6.4 None 2.5 100 8.9
50miles (person-
rem)
Average individual None 0.01 None NA None 0.014
within 50miles
(mrem)
Approximately 4.5x10-3 excessfatal cancers were estimated from normal operations in 1992
to the population living within 50miles of SRS. To place this number into perspective, it
can be compared with the number offatal cancers expected in this population from all
causes. The 1990 mortality rate, associated with cancer, for the entire U.S. population
was 0.2percent per year (Almanac 1993a:839). Based on this national mortality rate, the
number offatal cancers from all causes expected during 1992 in the population living
within 50miles of SRS was 1,240. This number of expectedfatal cancers is much higher than
the estimated 4.5x10-3fatal cancers that could result from SRS operations in 1992.
Workers at SRS receive the same dose as the general public from background radiation, but
also receive an additional dose from working in the facilities. Table4.6.2.9-2 includes
the average, maximum, and total occupational doses to SRS workers from operations in
1992. These doses fall within radiological limits (10 CFR 835). Based on a risk estimator
of 400fatal cancers per 1million person-rem among workers (appendix section E.2), the
number of excessfatal cancers to SRS workers from operations in 1992 is estimated to be
0.14.
A more detailed presentation of the radiation environment, including background exposures
and radiological releases and doses, is presented in the Savannah River Site
Environmental Report for 1992 (WSRC-TR-93-075). The concentrations of radioactivity in
various environmental media (e.g., air, water, and soil) in the site region (onsite and
offsite) are also presented in this reference.
Chemical Environment. The background chemical environment important to human health
consists of: the atmosphere, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be inhaled;
drinking water, which may contain toxic chemicals that can be ingested; and other envi-
ronmental media with which people may come in contact (e.g., surface waters during
swimming and soil through direct contact or via the food pathway). The baseline data for
assessing potential health impacts from the chemical environment are those presented in
sections 4.6.2.3 and 4.6.2.4.
Table 4.6.2.9-3.-Doses to the Worker Onsite from Normal Operations at Savannah River Site,
1992 (committed effective dose equivalent)
- Onsite Releases and
Direct Radiation
Affected Standard Actual
Environment
Average worker None 17.9
(mrem)
Maximally exposed 5,000 3,000
worker (mrem)
Total workers None 350
(person-rem)
Health impacts to the public can be minimized through effective administrative and design
controls for decreasing pollutant releases to the environment and achieving compliance
with permit requirements (e.g., air emissions and NPDES permit requirements). The
effectiveness of these controls is verified through the use of monitoring information, and
inspection of mitigation measures. Health impacts to the public may occur during normal
operations at SRS via inhalation of air containing pollutants released to the atmosphere
by SRS operations. Risks to public health from other possible pathways, such as ingestion
of contaminated drinking water, or direct exposure, are low relative to the inhalation
pathway.
Baseline air emission concentrations for hazardous/toxic air pollutants and their
applicable standards are presented in section 4.6.2.3. These concentrations are
estimates of the highest existing offsite concentrations and represent the highest
concentrations to which members of the public could be exposed. These concentrations are
in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations. Information about estimating
health impacts from hazardous/toxic chemicals is presented in appendix section E.3.
Health impacts to SRS workers during normal operation may include those from inhalation of
the workplace atmosphere, drinking SRS potable water, and possible other contact with
hazardous materials associated with work assignments. The potential for health impacts
varies from facility to facility and from worker to worker, and available information is
not sufficient to allow a detailed estimation and summation of these impacts. However, the
workers are protected from hazards specific to the workplace through appropriate training,
protective equipment, monitoring, and management controls. SRS workers are also protected
by adherence to occupational standards that limit workplace atmospheric and drinking water
concentrations of potentially hazardous chemicals. Monitoring ensures that these standards
are not exceeded. Additionally, DOE requirements (DOE Order 3790.1B) ensure that
conditions in the workplace are as free as possible from recognized hazards that cause or
are likely to cause illness or physical harm. Therefore, worker health conditions at SRS
are expected to be substantially better than required by the standards.
Health Effects Studies. Two published epidemiological studies on the general population
in communities surrounding SRS have been conducted. One study found no evidence of
excess cancer mortality, whereas another study reported an excess in leukemia and lung
cancer deaths along with other statistically nonsignificant excess deaths. An excess in
leukemia deaths has been reported among hourly workers at SRS. For a more detailed
description of the studies reviewed and the findings, refer to appendix section E.4.6
Accident History. Beginning in 1974 and continuing into 1988, there was a series of
releases from the tritium facilities at SRS. These releases have been traced to aging
equipment in the tritium processing facility and are one of the reasons for the
construction of a replacement tritium facility at SRS. A detailed description and study of
these incidents and their consequences to the offsite population has been documented by
SRS. Between 1974 and 1988, there were 13 inadvertent tritium releases. The most sig-
nificant were in 1981, 1984, and 1985 when 32,934, 43,800, and 19,403 Ci of tritiated
water vapor, respectively, were released (WSRC1991a). In the period 1989 through 1992
there were 20 inadvertent releases, all with little or no offsite dose consequences. The
largest of these recent releases occurred in 1992 when 12,000 Ci of tritium were released
(SRS 1993a:3).
Emergency Preparedness. In the event of an accident each DOE site has established an
emergency management program. This program has been developed and maintained to ensure
adequate response for most accident conditions and to provide response efforts for
accidents not specifically considered. The emergency management program incorporates
activities associated with emergency planning, preparedness, and response. Section 4.1.9
provides a description of DOE's emergency preparedness program.
The Emergency Preparedness Facility at SRS provides overall direction and control for
onsite responses to emergencies and coordinates with Federal, state, and local agencies
and officials on the technical aspects of the emergency.
The SRS Emergency Operations Facility consists of several centers, described below, that
provide distinct emergency response support functions:
The SRS Operations Center coordinates the initial response to all SRS emergencies and is
equipped to function as the heart of SRS's emergency response communications network.
The Technical Support Center provides command and control of emergency response activities
for the affected facility or operational area.
The Emergency Operations Center provides command and control of emergency response
activities for SRS locations outside of the affected area.
The Security Management Center coordinates activities relating to the security and
safeguarding of materials by providing security staff in the affected area and con-
tractor management in the Emergency Operations Center.
The Dose Assessment Center is responsible for assessing the health and environmental
consequences of any airborne or aqueous releases of radioactivity or toxic chemicals and
recommends onsite and offsite protective actions to other centers.

4.6.2.10 Waste Management
This section outlines the major environmental regulatory structure and ongoing waste
management activities for SRS. A more detailed discussion of the ongoing waste
management operations is provided in appendix section H.2.5. Table 4.6.2.10-1 presents a
summary of waste management at SRS for 1991.
Table 4.6.2.10-1.-Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management at Savannah River Site [Page 1
of 2]
Category 1991 Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
(yd3) (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear None None None Pools Sized to current None-eventually, NA
Fuel inventory repository
High-Level
Liquid 4,715 Settle, store, 76,250 F &H Area Tank 308,000 NA NA
(952,508 gal) separate, (15,398,000 GPY) Farm (62,200,000 gal)
evaporate
Solid None NA NA NA NA NA NA
Transuranic
Liquid None NA NA NA NA NA NA
Solid 1,804 None None Pads, buildings 26,513 None-Federal None
repository in
the future
Low-Level
Liquid 99,500 Adsorption, 3,924,000 Ponds, tanks- NA NA NA
(20,092,000 gal) evaporation, (792,700,000 GPY) awaiting
filtration, processing
neutralization,
saltstone
Solid 31,113 Compaction 73,250 NA NA Trench, caissons 1,400,000
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid 1,366 Stabilization, 76,700 RCRA permit Included in solid None None
(275,900 gal) adsorption, (15,500,000 Bldgs. E, 600,
neutralization, GPY) 700
precipitation,
filtration, ion
exchange,
evaporation
Solid 37 None NA RCRA permit 1,519 None None
Bldg. 600
Hazardous
Liquid Included in solid None None DOT containers Included in solid Offsite NA
Solid 115 None None DOT containers 7,300 Offsite NA
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 915,841 Filter, settle, 1,300,000 Flowing ponds NA Permitted discharge Varies by each
(185,000 gal) strip (265,000,000 GPY) permitted
outfall
Solid 111,518 Compaction- Expandable, as NA NA Landfill (onsite) Expandable, as
reduces required offsite disposal required
volume to is being
27,900 yd3 for investigated
disposal
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary
Solid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary
Source: DOE1992f; DOE1993g; SR MMES 1993a.
The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address
compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at SRS. The Department
is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compli-
ance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for
achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for
nonachievement of agreed uponmilestones.
EPA has placed SRS on the NPL and has identified approximately 150 potential operable
units. In accordance with CERCLA, DOE entered into a Federal Facility Agreement with the
EPA and the State of South Carolina, effective January 15, 1993, to coordinate cleanup
activities at SRS under one comprehensive strategy. The Federal Facilities Agreement
combines the RCRA Facility Investigation Program Plan under RCRA with a CERCLA cleanup
program entitled the RCRA Facility Investigation Remedial Investigation Program Plan.
SRS manages spent nuclear fuel and the following waste categories: HLW, TRU, LLW, mixed,
hazardous, and nonhazardous. SRS has an aggressive waste minimization program in
progress to vastly improve the operation of existing and planned liquid and solid waste
generating, treatment, and storage facilities. A disciplined approach to these activities
is being developed based on technology and experience from the commercial nuclear
industry. This approach already has reduced the generation of TRU waste (48percent), LLW
(13percent), mixed waste (96percent), and hazardous wastes (58percent) (DOE1993e:I-18). A
discussion of the waste management operations associated with each of these categories
follows.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. On April 29, 1992, DOE decided to discontinue reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel solely to recover fissile and fertile materials. After the completion of
several ongoing programmatic and site-specific reviews pursuant to the National
Environment Policy Act, DOE will make decisions concerning the treatment and stabilization
of the current SRS inventory of spent nuclear fuel, and the use and subsequent
decontamination and decommissioning of both the F- and H-Canyons facilities. With the
shutdown of the K- and L-Reactors at SRS, no new spent fuel is expected to be generated
in the future from existing SRS operations. However, SRS may continue to receive spent
fuel from offsite facilities, and treat and stabilize that fuel for long-term storage.
Future receipt and management of spent nuclear fuel at SRS will be in accordance with
the ROD published in the Federal Register (60 FR 28680) on June 1, 1995, for the
Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final EIS. The ROD for the EIS on the Proposed
Policy for the Acceptance of U.S. Origin Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel is
not expected to be published until early 1996.
High-Level Waste. Liquid HLW at SRS is made up of many waste streams generated during the
recovery and purification of transuranic products and unburned fissile material from spent
reactor fuel elements. These wastes are treated prior to their transfer to underground
tanks in F- and H-Area Canyons where they are separated by waste form, and radionuclide
and heat content. Processes that treat liquid HLW routinely are separation, evaporation
and ion exchange. Cesium is removed from the condensate prior to transfer to the
Effluent Treatment Facility where the concentrate is treated as low-level process
wastewater. The decontaminated salt solution resulting from the in-tank precipitation
process is sent with residues from the Effluent Treatment Facility to the Defense Waste
Processing Z-Area Saltstone Facility where it is mixed with a blend of cement, flyash, and
blast furnace slag to form a low-level grout. The grout is pumped into disposal vaults
where it hardens for permanent disposal. The remaining high-level salt is precipitated
and the precipitate and high-level sludge will be permanently immobilized as a glass solid
cast in stainless steel containers at the Defense Waste Processing Facility
Vitrification Plant. The stain-less-steel containers will be decontaminated to DOT
standards, welded closed, and temporarily stored onsite for eventual transport to and
disposal in a permanent Federal repository. Once the current inventory of spent nuclear
fuel is processed, no new HLW is expected to be generated.
Transuranic Waste. Under the Federal Facility Compliance Agreement on RCRA land disposal
restrictions signed by EPA and DOE on March 13, 1991, SRS is required to prepare TRU
waste for shipment. SRS will continue storing certified TRU waste at the TRU waste storage
pads until it can be shipped to WIPP once that facility can demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of 40CFR 191 and 40CFR 268 or to another TRU waste disposal facility
should WIPP prove unsatisfactory. Should additional treatment be necessary for disposal at
WIPP, SRS would develop the appropriate treatment capability. This agreement, which must
be modified if DOE determines that no TRU waste will be shipped from SRS by July 30, 1999,
should form the basis for the site-specific treatment plan required of all DOE facilities
storing mixed wastes by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. All TRU waste
currently generated is stored in containers on aboveground pads. Since April 1986,
newly-generated TRU waste has been received at the Experimental TRU Waste Assay Facility
where the drums are weighed and assayed to determine whether the waste is contaminated to
a level greater than 100 nCi/g and to determine other information required by the current
WIPP waste acceptance criteria. Drums certified for shipment to WIPP are placed in interim
storage on concrete pads in E-Area pending startup of WIPP. Drums that contain less than
100 nCi/g are segregated and are eventually sent to LLW disposal (<10 nCi/g) or managed
as TRU waste until performance modeling and waste acceptance criteria for onsite disposal
have been finalized (if>10nCi/g and <100 nCi/g).
The TRU Waste Facility is scheduled to begin waste retrieval operations in 2007. The TRU
Waste Facility will retrieve and process existing retrievable stored TRU waste and prepare
it for certification and permanent disposal at WIPP or disposal onsite as LLW. Because all
of the TRU waste placed on the aboveground pads prior to January 1990 is suspected of
having hazardous constituents, a RCRA Part B permit application has been submitted for the
TRU waste storage pads and the Experimental TRU Waste Assay Facility/Waste Certification
Facility. The waste is currently being stored under RCRA interim status/regulations.
Low-Level Waste. The bulk of liquid LLW is aqueous process waste including effluent
cooling water, purge water, water from storage basins for irradiated reactor fuel or
target elements, distillate from the evaporation of process waste streams, and surface
water runoff from areas where there is a potential for radioactive contamination. Liquids
are processed to remove and solidify the radioactive constituents and to release the
balance of the liquids to permitted discharge points within standards established by the
terms of the regulatory permit. Solid LLW which is routinely handled includes operating
and laboratory waste, contaminated equipment, reactor and reactor fuel hardware, spent
lithium-aluminum targets, and spent deionizer resin from reactor basins. Solid LLW is
separated by radiation levels into low and intermediate categories. Solid LLW that
radiates less than 200 mrem per hour at 5cm from the unshielded container is considered
low-activity waste. If it radiates greater than 200 mrem per hour at 5cm from the
unshielded container, it is considered intermediate-activity waste. Intermediate
activity tritium waste is intermediate-activity waste with greater than 10 Ci of tritium
per container. The primary disposal mode for solid LLW is burial in engineered earthen
trenches. Saltstone generated in the solidification of decontaminated salts extracted from
HLW is disposed of as LLW in a separate facility in enclosed vaults. In 1993, disposal of
LLW began in a 100-acre site expansion in the north portion of E-Area. This disposal
facility is projected to meet solid LLW storage/requirements to include LLW from DOE
offsite facilities such as Pinellas for the next 20years.
Mixed Low-Level Waste. The Federal Facility Compliance Agreement signed by EPA and DOE on
March 13, 1991, addresses SRS compliance with RCRA land disposal restrictions pertaining
to past, ongoing, and future generation of mixed LLW (mostly solvents, dioxin, and
California list wastes contaminated with tritium). SRS is allowed to continue to operate,
generate, and store mixed wastes subject to land disposal restrictions; however, in
return, SRS will report to EPA the characterization of all solid waste streams disposed
of in land disposal units at SRS and will submit a plan for waste minimization to EPA for
review. Schedules for measures to provide compliance through construction of the
Consolidated Incineration Facility (scheduled to start pending permits and agreements) and
the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Storage Facility are included in this agreement.
The Consolidated Incineration Facility will treat mixed LLW and liquid hazardous waste.
The hazardous waste/mixed waste disposal vaults are scheduled to be available in late
1996. Mixed waste is currently placed in interim storage in the E-Area solid waste
disposal facility and in two buildings in G-Area. These RCRA-permitted facilities will be
used until completion of the Consolidated Incineration Facility and the Hazardous
Waste/Mixed Waste Storage Facility. The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 requires
DOE facilities storing mixed wastes to develop site-specific treatment plans and to submit
the plans for approval. The requirements of the Federal Facility Compliance Agreement are
summarized in appendix section A.1.5, and would form the basis for the SRS site-specific
plan. South Carolina has the option to waive development of a site-specific plan by
becoming a signatory to the existing Federal Facility Compliance Agreement.
Hazardous Waste. Lead, mercury, cadmium, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, leaded oil,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, benzene, and paint solvents are typical hazardous wastes
generated at SRS. Unlike most other DOE facilities, SRS is presently constructing and
plans to construct hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities onsite. All hazardous
wastes are stored in DOT-approved containers onsite in RCRA-permitted facilities in the
700-Area. To allow the site to maintain its current storage capabilities, some of the
waste is shipped offsite to commercial RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facilities
using DOT-certified transporters. A Hazardous/Mixed Waste Disposal Facility that will
employ a variety of treatment processes should be completed by 2004 to treat, store, and
dispose of hazardous and mixed wastes that cannot be managed at existing or other planned
facilities.
Nonhazardous Waste. Twenty wastewater treatment plants are operated in 13 SRS operations
production areas. A new centralized sanitary wastewater collection and treatment
facility required by the Settlement Agreement signed on February 27, 1990, became
operational in 1994. This facility includes a primary sanitary sewer collection system, a
central sanitary wastewater treatment facility, and ultraviolet disinfection systems for
the remaining facilities in D-, K-, L-, P-, and TNX-Areas. SRS wastewater is currently
treated at small package plants by the extended aeration process. The wastewater treatment
plant effluent is disinfected by liquid sodium hypochlorite addition. The solid sludge is
disposed of in the SRS-operated sanitary landfill. The existing landfill site has
documented groundwater contamination and is currently operating under an expired state
permit. The state has not reissued the permit but continues to allow SRS to operate under
the conditions of the expired permit. The landfill is divided into three sections: (1)
the original landfill, (2) the southern expansion, and (3) the northern expansion. The
original landfill and the southern expansion have reached their capacity. If current
generation rates continue, the northern expansion is expected to provide capability until
1997. The northern expansion will cease operations when an offsite permitted commercial
waste disposal facility and contractor is selected.

4.6.3 Environmental Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts of constructing and operating various
tritium supply technologies and upgraded recycling facilities at SRS which are described
in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. It begins by describing potential impacts to existing and
planned facilities at SRS, followed by descriptions of potential impacts and the
environmental impacts of the proposed action on potentially affected environmental
resources. The section concludes by describing the potential impacts of tritium supply
and recycling on human health during normal operation, the consequences of facility
accidents, and regulatory considerations and waste management. Each description addresses
the effects of No Action and the potential impacts and environmental impacts of
constructing and operating both a tritium supply facility and an upgraded recycling
facility at SRS.

4.6.3.1 Land Resources
Construction and operation of a tritium supply facility and upgraded recycling facilities
at SRS would affect land resources, including land use and visual resources. Potential
impacts to these resources are summarized below.
SRS has sufficient land area to accommodate any of the proposed tritium supply
technologies. New facilities would be located in the designated 600-acre TSS, surrounded
by a 1-mile-wide buffer, all within the SRS boundary. The TSS would be located in the
central portion of SRS, near other onsite areas of industrial land use (figure 4.6.2.1-1).
The land is undeveloped and designated for industrial use. Tritium supply facilities are
not expected to be visible from viewpoints with high levels of sensitivity; however, vapor
plumes from cooling towers would result in additional visual impacts. The tritium
recycling mission would continue in upgraded existing facilities located in H-Area (figure
4.6.2.1-1). The following sections present the effects of the proposed action on land
resources.
Land Use
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned land use activities at
SRS. The K-Reactor would remain in cold standby with no provision for restart, and the F-
and H-Canyon operations would eventually be shut down; however, these facilities would
remain in place until turned over to environmental management for disposition. Any impacts
to land use from environmental management actions would be independent of and unaffected
by this proposed action.
Tritium Supply. Any one of the tritium supply technologies (section 3.4.2) could be
sited at SRS in the proposed TSS (figure 4.6.2.1-1). Adequate undeveloped land exists
for the tritium supply technologies, which are presented in table 4.6.3.1-1. Prime
farmland, agricultural activities, or special National Environmental Research Parks study
areas would not be affected. Construction and operation of these facilities would be
consistent with SRS future land use plans. The only impact would be the use of unde-
veloped SRS land. Land requirements would be largest for the MHTGR and least for the APT.
Table 4.6.3.1-1.-Potential Changes to Land Use Resulting from Tritium Supply Technologies
and Recycling at Savannah River Site
Indicator Tritium Supply Technologies -
- HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Upgrade
Land requirements (acres) 260 360 350 173 0
Available land, (percent) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0
No tritium facilities would be constructed offsite, and offsite land use would not be
directly affected. Offsite land is available and could be converted to residential
developments to house workers. Such development would be subject to local land use
controls and zoning ordinances, which vary by jurisdiction.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced capacity to
meet a tritium supply requirement less than baseline, or the construction and operation of
a Phased APT would not change potential baseline tritium requirement land use impacts
described above. Land requirements would be the same in both operation scenarios.
Multipurpose Reactor. The land requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR (section
4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3) with recycling would be 729 and 479acres, respectively. The site
requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR exceed the 600 acre TSS study area; however, the
proposed TSS is in an area where the additional land requirements for the MHTGR would not
result in potential conflicts with site land use or development plans. The 729 and
479acres represent less than 0.4 and 0.3 percent, respectively, of the available land at
SRS. Construction and operation of the multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR would not affect
prime farmland, agricultural activities, National Environmental Research Park study areas,
or other land uses on the site.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Upgrade of existing tritium recycling facilities would not
result in any additional land disturbance; therefore, there would be no land use impacts.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. In the event the tritium supply technology is collocated with
a new tritium recycling facility at a site other than SRS, the existing tritium recycling
mission would be phased out at SRS. It is anticipated that the existing tritium recycling
facilities would remain in place following phaseout; therefore, no onsite impacts to land
use are expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Visual Resources
No Action. Under No Action, no new construction or demolition activities are anticipated
that would result in Bureau of Land Management's VRM classification change. The existing
SRS landscape character would still range from VRM Class3 to Class 5 (higher to lower
aesthetic value).
Tritium Supply. Views of the construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would
be similar to other large industrial facilities at SRS. Views of the APT construction and
operation would be much less obtrusive because most of the facility has a lower profile
than other technologies due to its low profile cooling system. Construction of any tritium
supply facility would change the VRM classification from Class 4 to Class 5 at the TSS.
The proposed TSS would be approximately 4 miles from State Highway 125, the nearest public
access points with a high sensitivity level. Views from this roadway would be blocked by
heavy vegetation, forested areas, and terrain. Therefore, construction and operation of
the proposed facilities would not attract the attention of the average observer and visual
impacts would be minimal. There would be no change in the overall appearance of SRS from
key viewpoints with high sensitivity levels. The use of an evaporative cooling system on
the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR would potentially result in large cooling towers (up to 50 stories
high) and visible plumes during certain atmospheric conditions. The cooling system of the
APT would have no visible plume.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline visual impacts would not change due to operation
of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium capacity or the construction and operation
of a Phased APT.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Because no new facilities would be constructed to upgrade the
existing tritium recycling mission no visual impacts would be anticipated.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. The existing tritium recycling facilities would remain in
place following phaseout. There would be no change in the existing landscape character;
therefore, no impacts to visual resources are expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The use of alternative cooling systems (such as
low-profile cooling towers or mechanical draft dry cooling towers) would reduce the visual
impacts caused by vapor plumes from the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR. The selection of a specific
cooling system would be evaluated in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.

4.6.3.2 Site Infrastructure
This section discusses the site infrastructure for No Action and the modifications needed
for actions due to construction and operation of a new tritium supply facility as well as
upgrade and phaseout of the existing tritium recycling facility. With the exception of the
APT, the SRS infrastructure would be capable of supporting any one of the proposed
tritium supply technologies without major modifications to the existing infrastructure.
A comparison of site infrastructure and facilities resource needs for tritium supply and
phaseout of the existing tritium recycling facilities is presented in table 4.6.3.2-1. The
upgraded recycling facilities would require only a slight change of resource requirements
above those of the current recycling facilities included in the No Action baseline.
Therefore, the upgraded tritium recycling facilities operational data is not included
separately in table 4.6.3.2-1, but is included in No Action.
No Action. The missions discussed in section 3.3.6 would continue under No Action. As
shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, the site infrastructure would continue to adequately support
the future missions to include tritium recycling. The shutdown of the F- and H-Canyons by
2005 would further reduce infrastructure needs.
Table 4.6.3.2-1.-Modifications to Site Infrastructure for Tritium Supply Technologiesand
Recycling Phaseout at Savannah River Site
Alternative Transportation Electrical Fuel
- Road ( Railroad Energy Peak Load Oil Natural Gas Coal
miles) (miles) (MWh/yr) (MWe) (GPY) (million ft3/yr) (tons/yr)
Current Resources 150 57 1,672,000 330 2,412,000 0 230,000
No Action
Total site requirement 150 57 794,000 116 2,412,000 0 244,000
Change from current resources 0 0 -878,000 -214 0 0 14,000
Heavy Water Reactor
Total site requirement 156 63 1,164,000 167 4,073,000 0 244,000
Change from current resources 6 6 -508,000 -163 1,661,000 0 14,000
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor
Total site requirement 156 63 1,054,000 152 2,532,500 0 244,000
Change from current resources 6 6 -618,000 -178 120,500 0 14,000
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 156 63 1,494,000 212 2,612,000 0 244,000
Change from current resources 6 6 -178,000 -118 200,000 0 14,000
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor
Total site requirement 156 63 1,174,000 168 2,522,000 0 244,000
Change from current resources 6 6 -498,000 -162 110,000 0 14,000
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 159 63 4,534,000 666 2,425,200 0 244,000
Change from current resources 9 6 2,862,000 336 13,200 0 14,000
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium
Total site requirement 159 63 3,194,000 471 2,425,200 0 244,000
Change from current resources 9 6 1,522,000 141 13,200 0 14,000
Recycling Facility Phaseout
Total site requirement 150 57 770,000 113 2,352,000 0 238,800
Change from current resources 0 0 -902,000 -217 -60,000 0 8,800
Tritium Supply and Recycling Upgrade. The modification to the infrastructure at SRS to
support the various tritium supply technologies are summarized in table 4.6.3.2-1.
Adequate electrical energy is available from the subregional power grid to accommodate
each of the tritium supply technologies (table 4.6.3.2-2). The alternatives would
require between 0.35 and 5.27percent of the Virginia-Carolina Subregion power pool
capacity margin, and between 0.13 and 1.95percent of the Southeastern Electric
Reliability Council regional power pool capacity margin. For all technologies, the
existing SRS transmission lines and facilities would need to be upgraded for the increased
and redistributed electrical load.
Table 4.6.3.2-2.-Impacts on the Subregional Electrical Power Pool from Tritium Supply
Technologies at Savannah River Site
Tritium Supply Technology Peak Power Capacity Annual Energy Total Electricity
Required Margin Required Production
(MWe) (percent) (MWh) (percent)
Heavy Water Reactor 51 0.49 370,000 0.14
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor 36 0.35 260,000 0.10
Large Advanced Light Water Reactor 96 0.92 700,000 0.27
Small Advanced Light Water Reactor 52 0.50 380,000 0.14
Full Accelerator Production of Tritium 550 5.27 3,740,000 1.37
Phased Accelerator Production of Tritium 355 3.40 2,400,000 0.88
Source: DOE 1995d; DOE 1995e; DOE 1995f; NERC 1993a; SNL 1995a; SR DOE 1995a.
Construction of approximately 6 miles of additional primary and secondary access roads and
6 miles of railroad right-of-way would be required for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The APT
would require an additional 3 miles of access road. Interconnection requirements are not
expected to change appreciably when specific-site adaptations are completed.
The Unconsolidated Tritium Recycling Upgrade described in section 3.4.3.2 is designed to
meet DOE Order 5480.28, "Natural Phenomena Hazard Mitigation," affects five buildings
and is the one evaluated in this PEIS. These upgrades would basically involve the addition
of wall bracing and cross bracing to beams, strengthening some exterior walls and rein-
forcing building frames.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Tritium recycling operations are currently performed in the
H-Area in existing buildings. If SRS is selected as the site for a new tritium supply,
tritium recycling would continue at SRS in upgraded facilities. However, if another site
is selected to receive a new tritium supply with a collocated recycling facility, the
tritium recycling functions at SRS would be phased out. As shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, this
phaseout would have minimal impact on the site infrastructure.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event that only the steady state component of the
baseline tritium requirement is required, the impacts on the site infrastructure would
change for some technologies. There would be no appreciable change for the HWR, MHTGR,
and ALWR technologies. The Phased APT would reduce electrical consumption by approximately
30 percent but the fuel, onsite transportation infrastructure, and power line
requirements would not change.
Multipurpose Reactor. The MHTGR or ALWR multipurpose reactor option described in section
4.8.3 could be sited at SRS. The site infrastructure impacts would vary depending on the
technology.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility described in section 4.8.3.1 along with three additional
MHTGR reactor modules. Fabrication of the plutonium-oxide fuel could be accomplished
in the fuel fabrication facility already included in the tritium supply MHTGR design.
Operation of this facility along with the six module MHTGR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 273,000MW per year (26 percent)
and the total site fuel requirement by about 651,000 GPY (2 percent) over that for
operation of the three module tritium supply MHTGR.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor option would require construction of the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. Operation of this facility along with the ALWR multipurpose reactor would
increase the total site electrical requirement by about 20,000 MWh per year (less than 2
percent) and the total site fuel requirement by about 830,000GPY (2percent) over that for
operation of the tritium supply ALWR.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated gas-fired power plant at SRS to
provide the necessary power for the APT could be constructed (see section 4.8.2.2). This
would decrease the annual amount of electricity required to be purchased from commercial
sources by up to 3,740,000MWh per year for the Full APT and 2,400,000MWh for the Phased
APT. Although SRS now has no natural gas supply, a pipeline could be installed within
existing rights-of-way. This gas plant would require 54,200million ft3 per year of natural
gas to provide the Full APT requirement of 3,740,000MWh per year and 34,800million ft3 per
year of natural gas to provide the Phased APT requirement of 2,400,000MWh per year.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The siting of a new tritium supply would not require
infrastructure enhancements in most common support areas to mitigate environmental
impacts. Siting of new roads, railroad spurs, and utility infrastructure could follow
existing rights-of-way to minimize impacts to natural resources. Where new rights-of-way
would need to be constructed, alignments should consider existing sensitive habitat (e.g.,
wetlands, streams, and vegetation) to minimize the potential for impacting these
resources. As a potential mitigation measure, a consolidated tritium recycling upgrade
which entails the relocation of all tritium processing and handling functions from
Building 232-H to buildings 233-H and 234-H could be done. This would be in addition to
the unconsolidated upgrade modifications except for Building 232-H. This upgrade would
allow Building 232-H to be closed. While this consolidation would slightly increase
construction resource requirements, it would result in decreases in some operational
resources, manpower requirements, and tritium emissions and waste.

4.6.3.3 Air Quality and Acoustics
Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology and the upgrade of recycling
facilities at SRS would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the
potential to exceed Federal and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. To
determine the air quality impacts, criteria and toxic/hazardous concentrations from each
technology have been compared with Federal and state standards and guidelines. Impacts
for radiological airborne emissions are discussed in section 4.6.3.9.
In general, all of the proposed technologies would emit the same types of air pollutants
during construction. Emissions would typically not exceed Federal, state, or local air
quality regulations or guidelines, except that PM10 concentrations may be close to or
exceed the 24-hour standard during peak construction periods, which is not uncommon for
large construction projects.
During operation, impacts from each of the tritium supply technologies with respect to the
concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants are predicted to be in
compliance with Federal, state, and local air quality regulations or guidelines. The
estimated pollutant concentrations presented in table 4.6.3.3-1 for each of the tritium
supply technologies and upgrade of recycling facilities indicate little difference between
technologies with respect to impacts to air quality.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect
ambient air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to
existing sources. Based on the emission rates presented in appendix table B.1.4-5,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for each of the proposed
tritium supply technologies at SRS. This may require "offsets," reductions of existing
emissions, to permit any additional or new emission source.
Noise emissions during either construction or operation are expected to be low. Air
quality and acoustic impacts for each technology are described separately. Supporting data
for the air quality and acoustics analysis, including modeling results, are presented in
appendix B.
Air Quality
An analysis was conducted of the potential air quality impacts of emissions from each of
the tritium supply technologies. The air quality modeling analysis used the Industrial
Source Complex Short-Term model recommended by EPA. The resulting air quality con-
centrations were then evaluated against local, state, air quality regulations, and NAAQS
(40 CFR 50). Potential exceedance of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (40 CFR
52.21) increments for PM10, SO2, or NO2was also determined.
Table 4.6.3.3-1.-Estimated Cumulative Concentrations of Pollutants Resulting from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Upgraded Recycling Including No Action at Savannah River Site
[Page 1 of 2]
Pollutant - - 2010 Tritium Supply Technologies and Upgraded Recycling Tritium Tritium
No Action Recycling Upgrade
(mg/m3) Phaseout (mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
- Averaging Most Stringent - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT - -
Time Regulation or (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Guideline
(mg/m3)
Criteria Pollutant
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 14 14 15 14 14 14 0.4
1-hour 40,000 28 29 31 29 29 28 0.8
Lead (Pb) Calendar 1.5 a a a a a a a
Quarter
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.1
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 a
Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 28 28 28 28 28 28 0.02
24-hour 150 58 59 59 59 59 58 0.4
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 13 13 13 13 13 13 0.1
24-hour 365 182 184 184 184 184 182 1.7
3-hour 1,300 378 382 382 382 382 378 3.8
Mandated by South Carolina
Total suspended particulatesb Annual 75 28 28 28 28 28 28 <0.01
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds
Acetylene 24-hour c a 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a a
Acrolein 24-hour 1.25 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Acrylonitrile 24-hour 22.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Ammonia 24-hour c a a a 0.6 a a a
Antimony 24-hour 2.5 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 a
Benzene 24-hour 150 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 a
Cadmium 24-hour 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 a
Cadmium oxide 24-hour 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 a
Chlorine 24-hour 75 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 a
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 24-hour 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 a
Dioctyl phthalate 24-hour 50 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Ethyl alcohol 24-hour c a 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a a
Ethyl benzene 24-hour 4,350 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 a
Ethylene glycol 24-hour 650 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a
Formic acid 24-hour 225 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 a
Hexane 24-hour 200 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Hazardous and Other Toxic
Compounds (Continued)
Hydrogen chloride 24-hour 175 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 a
Hydrogen sulfide 24-hour 140 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 a
Manganese 24-hour 25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 a
Mercury 24-hour 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Methane 24-hour c a 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a a
Methyl alcohol 24-hour 1,310 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1
Methyl ethyl ketone 24-hour 14,750 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 a
Methyl isobutyl ketone 24-hour 2,050 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 a
Methyl tert-butyl ether 24-hour c 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 a
Methylene chloride 24-hour 8,750 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 a
Nickel 24-hour 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Nickel oxide 24-hour 5 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 a
Nitric acid 24-hour 125 1.5 2.1 1.5 9.3 1.5 1.5 a
Sodium hydroxide 24-hour 20 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 a
Sulfuric acid 24-hour 10 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 a
Tetrachloroethylene 24-hour 3,350 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 a
Toluene 24-hour 2,000 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 a
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 24-hour 9,550 0.7 0.8 0.7 3.3 0.7 0.7 a
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 24-hour 273 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a
Trichloroethylene 24-hour 6,750 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 a
Trichloromethane 24-hour 250 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 a
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 24-hour c a 4.8 a a a a a
Xylene 24-hour 4,350 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 a
No Action. No Action utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations in the year
2010 assuming continuation of site missions as described in section 3.3.5. These data
reflect conservative estimates of criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions. The emission
rates for the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented in
appendix table B.1.4-5. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the No Action concentrations. Pollutant
concentrations are in compliance with all air quality regulations and guidelines. It is
conservatively assumed that PM10 concentrations are equal to TSP concentrations. The air
quality in 2010 is expected to improve in comparison to the baseline air quality
presented in section 4.6.2.3.
Tritium Supply and Recycling Upgrade. Alternatives for SRS consist of the four candidate
technologies: HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT, combined with upgraded recycling facilities. Air
pollutants would be emitted during construction of the tritium supply technologies. The
principal sources of such emissions during construction include the following:
Fugitive dust from land clearing, site preparation, excavation, wind erosion of exposed
ground surfaces, and operation of a concrete batch plant.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, construction equipment, vehicles delivering
construction material, and vehicles carrying construction workers.
PM10 concentrations are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient standard
during the peak construction period. Exceedances would be expected to occur during dry and
windy conditions. Appropriate control measures would be followed, such as watering to
reduce emissions. With the exception of PM10, it is expected that concentrations of all
other pollutants at the SRS boundary would remain within applicable Federal and state
ambient air quality standards.
Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of each of the technologies
include all or part of the following:
Increased operation of existing boilers to generate additional steam for space heating.
Operation of diesel generators and periodic testing of emergency diesel generators.
Exhaust from, and road dust raised by, vehicles delivering supplies and bringing employees
to work.
Appendix table B.1.4-5 presents emissions from each of the proposed tritium supply
technologies. There are no gaseous releases associated with the APT, although emissions
are associated with operation of the tritium supply facility and with upgraded tritium
recycling facilities (SNL 1995a). Emissions from the Large ALWR were used to determine
pollutant concentrations since these represent the maximum emission rates from either the
Large or Small ALWR. Concentrations from operation of the tritium supply and upgraded
recycling facilities at SRS are presented in table 4.6.3.3-1. Pollutant concentrations,
combined with No Action concentrations, are in compliance with all applicable Federal and
state standards.
Pollutant emissions resulting from the operation of tritium supply technologies alone
(HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT) consist of criteria pollutants from the operation of boilers
and diesel generators and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions from facility processes.
Criteria pollutant emissions from the MHTGR are the highest among the other tritium supply
technologies and would increase existing total site criteria pollutant emissions by less
than 5 percent above No Action emissions. Concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous
pollutants, added to No Action concentrations, are in compliance with Federal and state
standards.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Air emissions from the HWR would be reduced slightly when
operated at reduced capacity. However, the reduction would be negligible since most
emissions are attributed to support equipment and facilities that are not related to the
reactor operating level. The MHTGR or ALWR would have no change in air emission since it
would continue to operate at the same level as the baseline requirement to maintain power
levels for steam or electrical production. The Phased APT construction and operation
emissions and impacts would be the same as the Full APT.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Operation of a 500 to 600MWe natural gas
electric generating facility (section 4.8.2.2) would generate a substantial amount of
emissions consisting of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These emissions would be controlled using the best available control technology to
minimize impacts and comply with the NAAQS and state mandated emission standards.
Estimated emissions are based upon emission factors for a large controlled gas turbine
(EPA 1995a; SPS 1995a). Table B.1.3.1-3 presents the emission factors and resulting annual
emission rates for a 600 MWe natural gas-fired turbine power plant.
For a natural gas-fired power plant located at SRS, the increase in carbon monoxide
emissions with respect to the 2010 No Action emissions at SRS would be approximately 16
percent (75 tons per year); for nitrogen oxides the increase would be approximately 10
percent (314 tons per year); for particulate matter the increase would be approximately
34 percent (179 tons per year); for sulfur dioxide the increase would be less than 1
percent (5tons per year). In addition, the gas turbine generating facility would
generate 215 tons per year of volatile organic compounds, 126 tons per year of methane,
58tons per year of ammonia, 29 tons per year of nonmethane hydrocarbons, and 24 tons per
year of formaldehyde.
Any power plant facility constructed to meet the power needs of the APT would be required
to meet the Federal NAAQS and state mandated regulations for toxic/hazardous pollutants.
Appropriate pollution control equipment would be incorporated into the design of that
facility to meet these standards.
Phaseout Tritium Recycling. Phaseout of the tritium recycling facilities at SRS will
reduce the criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutant emissions. The concentrations of
pollutants resulting from this phaseout result in a net reduction of criteria and
toxic/hazardous pollutant concentrations with respect to the No Action pollutant
concentrations. The concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants
resulting from the phaseout of the tritium recycling facilities are in compliance with all
applicable standards.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures during construction include:
watering to reduce dust emissions; applying non-toxic soil stabilizers to all inactive
construction areas, cover, water, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed piles
(i.e.,gravel, sand, and dirt); suspend all excavation and grading operation when wind
speeds warrant; pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily
trips by construction equipment; use electricity from power poles rather than temporary
gasoline and diesel power generators. Potential mitigation measures during operation
include incorporating additional HEPA filters to reduce particulate emissions from
processing facilities; substituting cleaning solvents which are less toxic for those
which present health hazards or exceed the applicable standards; and switching from coal
or fuel oil to natural gas to reduce criteria pollutants.
Acoustics
The location of the tritium supply technologies relative to the site boundary and
sensitive receptors was examined to determine the contribution to noise levels at these
locations and the potential for onsite and offsite impacts.
No Action. Continuation of operation at SRS would not appreciably change traffic noise and
onsite operational noise from current levels (section 4.6.2.3). Sources of nontraffic
noise associated with operation are located at sufficient distances from offsite noise
sensitive receptors that the contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be
small.
Tritium Supply and Recycling Upgrade. Noise sources during construction may include heavy
construction equipment and increased traffic. Increased traffic would occur onsite and
along offsite major transportation routes used to bring construction material and workers
to the site.
Most nontraffic noise sources associated with operation of any of the tritium supply
technologies and recycling upgrade would be located at sufficient distance from offsite
areas that the contribution to offsite noise levels would continue to be small. Due to the
size of SRS, noise emissions from construction and operation activities would not be
expected to cause annoyance to the public.
Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes, would be considered in
tiered NEPA documents. Some nontraffic noise sources associated with construction and
operation of the tritium supply technologies and recycling upgrade may be located close
enough to offsite noise receptors that they could experience some increase in noise
levels.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline noise impacts would not change due to reactors
operating at reduced tritium capacity or the construction and operations of a Phased APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Potential measures to minimize noise impacts on workers
include the use of standard silencing packages on construction equipment and providing
workers in noisy environments with appropriate hearing protection devices meeting OSHA
standards. As required, noise levels would be measured in worker areas, and a hearing
protection program would be conducted.

4.6.3.4 Water Resources
Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of each of the
proposed tritium supply technologies at SRS would affect surface water and groundwater
resources. The proposed site for the tritium supply facility would be outside the 100-year
floodplain; however, information on the location of the 500-year floodplain at SRS is
currently unavailable. Groundwater will be used for construction and operation of the
tritium facilities. The water withdrawals from groundwater would not adversely impact
regional groundwater levels. No wastewater would be discharged directly to groundwater;
therefore, groundwater quality will not be affected. Any construction-related impacts
would be mitigated by standard erosion control practices.
Surface water from the Savannah River would be used for cooling system makeup. The
greatest possible demand would not exceed 3 percent of the river's minimum flow. During
operation of the tritium supply and upgraded recycling facilities, treated wastewater
would be discharged to nearby streams. Cooling system blowdown from the tritium supply
facility would also be discharged directly to a nearby stream. All discharges would be
monitored to comply with NPDES permit limits. During operation, stormwater runoff would be
collected and treated, if necessary, before discharge to natural drainage channels.
Table 4.6.3.4-1 presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the
potential impact of the proposed tritium supply technologies and operation of the
existing upgraded recycling facilities. Resource requirements shown in this table
represent the total requirements at the site, including No Action.
Table 4.6.3.4-1.-Potential Changes to Water Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling at Savannah River Site [Page 1 of 2]
- - Tritium Supply Technologies - -
Affected Resource Indicator No Action HWR MHTGR Large Small Full Phased Tritium Tritium
ALWRa ALWRa APT APT Recycling Recycling
Upgrade Phaseout
Construction (2005)
Water Availability and Use
Water source Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground
Total groundwater requirement 3,146 3,167 3,164 3,179 3,166 3,154 3,154 0.1 NA
(MGY)
Percent increase in projected 0 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
groundwater use (3,146 MGY)
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface waters NA 16.5 13.6 27.5 15.5 0.3 0.3 0.03 NA
(MGY)
Percent change in stream flow NA 1 1 2 1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA
NPDES permit required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA
Operation (2010)
Water Availability and Use
Cooling system makeup (MGY) Included 5,852 3,970 15,510 7,150 1,193 763 36 NA
(from surface water) in total
Other facility operations (MGY) Included 48 30 90 50 7 7 15 -134.5
(from groundwater) in total
Total surface water requirement 19,840 25,692 23,810 35,350 26,990 21,033 20,603 36 NA
(MGY)
Total groundwater requiremente 3,146 3,194 3,176 3,236 3,196 3,153 3,153 15 -134.5
(MGY)
Percent change in flow from 0 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
withdrawals
Percent of projected groundwater use 0 2 1 3 2 <1 <1 NA -4.3
Water Quality
Wastewater discharge to surface 52.3 100 82 142 102 59 59 31 -0.4
waters (MGY)
Percent change in stream flowd 4 3 2 7 4 4 4 NA -3.2
Blowdown discharge to surface waters Included 9.6 6.7 25.8 11.7 1 0.66 NA NA
(MGD) in WW
Percent change in stream flow NA 168 117 453 205 18 12 NA NA
NPDES permit required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA
Floodplain
Action in 100-year floodplain NA No No No No No No No No
Critical actions in 500-year floodplain NA Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain
Floodplain assessment required NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year 500-year
Surface Water
No Action. Under No Action, no additional impacts to surface water resources are
anticipated beyond the effects of existing and future activities, which are independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action. A description of the activities that would continue
at SRS is provided in section 3.3.6. Because of termination of the K-Reactor and the F-
and H-Canyons operations, surface water withdrawals from the Savannah River would decrease
to less than 2percent of the river's minimum flow. As a result of reduction in discharges
to site streams, water quality should improve and impaired streams should recover.
Tritium Supply. Due to the location of the proposed TSS, the most likely stream to receive
discharge during construction and operation is Fourmile Branch. During construction of any
tritium supply technologies, no surface water withdrawals would be made. Treated sanitary
wastewater released to surface streams would not exceed approximately 2percent of the
minimum flow of Fourmile Branch. All discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES
permit limits and other discharge requirements. The primary impacts during construction
would be soil erosion of disturbed land and siltation in surface drainage channels. To
minimize soil erosion impacts, required NPDES stormwater management and erosion control
measures would be employed. In most cases, impacts from runoff would be temporary and
manageable.
In addition to wastewater effluent, the MHTGR and APT would require dewatering because of
construction activities below the water table. The amount of dewatering discharges would
depend on hydrologic and engineering conditions of the site. These discharges could
either be directed to Fourmile Branch or Par Pond and are expected to exhibit low
turbidity and not require settling basins. However, temporary sediment basins to remove
soil particles could be built as part of standard soil erosion and sediment control plans
for the site. Dewatering discharges to Fourmile Branch could cause stream bank erosion,
increased turbidity, stream bed scouring, and potential flooding. More detailed analyses
would be conducted during site-specific NEPA studies. Construction of an HWR or ALWR would
require much less dewatering; therefore the impacts on Par Pond, Fourmile Branch or the
Savannah River are expected to be minor.
Operation of the Large ALWR would require the most cooling water, 15,510 MGY,
approximately 1.2percent of the Savannah River's minimum flow, and would not be expected
to affect downstream users. The water requirement for the other tritium supply
technologies would require less than 50percent of the Large ALWR cooling water
requirement. The greatest operational treated wastewater discharge would be 90 MGY from
the Large ALWR. Fourmile Branch near the proposed TSS is an area of low instream flow and
was determined by an SRS study to be acceptable for sanitary water discharges. The 90
MGY would comprise approximately 7percent of the minimum flow of Fourmile Branch and
would not be expected to adversely impact stream hydrology. All discharges would be
required to comply with NPDES permit limits. Stormwater runoff from the main tritium
supply plant area would be collected in detention ponds, monitored, and if clean,
discharged to nearby streams. Stormwater from outside the main plant area, except those
facilities that require onsite management controls by regulation such as sanitary
wastewater treatment plants and landfill areas, would be discharged to nearby steams.
In addition to treated wastewater, cooling system blowdown discharges are anticipated.
Cooling system blowdown activities discharge great quantities over a short period of
time. An SRS study has examined six alternative routes for disposal of blowdown water that
included Fourmile Branch, Par Pond, L Lake, Indian Grave Branch, and Savannah River. The
evaluation of these alternatives was based on ecology, flow impacts, capability to
assimilate discharge, impact on the biotic community, impact on existing permits, cost
estimate, and feasibility. These evaluations identified Par Pond as the option with the
least potential for environmental impact. The Large and Small ALWR would release 26 and
12million gallons, respectively, as blowdown during 1hour each day. All other tritium
supply technologies would discharge approximately 50 percent less than the Large ALWR.
Blowdown from the Large ALWR would temporarily increase the minimum flow rate of Fourmile
Branch by approximately 456percent. These discharges would increase stream velocity,
causing scouring of stream beds, erosion of stream channels, increased turbidity,
resuspension and mobilization of contaminated sediments, and potential flooding of
areas. In addition to impacts from the velocity of the blowdown, the temperature of the
discharges could also affect receiving waters. Releases to Par Pond would reduce impacts
from thermal discharges. Par Pond was designed as a recirculating cooling reservoir for
several SRS reactors. Several precooling ponds (Ponds 2, 5, and C and a canal system) are
tributaries to Par Pond. This system was designed to handle cooling water flows approxi-
mately 30 times greater than the proposed tritium supply technologies blowdown discharges.
Currently, water is added to the system to maintain water levels. The precooling ponds
are undergoing recovery from past thermal impacts of cooling water discharges. Discharge
of blowdown to these ponds would not affect the flow, but some lake enrichment and biotic
changes are possible. Blowdown discharges to Par Pond could reduce the amount of makeup
water, but not eliminate, the need for makeup water from the Savannah River. The various
blowdown disposal options would be evaluated in site-specific tiered NEPA documents. All
discharges to surface waters are subject to and required to comply with NPDES permit
requirements.
Blowdown would also contain concentrated chemicals and diffused tritium. Depending on the
operation of the system, blowdown chemical and tritium concentrations would range between
2.5 and 5 times the river water concentrations. Previous studies of tritium concentrations
in liquid discharges from reactors operating at higher production rates than anticipated
for the proposed facilities showed that the concentration in the Savannah River after
dilution did not exceed the water quality standard of 20,000 pCi/l (40 CFR 141). For the
purpose of this analysis, it is anticipated that any release of tritium from the proposed
facilities would not exceed the water quality standard for tritium and would comply with
NPDES discharge requirements. For information on the radiological constituents present
in cooling system blowdown and their human health impacts, refer to section 4.6.3.9.
Tritium supply facilities would be located at elevations approximately 50 feet higher than
Fourmile Branch and at a distance of approximately 1 mile at its closest point. No tritium
supply facilities would be located within a 100-year floodplain. However, there is no
information on the location of the 500-year floodplain at SRS. Because the tritium supply
facility may constitute a critical action, an assessment of the 500-year floodplain
would be required before construction activities were initiated. This study would be done
for site-specific assessments. However, where a potential exists for flooding impacts,
design mitigation measures would be considered and addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA
documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline requirement surface water impacts would not be
reduced appreciably due to changes in reactor (HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR) operating tritium
capacities. A slight reduction in the volume and temperature of cooling water discharges
would be expected for the HWR because of the lower thermal output of the reactor. The
MHTGR or ALWR water requirements and discharges would not change from the baseline
requirement in order to maintain power production; therefore, the potential impacts
would remain the same.
Operation of the Phased APT would require 763MGY (table 4.6.3.4-1), a 3.8-percent increase
over projected No Action water use. This is approximately 430 MGY less than the amount
required by the Full APT, and is 0.06 percent of the Savannah River's minimum flow. The 59
MGY of wastewater discharges from the Phased APT would not exceed 4.3 percent of Fourmile
Branch's minimum flow and should not have any downstream effects. The Phased APT will
discharge 0.66 million gallons of blowdown water during a 1-hour period every day. This is
a little over one-half of the amount of blowdown discharge for the Full APT (1 MGD), and
is 12 percent of Fourmile Branch's minimum flow. This discharge is less than the blowdown
of the other technologies and its impacts would be less than but similar to those of other
technologies. All other requirements of the Phased APT are identical to those of the Full
APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. For the multipurpose MHTGR, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would be constructed and operated to support the reactors. During construction, the
multipurpose MHTGR and the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would require approximately
24.33 MGY, which would be a 37 percent increase over the surface water requirements for
the MHTGR tritium supply facility, and 0.01 percent of the Savannah River's minimum flow.
Water use during operation of the MHTGR multipurpose reactor (7,200 MGY) and the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility (10MGY) would total 7,210 MGY and would be a 78 percent
increase over the surface water use for the MHTGR tritium supply facility, and is 3.5
percent of the Savannah River's average flow.
During construction, approximately 20.5 MGY of wastewater would be generated and during
operations approximately 67.8 MGY. The wastewater would be treated prior to being
released to NPDES permitted outfalls. These amounts represent an increase of 51 and 128
percent, respectively, over the discharges generated by the MHTGR tritium supply facility
and are 0.01 and 0.03 percent of the Savannah River's average flow.
Water requirements during construction and operation of an ALWR multipurpose reactor would
be the same as previously discussed for an ALWR tritium supply facility. However, as
discussed in section 4.8.3, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would have to be constructed and operated in conjunction with an ALWR
multipurpose reactor. During construction (0.5 MGY) and operation (10 MGY) of a Pit Disas-
sembly Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, surface water use would increase
1.5 percent and less than one percent, respectively, over the construction and operation
surface water use at the ALWR tritium supply facility. When combined with the ALWR
multipurpose reactor during construction and operation, water use would represent 0.02 and
8percent, respectively, of the Savannah River's minimum flow.
Approximately 30.8 MGY of wastewater would be generated during construction and 100 MGY
during operation of a multipurpose ALWR with a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility. These amounts represent an increase of 12and 11percent,
respectively, over the discharges generated by the ALWR tritium supply facility and are
0.01 and 0.05 percent, respectively, of the Savannah River's minimum flow.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant, as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 could be used to support the
technology at SRS. Water requirements for the natural gas-fired power plant operations
would be approximately 80MGY in addition to the surface water requirements previously
discussed for the APT. Operation of the Full APT and the dedicated power plant would
require total site surface water withdrawals of 21,113MGY and would be a 6-percent
increase over projected No Action water use (19,840MGY). This is approximately 1.7percent
of the Savannah River minimum flow, and would not be expected to affect downstream users
and would be less than a 1-percent increase over total site surface water requirements of
the Full APT (21,033MGY alone).
Demineralized backwash generated during operation would contain dilute concentrations of
trace metals and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate. With the
appropriate wastewater treatment prior to discharge, no impacts to surface water quality
would be expected.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phaseout of the tritium recycling facilities would result in a
negligible decrease in withdrawals from the Savannah River. Wastewater discharges would
continue to Upper Three Runs Creek and Fourmile Branch but, due to the phaseout of tritium
recycling, would decrease by 0.3 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. Discharges to
Fourmile Branch would still increase stream flow by almost 250 percent. Stream flows of
this rate could impede the stream's ability to recover from previous impacts or continue
to erode stream banks, cause flooding, increase turbidity, or scour stream beds.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. The existing tritium recycling facilities would be upgraded and
would continue to use both surface water and groundwater to meet operational water
requirements. No increase in the discharge of effluents to onsite streams is anticipated.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Surface water impacts associated with construction could be
mitigated by applying standard erosion control practices. Dewatering discharges,
depending upon the amount, could be released to the Par Pond system to avoid potential
impacts to Fourmile Branch. During operation, cooling system blowdown discharges could be
released to energy dissipating structures, such as plunge or stilling basins. Lined
conveyance channels with additional energy dissipation features could be designed to
further reduce the velocity of flow prior to entering the natural stream channel.
Discharges could also be directed through a series of detention ponds to reduce discharge
velocities and allow the water to cool. Another option for the disposal of blowdown is to
discharge to Pond 2, and from there the flow would go to Pond 5, to Pond C, to Par Pond,
and to Lower Three Runs Creek, which is a tributary to the Savannah River. Such a
discharge would not be expected to have any thermal impacts on Par Pond because the
tritium supply cooling systems would be designed to meet applicable South Carolina
requirements for thermal releases. During both construction and operation periods, the new
Central Sanitary Treatment Facility at SRS could treat wastewater from the proposed TSS.
The treatment facility would have adequate capacity; the discharge is to Fourmile Branch.
Groundwater
No Action. Under No Action, as discussed in section 3.3.6, the existing missions at SRS
would continue with total groundwater usage of 3,146 MGY. Section 4.6.2.4 describes
existing groundwater conditions at SRS. With the shutdown of the K- and L-Reactors and
phaseout of the F- and H-Canyons operations, it is expected that groundwater use would
decrease and groundwater quality would not be further degraded. Table 4.6.3.4-1 shows the
amount of groundwater required for construction and operation of the proposed tritium
supply technologies and their comparisons with SRS's projected groundwater usage.
Groundwater Availability and Use
Tritium Supply. Groundwater required for construction of either an HWR (21.3 MGY), MHTGR
(17.8MGY), ALWR (33.3 MGY for Large and 20MGY for Small), or an APT (8.3 MGY) would
represent less than a 1-percent increase over the projected groundwater withdrawal. These
amounts are not expected to cause any drawdown impacts.
Groundwater required for operation and the percent increase in projected water use are
shown in table 4.6.3.4-1. Previous studies using numerical simulations of groundwater
withdrawals up to 528 MGY from the Cretaceous aquifer indicate that although simulated
drawdown was as much as 6.8 feet at the well head, drawdowns were smaller in overlying
aquifers and did not extend beyond SRS boundaries in any aquifer. The studies concluded
that withdrawing this amount of water or less would not adversely impact regional
groundwater levels. Therefore, the productivity of this aquifer is sufficient to support
construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT technologies. If needed,
surface water instead of groundwater could be used for potable water and operation of
support facilities.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Baseline requirement groundwater impacts would not be
reduced appreciably due to changes in HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR operating tritium capacities.
All groundwater requirements and potential impacts of the Phased APT are identical to
those of the Full APT.
Multipurpose Reactor. If an MHTGR or ALWR multipurpose reactor were to be constructed at
SRS, a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility would have to be constructed in conjunction with the
reactors. Water for both of the reactors and support facilities would be obtained from
surface water resources with no plans to withdraw groundwater during operations.
During construction, groundwater dewatering effluent volume and activities might increase
due to the additional excavation required for the three added reactor modules. Site
specific analysis would be needed to identify the extent and severity of impacts to
groundwater resources during excavation activities.
During operations, wastewater and sanitary water would continue to be treated before being
released to surface waters, to minimize potential impacts to groundwater resources.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. If the APT technology is selected, a
dedicated power plant, as discussed in section 4.8.2.2, could be used to support the
technology at SRS. Water requirements for the natural gas-fired power plant operations
(approximately 80MGY) would be obtained from surface water resources with no plans of
withdrawal from groundwater resources.
Demineralized backwash generated during operations would contain dilute concentrations
of trace metals and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and sulfate. With
the appropriate wastewater treatment prior to discharge, no impacts to surface water
quality would be expected.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. As discussed in section 3.4.3.2 the existing tritium recycling
facilities at SRS would be upgraded. No new buildings would be constructed, rather
construction would primarily be internal building renovations and modifications.
Therefore, there should be no additional water use or impacts to water quality.
During operation, the upgraded tritium recycling facilities would require approximately
51MGY of water. Of this, 36MGY would be used for cooling system makeup which is
approximately 1.5 percent over the operational water requirements withdrawn from the
Savannah River. Groundwater required for other facility operations (15 MGY) is 0.5 percent
of the projected groundwater use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated to
available water supplies.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. In the event a new tritium supply and recycling facility is
constructed at a site other than SRS, the existing tritium recycling mission would be
phased out at SRS. Phaseout of the tritium recycling facilities would decrease water
withdrawals from the groundwater aquifers by 134.5MGY. The reduced amount would not
adversely impact groundwater levels or groundwater quality.
Groundwater Quality
Tritium Supply. During construction of either a MHTGR or an APT, excavation would be
required to extend to a depth of approximately 160 feet and 50feet, respectively. This
construction would not extend below the base of the water table aquifer. A clay slurry
trench could be used to accomplish the subterranean construction. In this technique, a
cylindrical trench, large in diameter and deeper than the reactor or APT site, would be
filled with a slurry of bentonite clay and water as the trench was created. The clay
slurry would provide sufficient lateral support to keep the trench walls from caving in
while the soil in the trench was moved from the surface to bedrock or into a firm
subterranean formation. The clay slurry also would provide hydrostatic head to reduce the
flow of underground water into the trench. Once excavation was complete, concrete would be
pumped through a pipe to the bottom of the trench, and the trench would be filled from the
bottom up as the excess was recovered. The earthen walls of the trench would serve as
forms for the concrete. The water table drawdown resulting from dewatering the
construction area could possibly induce horizontal flow of the contaminated groundwater
(located less than one-half mile away), toward the excavated area from the SRS facilities
surrounding the site. However, the concrete wall around the excavated area would prevent
this flow. During excavation activities, groundwater would be monitored to avoid con-
taminated water from entering the construction area. Because the dewatering of the water
table aquifer would create an upward gradient between aquifers, any potentially
contaminated water in the excavated area would not likely migrate into the underlying
aquifers. Therefore, the dewatering process would have little effect upon any designated
CERCLA areas at SRS. During the CERCLA process, if it is found that groundwater
contamination is spreading, a pump and treat system would be indicated and would be
initiated regardless of the tritium supply project.
During construction and operation of any of the tritium supply technologies, there are no
plans for direct discharge to groundwater (also see surface water section 4.6.3.4). As a
result, impacts to groundwater quality at SRS are not expected.
Any potential salt coming from the tritium supply cooling tower would have originated from
the Savannah River. Because the salt is concentrated in a wet cooling tower, it may damage
vegetation in a small area near the facility. At SRS there is adequate rainwater and
groundwater flow such that any salt concentrations from the cooling tower would be flushed
into the groundwater and diluted. The groundwater and surface water systems are connected
such that the salt originating from the Savannah River and reaching the groundwater will
return to the river and the total amount of salt in the ecological system would remain the
same.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to groundwater quality from the HWR, MHTGR, or
ALWR would be the same as the baseline tritium requirement. Potential groundwater
quality impacts of a Phased APT would be the same as described above for the Full APT.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. During construction and operation, there would be no direct
wastewater discharge to groundwater. All wastewater effluent would be treated onsite and
discharged to surface waters through NPDES-permitted outfalls (also see discussion on
surface water). As a result, minimal impacts are anticipated to groundwater quality.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phaseout of the tritium recycling facilities would reduce
wastewater discharge into surface waters. Therefore, no impact to groundwater quality is
anticipated.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Impacts from construction and dewatering activities may
require mitigation. Mitigation measures which could be implemented during construction of
either a MHTGR or an APT include continuous groundwater monitoring in the construction
area during and after construction, and use of recharge wells to minimize the amount of
groundwater from contaminated areas reaching the excavated area. During operation, the use
of surface water instead of groundwater for potable water and operation of support
facilities should be maximized.

4.6.3.5 Geology and Soils
Construction of tritium supply facilities at SRS would have no impact on geological
resources. Hazards posed by geological conditions to construction and operation of a
tritium supply facility at SRS are minor. Construction would disturb up to a few hundred
surface acres of soil depending on the tritium technology. Control measures would be used
to minimize soil erosion. Impacts would depend on the specific soil units in the disturbed
area, the extent of land disturbing activity, and the amount of soil disturbed.
Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the construction and operation of
a tritium supply technology, tritium extraction facility, and upgrade of existing
recycling facilities are discussed below.
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned activities at SRS. The
K-Reactor would remain in cold standby with no provision for restart, and the F- and
H-Canyons operations would eventually be shut down. These facilities would remain in
place until turned over to environmental management for disposition. Any impacts to
geology and soils from environmental management actions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply. No potential project impacts to geologic conditions were identified.
Design of the facilities would ensure compatibility with existing geologic conditions.
There are no known capable faults within the boundaries of SRS. There is little chance
for ground rupture as a result of an earthquake. Ground shaking is more likely.
Intensities as high as VII on the modified Mercalli scale are possible but infrequent and
are not likely at SRS during the life of the proposed project. Ground shaking could affect
the integrity of poorly designed or nonreinforced existing structures but would not affect
newly designed facilities. Based on the seismic history of the area, a low seismic risk
exists at SRS but this should not preclude safe construction and operation of the tritium
supply facilities. In addition, all facilities would be designed for
earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE Order 5480.28 and
accompanying safety guides.
Volcanic activity is not a factor anywhere in the region and is extremely unlikely to
impact the project. It is also highly unlikely that landslides, sinkhole development, or
other nontectonic movements would affect project activities. Slopes and underlying
foundation materials are stable.
Properties and conditions of soils underlying the proposed TSS have no limitations on
construction. Soils would be impacted during construction and operation of the tritium
facilities. The amount of acreage that would be potentially disturbed is shown in table
4.6.3.1-1.
The soil disturbance from construction of new facilities could be as much as 360 acres
for a MHTGR. Disturbance would occur at building, parking, and construction laydown areas,
destroying the soil profile, and leading to a possible temporary increase in erosion as a
result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on frequency of
storms; wind velocities; size and location of the facilities with respect to drainage and
wind patterns; slopes, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and,
particularly during the construction period, the duration of time the soil is bare. Con-
struction of both the MHTGR and the APT would also necessitate deep excavations to
accommodate reactor modules and an accelerator tunnel, respectively (sections 3.4.2.2
and 3.4.2.4). A considerable volume of soil would be removed as a result of excavations.
Most of the material removed would be sand or shale fragments derived from bedrock and
could be stockpiled for use as fill. Some of this material could be used to cover the
accelerator tunnel of the APT. Site-specific NEPA studies would evaluate in detail impacts
to geology and soils at SRS resulting from deep excavations required for the MHTGR and the
APT and would identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Net soil disturbance during operations would be less than for construction, because areas
temporarily used for laydown would be restored. Although erosion from stormwater runoff
and wind action could occur occasionally during operations, they are anticipated to be
minimal.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures would be used to minimize soil loss.
Wind erosion is likely to occur on an intermittent basis, depending on the wind
velocities, the amount of soil exposed, and the effectiveness of control measures.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Under the less than baseline operations, geology and soil
impacts would not change for the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR technologies. Disturbed acreage for
the Phased APT would be the same as the baseline tritium requirement for the Full APT;
therefore, impacts would be the same.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. The upgrade of tritium recycling facilities at SRS would not
disturb any soil because no new construction would be required. The construction laydown
area in the immediate vicinity of upgrade buildings would be temporarily disturbed. The
upgrade would not affect existing geologic conditions and should not preclude safe
construction and operation of the upgraded facilities.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. In the event a new tritium supply facility is located at a
site other than SRS, the existing tritium recycling mission would be phased out at SRS.
The existing tritium recycling facilities would remain in place following phaseout;
therefore, no onsite impacts to geology or soils are anticipated.
Multipurpose Reactor. The multipurpose MHTGR would disturb an additional 270 acres of land
to accommodate the construction of three additional reactor modules and a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility. The additional land area disturbances would result in the
destruction of the soil profile and potential temporary increase in erosion as a result of
stormwater runoff and wind action. The three additional reactor modules would also
double the excavation requirements over that for the tritium supply MHTGR. The excavated
soil would substantially increase the volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal.
Impacts on ground water resources from the excavation are not expected to change substan-
tially from that expected from three reactor modules. Groundwater flow direction may be
influenced in the immediate construction area from the extent of the excavation.
However, appropriate engineering measures are available to minimize potential groundwater
infiltration into the excavation and groundwater impacts.
Construction impacts for the multipurpose ALWR would be the same as those described for
the tritium supply ALWR. Additional soil impacts would be expected from the construction
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility needed to
support the multipurpose ALWR. Approximately 129 acres would be disturbed for the new
facility, destroying the soil profile and leading to a possible temporary increase in
erosion as a result of stormwater runoff and wind action. Soil losses would depend on
frequency of storms; wind velocity; location of the facility with respect to drainage and
wind pattern; slope, shape, and area of the tracts of ground disturbed; and the duration
of time the soil is bare.
Soil impacts during operation are expected to be minimal. Appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures would be used to minimize any long-term soil losses.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be required to control erosion of
soil, especially during construction. Potential mitigation measures include accepted
standard practices for erosion, sediment, and dust control such as silt fences, sediment
traps, runoff diversion dikes, drainageways, sedimentation ponds, establishment of ground
cover and windbreaks, grading of slopes, and construction of berms or other controls
appropriate to the site. Standard control for wind erosion, such as wetting the surface,
could be done on a day-to-day basis. Exposing only small areas for limited periods of
time, as necessary, would also reduce erosional effects. After the construction period,
long-term control measures could include grading, revegetation, or landscaping.

4.6.3.6 Biotic Resources
Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology and upgrade of existing
recycling facilities at SRS would affect biotic resources. Impacts resulting from the
construction of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or Full APT to meet the baseline tritium requirement
would occur only at the beginning of the project lifecycle.
The less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT could incur some additional
construction-related impacts if expansion is needed to meet baseline tritium
requirements. The potential impacts would be minor since the expansion would occur in the
already developed main plant site. Impacts to terrestrial resources would result from the
loss of habitat during construction and operation.
Table 4.6.3.6-1.-Potential Impacts to Biotic Resources Resulting from Tritium Supply
Technologies and Recycling During Construction and Operation at Savannah River Site
Affected Resource Indicator No Tritium Supply Technologies Tritium
Action Recycling
Upgrade
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT -
Acres of habitat disturbed 0 260 360 350 173 0
Wetlands potentially None Yes Yes Yes Yes None
impacted
Aquatic resources None Yes Yes Yes Yes None
potentially impacted
Number of threatened and 0/0 2/20 2/20 2/20 2/20 0/0
endangered species
potentially affected
Impacts to wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible or mitigated in accordance
with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. Water withdrawals would cause some
minor increases in impingement and entrainment. During construction and operation,
dewatering discharge and cooling system blowdown could impact wetlands and aquatic
ecosystems; however, with appropriate mitigation, impacts to these resources could be
reduced.
Federal-listed threatened or endangered species potentially affected by the proposed
action are the short-nosed sturgeon and wood stork. Several special status species could
be affected because of the destruction of plant species and less mobile animal species
during construction. Where potential conflicts occur, mitigation measures would be
developed in consultation with the USFWS. Consultation would be conducted during
site-specific tiered NEPA document preparation. Table 4.6.3.6-1 summarizes the potential
changes to biotic resources at SRS resulting from the proposed action. As noted in the
table, no major differences in impacts to biotic resources exist between the four
tritium supply technologies.
The following discussion of impacts from a multipurpose reactor and a dedicated power
plant for the APT applies to the biotic resources at SRS as a whole. Where potential
impacts to a specific biotic resource are notable for the tritium supply technologies, the
discussion on multipurpose reactors identifies the potential impacts to the same resource.
Multipurpose Reactor. The selection of the multipurpose reactor option could result in
additional impacts to biotic resources at SRS. The MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility and the ALWR Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
would require an additional 129 acres of land. However, it is expected that during the
design phase, land requirements for this facility would be substantially reduced when
integrated into the reactor and recycling facility design. In addition to the fuel
fabrication facility, an MHTGR would require three additional modules which would displace
about 240 acres. Thus, total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose
reactors would be 931 and 691acres, respectively. In general, impacts to terrestrial
resources and threatened and endangered species would be similar to, but greater than,
those described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Although the fuel fabrication facility would require some additional water, construction
and operation of the MHTGR would greatly increase both water use and discharge. Selection
of the ALWR as the multipurpose reactor would not result in an increase in water use or
wastewater discharge beyond the increase required for the fuel fabrication facility. If
the MHTGR option is selected, impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources would be greater
than those described for construction and operation of the three module MHTGR. Mitigation
measures would be required to lessen impacts to these resources.
For both the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactor options, impacts to threatened and endan-
gered species would be similar to, but greater than, those described for the tritium
supply and recycling facility. This is the case since more land and water would be
required.
Accelerated Production of Tritium Power Plant. A dedicated natural gas-fired power plant,
similar to that described in section 4.8.2.2, could be an option to support an APT at SRS.
This facility, which would be constructed on the proposed TSS, would occupy 25 acres of
land. Construction of the gas-fired power plant would increase the land disturbance
associated with the APT from 375 to 400 acres. This would result in a slight increase in
impacts to biotic resources over those described for the tritium supply and recycling
facility. Infrastructure requirements, such as parking and laydown areas, would be
incorporated into and take advantage of similar requirements associated with the APT.
Rights-of-way would be sited to take advantage of existing corridors to the maximum extent
practical. Since wet cooling towers would be used, impacts to vegetation from salt drift
are possible.
Direct and indirect impacts to wetlands resulting from construction of a power plant would
be similar to those described for the APT. If new intake and discharge structures are
required, wetlands bordering the affected water body could be impacted. Also, the
discharge of cooling and other wastewater could adversely affect any wetlands in the
vicinity of the outfall. Any impacts to wetlands would require a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and all discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and state
water quality requirements.
Direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction of a natural gas-fired power
plant would be similar to those described for the APT. Construction of new intake and
discharge structures, if required, could adversely impact aquatic resources by disturbance
of the stream bottom. Downstream impacts could result from sedimentation and turbidity.
Such impacts would be temporary in nature. Operational impacts could include impingement
and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Also, if discharges represented a large proportion
of the stream flow of the receiving water body, streambed scouring and subsequent
increases in turbidity and downstream sedimentation could affect aquatic habitat,
including spawning habitat. Thermal impacts from the discharge of cooling tower blowdown
are also possible. Many of these potential impacts could be reduced through proper design
of intake and discharge structures and by taking water from and discharging it to larger
water bodies. All effluent discharges would be required to meet NPDES permit and state
water quality requirements.
Impacts from construction and operation of a power plant on threatened and endangered
species would be similar to those described for the APT. Results of preactivity surveys
associated with the APT would also apply to the power plant. If new intake and discharge
structures are required, preactivity surveys would also be required for these structures.
Terrestrial Resources
No Action. Under No Action, missions described in section 3.3.5 would continue at SRS.
This would result in no changes to current terrestrial conditions at the site described in
section 4.6.2.6.
Tritium Supply. Construction and operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would result in
the disturbance of approximately 260acres, 360acres, 350acres, or 173acres, respectively,
or less than 0.2percent of SRS (table 4.6.3.6-1). These acreages include areas on which
permanent tritium supply facilities would be constructed, as well as areas revegetated
following construction. Vegetation within the proposed TSS would be lost during
land-clearing activities. The majority of the proposed TSS consists of old fields and pine
plantations that are common on SRS and throughout the region (SR DOE 1991b:4.3).
Bottomland hardwoods and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible.
Construction of a tritium supply facility would have some adverse effects on animal
populations. Less mobile animals, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, within
the project area would be destroyed during land-clearing activities. Construction
activities would cause larger mammals and birds to move to similar habitat nearby. Nests
of migratory birds and young animals living within the proposed TSS could be lost during
construction. Upon completion of construction, revegetated areas would be of minimal
value to most types of wildlife because they would be maintained as landscaped areas.
During tritium supply operation, drift from cooling towers may cause salt deposition on
surrounding land areas and vegetation. Previous studies for a tritium production reactor
at SRS predicted that 13acres would receive salt deposition at a rate of 15.2pounds per
acre per month. This is the deposition rate at which salt stress symptoms could become
evident on sensitive plants (DOE1992e:5-213). Although specific data are not available,
all the potential tritium supply technologies would use less water than the previous
design. Assuming similar parameters for the previous and current designs, impact from salt
drift is expected to be less for the proposed tritium supply technologies. The potential
impact to natural vegetation would be reduced because a portion of the salt drift would
fall on developed areas in the vicinity of the cooling tower.
Activities associated with tritium supply facility operations, such as noise and human
presence, could affect wildlife living immediately adjacent to the facility. These
disturbances may cause some species to move from the area.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Upgrade of the tritium recycling facilities is not expected to
impact terrestrial resources since all construction activities would take place within
existing facilities.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same impacts described above for production at
baseline tritium requirements.
Construction-related impacts of the less than baseline tritium requirement Phased APT
would be similar to those described above. Some additional construction-related impacts
could occur if expansions is needed to meet baseline tritium requirements. The potential
impacts would be minor since the expansion activities would occur in the already developed
main plant site.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The loss of habitat due to construction and operation of a
tritium supply facility may be mitigated by revegetating with native species where
possible. Disturbances to wildlife in areas adjacent to new facilities could be minimized
by preventing workers from entering undisturbed areas. It may be necessary to survey the
proposed construction site for the nests of migratory birds or eagles prior to
construction and/or avoid clearing operations during the breeding season.
Wetlands
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.5 would continue at SRS.
Because these facilities are already in place, no construction impacts would occur. Also,
normal operations are not expected to adversely impact site wetlands. The continued
shutdown of K-, L-, and P-Reactors would allow continued recovery of wetlands along the
Steel Creek and Pen Branch stream corridors.
Tritium Supply. Since the majority of the proposed TSS is upland, the facility could be
located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands. Implementation of soil erosion and sediment
control measures would control secondary impacts. Impacts to wetlands resulting from the
construction of intake or outfall structures would be temporary. Any unavoidable
displacement of wetlands would be made in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit requirements.
Construction wastewater discharge to Fourmile Branch would be minimal (section 4.6.3.4)
and would not be expected to affect wetlands associated with the stream. However, without
mitigation, de-watering discharge from an MHTGR or APT could result in adverse effects to
Fourmile Branch and the Savannah River swamp. Stream bank scouring could cause a loss of
vegetation bordering Fourmile Branch and could result in sediment build up in the Savannah
River swamp. This could in turn cause swamp forest vegetation to be replaced by
scrub/shrub or emergent vegetation. If dewatering discharge is directed to Par Pond, these
impacts would be avoided. The controlled release of water from Par Pond would preclude
impacts to wetlands associated with Lower Three Runs Creek.
Cooling system blowdown would be directed to either Fourmile Branch or Par Pond.
Intermittent discharges of large volumes of water from cooling system blowdown to Fourmile
Branch could adversely impact wetlands bordering the stream and the Savannah River swamp.
Sediment build up in the Savannah River swamp resulting from streambed scouring could
result in swamp forest vegetation being replaced by scrub/shrub or emergent vegetation.
Also, erosion of stream banks could result in the loss of wetland vegetation. Thermal
impacts to wetlands were not predicted for a previous larger tritium reactor planned for
SRS (DOE 1992e:5-215); thus, such impacts are not expected for the proposed tritium supply
technologies. All discharges would be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
As an alternative to discharging blowdown water from Fourmile Branch, water from cooling
tower blowdown could be discharged to Par Pond via precooling ponds (i.e., Pond 2, Pond
5, and Pond C). Makeup water currently is pumped into Par Pond from the Savannah River to
maintain its level and the proper rate of flow in Lower Three Runs Creek (DOE1992e:4-119).
If blowdown water from a tritium supply facility is sent to Par Pond, no impacts to
wetlands would be anticipated since there would be no change in the level of Par Pond or
the flow rate of Lower Three Runs Creek. Under this discharge alternative, sanitary
wastewater would be discharged to Fourmile Branch. Due to the small volume of discharge,
impacts to wetlands would not be expected. All discharges would be through NPDES-permitted
outfalls. Impacts are not expected from salt deposition because the tritium supply
facility could be sited away from wetlands and potential impacts would be limited to a
relatively small area.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Upgrading the tritium recycling facilities would have no effect
on wetlands because all construction activities would take place within existing
facilities. Normal operation of the upgraded facilities would not impact site wetlands
since liquid effluents would not be released to site streams.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have the same wetland impacts described above for the baseline
tritium production requirement. However, operation of the HWR at reduced capacity would
potentially reduce slightly the volume and temperature of cooling water discharges. The
MHTGR- or ALWR-related wetland impacts would not change from the baseline tritium produc-
tion requirement consequences since the reactor would operate at the same level to
maintain power levels for steam or electrical production. Construction and operation of a
Phased APT would have similar wetlands impacts as described for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Construction impacts to wetlands could be avoided by siting
facilities in areas away from wetland habitat, and implementing effective soil erosion and
sediment control measures. The use of detention ponds would reduce the impact of
discharges to wetlands associated with Fourmile Branch. Any unavoidable impacts would be
mitigated according to DOE policy set forth in 10 CFR 1022 and in accordance with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers requirements. All effluent discharges to wetlands would be
regulated through the provisions of an NPDES permit.
Aquatic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.5 would continue at SRS.
This would result in no change to current aquatic conditions at the site. However, the
continued shutdown of K-, L-, and P-Reactors would allow continued recovery of aquatic
habitat along Steel Creek and Pen Branch corridor and a reduction in entrainment and
impingement impacts.
Tritium Supply. Stormwater runoff during construction of an HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT at
SRS could cause temporary water quality changes in Fourmile Branch, Pen Branch, and in
Carolina bays. Increased turbidity could impact some fish spawning and feeding habitats.
Fish populations would probably move to less disturbed areas of the stream and recolo-
nize disturbed areas shortly after construction is complete and water quality improves.
Construction of intake and discharge facilities would result in the temporary loss of
habitat in the affected water bodies.
During construction, wastewater would be discharged to Fourmile Branch. These discharges
would be minimal (section 4.6.3.4) and would not be expected to affect aquatic resources.
Dewatering discharge from an MHTGR or APT could, without mitigation, result in increases
in stream flow. Impacts to aquatic resources could result from streambed scouring, sedi-
mentation and flooding, and could include changes in existing plant and animal
communities. Directing dewatering discharge to Par Pond would preclude impacts to Fourmile
Branch. Because Par Pond currently receives makeup water in order to maintain its present
level, the addition of dewatering discharge would not impact the pond and, in fact, would
lessen the makeup water requirements. The rate at which water is released from Par Pond to
Lower Three Runs Creek would not change and therefore not affect the aquatic resources in
the stream.
Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would withdraw water from the Savannah River.
The volume of water withdrawn represents a small percentage of the average flow of the
river and would not affect its flow (section 4.6.3.4). However, an increase in entrainment
and impingement of fish could occur. Based on previous studies for a large tritium produc-
tion reactor at SRS (DOE1992e:5-218) and monitoring of past SRS operations (WSRC
1989e:4-506), fish populations should not be adversely affected by entrainment losses from
operation of a new tritium supply facility. Similarly, impingement losses should not
adversely impact fish populations. Studies have shown that SRS operations have a low rate
of impingement relative to power plants operating in the southeastern United States
(DOE 1992e:5-218; WSRC 1989e:4-506). Impact to anadromous fish (e.g., striped bass and
several species of shad) due to entrainment and impingement, would also be relatively low
and would not adversely affect their populations. In compliance with the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act, populations of anadromous fish species on or near SRS would be sustained
and their movement unobstructed by project construction and operation.
During operation, nonhazardous wastewater would be discharged to Fourmile Branch. Flow
increases are not expected to adversely impact stream hydrology (section 4.6.3.4).
Discharge of water from cooling system blowdown from an HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, or APT would be
directed to either Fourmile Branch or Par Pond. Without mitigation, intermittent dis-
charges of large volumes of water from blowdowns would greatly increase the flow rate of
Fourmile Branch (section 4.6.3.4), causing flooding and stream bed scouring. These
discharges could alter the aquatic ecosystem by displacing existing plant and animal
communities. Previous studies for a large tritium production reactor indicated that water
temperatures of discharges were expected to be within the thermal tolerance limits of
native warm water fish species. The temperature of water from blowdown discharges were
also expected to be within normal water temperatures for each season and were not expected
to alter the distribution or abundance of aquatic organisms in receiving waters. However,
the temperature of blowdown water discharged to Fourmile Branch was predicted to exceed
the maximum temperature differential of 2.8C between effluent and receiving stream during
the cooler months of the year. Such an exceedance would require a Section 316(a)
demonstration of a balanced biotic community (DOE 1992e:5-219).
Discharge of blowdown to Par Pond would have no adverse flow impacts since the reservoir
currently receives makeup water at rates greater than the predicted discharge rate for
potential tritium supply technologies. In fact, projected discharges could reduce the need
for makeup water for Par Pond. Thermal impacts to Par Pond would not be expected since
discharged water would pass through a series of precooling ponds designed to meet the
State of South Carolina requirements for thermal releases to Class B waters; however, the
recovery of the precooling ponds from past thermal discharges would be affected.
Regardless of the location of the outfall, all discharges would be required to meet NPDES
requirements.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Upgrading the tritium recycling facility would have no impact
on aquatic resources because all construction activities would take place within existing
structures. Normal operation of the upgraded facility would not impact aquatic resources
because liquid effluents would not be relegated to site streams.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would have similar impacts to aquatic resources as described above
for the baseline tritium production requirement. However, operation of the HWR at reduced
capacity would potentially reduce the volume and temperature of cooling water discharges
and may result in less aquatic resource impacts. The MHTGR or ALWR related aquatic
resource impacts would not change from the baseline tritium production requirements
consequences since the reactor would operate at the same level to maintain power levels
for steam or electrical production. Construction and operation of a Phased APT would
have similar aquatic resource impacts as described for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Impacts to aquatic resources could be mitigated by
implementing a soil erosion and sediment control plan to reduce turbidity, and through the
use of discharge detention ponds, avoid large increases in the rate of stream flow. Intake
structures could be designed and operated to reduce intake flow rates, thereby reducing
impingement and entrainment losses.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action. Under No Action, the missions described in section 3.3.5 would continue, with
no change in impacts to threatened and endangered species at SRS.
Tritium Supply Facility. Special status species that would potentially be impacted by the
construction of a tritium supply facility include the awned meadow-beauty (Federal
candidate, Category 2), green-fringed orchid, eastern tiger salamander (state, species of
concern), Florida false loosestrife, beak-rush, star-nosed mole, and Cooper's hawk (state,
undetermined). If present, individuals of each of these species could be destroyed, except
the Cooper's hawk which could be temporarily displaced during construction. A pre-activity
survey would be required prior to construction to determine the occurrences of these and
other special status species including the Federal-listed smooth purple coneflower (see
table 4.6.2.6-1).
Impacts to special status species during facility operations would be minimal. The
short-nosed sturgeon (Federal, endangered) has been observed in the Savannah River where
cooling water would be withdrawn. Sturgeon eggs tend to sink and are strongly adhesive
and gelatinous, which limits their downstream transport and dispersal through the water
column. Thus, sturgeon eggs do not have a high entrainment risk. The preference of
sturgeon larva for benthic habitat and the ability of juvenile and adult sturgeon to
attain swimming speeds above the water intake velocity demonstrate the unlikelihood of
impingement losses of this species (DOE1992e:5-222). Cooling system blowdown discharged
to Fourmile Branch could cause an increase in stream depth which could disrupt the
foraging activities of the wood stork (Federal, endangered).
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Upgrading the tritium recycling facilities would not impact
threatened and endangered species since all construction activities would take place
within existing structures. Normal operation of the upgraded facilities would not
adversely effect threatened and endangered species.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR at reduced tritium
production capacity would be expected to result in similar impacts to threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species as described for the baseline tritium production require-
ment. Construction and operation of a Phased APT also would have similar impacts on the
Federal-listed, Federal candidate, and state-listed species discussed above for the
baseline tritium production requirement.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Disturbance of threatened, endangered, and special status
species would be avoided where possible. Land clearing could be scheduled to avoid the
nesting season of protected bird species. Where appropriate, a habitat restoration or
propagation program could be attempted for plants when their disturbance is unavoidable.
Potential impacts to the foraging activities of the wood stork could be mitigated by the
use of detention ponds to control the cooling system blowdown discharge flow rate and
avoid drastic stream depth increases. An alternative measure would be to direct cooling
system blowdown water to Par Pond.
A biological assessment describing the impacts to Federal-listed species resulting from
the proposed development of a tritium supply technology at SRS was previously submitted to
the USFWS for evaluation. Further consultation with the USFWS would be required if SRS
is selected as the location for the tritium supply facility and, if necessary, a detailed
plan to mitigate impacts to Federal-listed threatened and endangered species at SRS would
be developed. Currently, no critical habitat has been designated for threatened and
endangered species at SRS.

4.6.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance
during construction, building modifications, visual intrusion of the project to the
historic setting or environmental context, visual and audio intrusions to Native American
resources, reduced access to traditional use areas, and unauthorized artifact collecting
and vandalism. Intensive cultural resources surveys and site evaluations have not been
conducted for the majority of the proposed TSS. Site-specific surveys and evaluations
would be conducted in conjunction with tiered NEPA document. Although the location and
acreage for the proposed tritium supply facilities will vary, their potential effects on
cultural and paleontological resources are based primarily on the amount of ground
disturbance; therefore, the facilities with the greatest ground disturbance will have the
greatest potential effect on cultural and paleontological resources. Three NRHP-eligible
historic sites and some important Native American resources may be affected by the
proposed action. Effects to prehistoric and paleontological resources will be negligible.
Multipurpose Reactor. Total land requirements for the MHTGR and ALWR multipurpose reactors
would be 931 and 691 acres, respectively. NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites,
Native American resources, and paleontological resources may occur within these acreages
and may be affected by the construction of a multipurpose reactor. Paleontological
resources are limited at SRS to common assemblages with relatively low research potential;
therefore, impacts are expected to be limited. In general, impacts to prehistoric and
historic resources and Native American resources would be similar to, but potentially
greater than, those described for the tritium supply and recycling facility.
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at SRS. Any
impacts to prehistoric and historic resources from these missions would be independent of
and unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply. Land disturbance for the proposed tritium supply facilities (section 3.4)
would range from 360acres for the MHTGR to 173 acres for the smallest facility (APT)
(section 4.6.3.1). Acreages for the HWR and ALWR would be 260 and 350, respectively. Three
NRHP-eligible historic sites occur within the acreage that would be disturbed during
construction. No NRHP-eligible prehistoric sites occur. Any project-related effects to
NRHP-eligible resources will be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Because operation
of facilities does not involve additional ground disturbance or increased activity,
prehistoric or historic sites would not be affected.
Less Than Baseline Operations. No change in impacts to prehistoric and historic resources
would be expected from operating the HWR at reduced capacity. Impacts for the MHTGR or
ALWR would also not change from that described for the baseline requirement because the
MHTGR or ALWR would not be a reduced size or operate at reduced capacity.
Construction and operation of the Phased APT would not change the expected impacts from
the baseline tritium requirement since the disturbed area would be the same.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Because the upgrade of tritium recycling facilities does not
involve ground disturbance, increased activity, or external building modifications,
prehistoric and historic sites would not be affected.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. In the event that a tritium supply technology and new
recycling facility is constructed at a site other than SRS, the existing tritium recycling
mission would be phased out at SRS. The existing tritium facilities would remain in place
following phaseout; therefore, no onsite impacts to prehistoric or historic resources are
expected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible sites cannot be avoided through project
design or siting, then the potential exists for an adverse effect. A Programmatic
Memorandum of Agreement exists between the DOE, the South Carolina SHPO, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for implementing the Archaeological Resources Management
Plan. The plan describes intensive inventory and evaluation studies, data recovery plans,
site treatments, and monitoring programs to be conducted if NRHP-eligible resources would
be adversely affected. Mitigation measures for specific NRHP-eligible sites would be
identified during preparation of tiered NEPA documents.
Native American Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at SRS. Any
impacts to Native American resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply. Some Native American resources may occur within the acreages to be
disturbed during construction of the tritium supply facilities. These Native American
resources could include villages, traditional plant gathering areas, cemeteries, and
burials. Operation of facilities may create audio or visual intrusions on Native
American sacred sites in the vicinity or reduce access to traditional use areas. Specific
concerns about the presence, type, and locations of Native American resources would be
identified through consultation with the potentially affected Native American tribes, and
any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documents.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Impacts to Native American resources would not change due
to less than baseline operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR. Construction and operation of
a Phased APT would have similar impacts on Native American resources as those described
for the baseline tritium requirement Full APT.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Because the upgrade of tritium recycling facilities does not
involve ground disturbance or increased activity, Native American resources would not be
affected.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Because phaseout of tritium recycling capabilities does not
involve ground disturbance or increased activity, Native American resources would not be
affected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. If Native American resources cannot be avoided through
project design and siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to lessen the effect on
these resources would be determined in consultation with potentially affected Native
Indian groups. In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, such mitigations may include, but not
be limited to, appropriate relocation of human remains, planting vegetation screens to
reduce visual and noise intrusions, increasing access to traditional use areas during
operation, or transplanting or harvesting important Native American plant resources.
Paleontological Resources
No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at SRS. Any
impacts to paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and
unaffected by the proposed action.
Tritium Supply. Fossiliferous geological formations with surface exposures occur within
areas designated for the proposed tritium supply facilities. All known paleontological
materials consist of relatively common and widespread invertebrate fossils, and these
assemblages have relatively low research potential. Consequently, while there may be
effects on paleontological resources, impacts would be considered negligible for all the
proposed tritium supply technologies at SRS.
Less than Baseline Operations. No change in impact to paleontological resources would be
expected due to reduced operation of the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR. Construction of a Phased APT
would have the same impact on paleontological resources as the Full APT.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Because the upgrade of tritium recycling facilities does not
involve ground disturbance or increased activity, paleontological resources would not be
affected.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Because phaseout of tritium recycling facilities does not
involve ground disturbance or increased activity, paleontological resources would not be
affected.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Because impacts to paleontological resources would by
negligible, no mitigation measures are necessary.

4.6.3.8 Socioeconomics
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies and upgrading the existing recycling
facilities at SRS would affect socioeconomics in the region. Section 3.2 provides
descriptions for No Action, the tritium supply technologies with the tritium recycling
facilities upgrade, and the phaseout of the tritium recycling mission. Each of these
actions would create changes in some of the communities in both the ROI and the regional
economic area.
If tritium supply technology is located with the recycling facility at SRS, the
in-migrating population could increase the demand for housing units. Additionally, there
would be an associated increased burden on community infrastructure and subsequent effects
on the public finances of local governments in the ROI. The increase of population could
also burden transportation routes in the ROI.
Phaseout of the tritium recycling mission at SRS would also adversely affect the ROI
through outmigration, housing vacancies, and unemployment. There would be a reduction in
the demand for community services and infrastructure, but there would also be reductions
in tax revenues.
During the construction period, the greater changes in socioeconomic characteristics would
result from the ALWR and APT. During operation, the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would exhibit
similar characteristics. The APT would result in the smallest changes during operation.
None of these tritium supply technologies would increase population, the need for
additional housing, or local government spending in the ROI beyond 3 percent over No
Action during peak construction or operation. Although the greatest percent increases in
employment, population and housing, and public finance during construction and operation
occur in the peakyears of 2005 and 2010, respectively, the annual average increases in the
ROI over the construction period (2001 to 2005) are between 1percent and 2percent and less
than 1percent during operation (2010 to 2050). Between peak construction (2005) and full
operation (2010), average annual growth varies from decreases of 1percent to increases of
1percent.
The effects of locating any of the tritium supply technologies and upgrading existing
recycling facilities at SRS are summarized in section 4.6.3. The following sections
describe the effects that locating one of these technologies or phasing out the tritium
recycling mission would have on the local region's economy and employment, population,
housing, public finances, and local transportation.
Employment and Local Economy
Changes in employment and levels of economic activity in the 26-county regional economic
area from the proposed siting of tritium supply technologies and tritium recycling
facilities upgrade or phaseout of the tritium recycling mission at SRS are described in
this section. Although specialized personnel, materials, and services required for con-
struction and operation would be imported from outside the area, a significant portion of
these requirements would be available in this regional economic area. Figures 4.6.3.8-1
through 4.6.3.8-3 present the potential changes in employment and local economy that would
occur with all of the technologies and recycling facilities upgrade and tritium
recycling phaseout.
No Action. Under No Action, employment at SRS decreased to approximately 20,300 persons in
1994. This is a decrease of about 2,000 persons from the 1990 employment. SRS employment
is projected to total almost 16,900 persons in 2010 and remain at this level through 2020.
Historical and future employment projections at SRS are presented in appendix table
D.2.1-1. The total SRS payroll was approximately $1.23 billion in 1994 and is projected to
total $1.09 billion in 2010.
Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow less than 1 percent
annually between 2001 and 2005, reaching approximately 559,900 persons, and to decrease by
less than 1percent annually between 2010 and 2020, reaching 564,500 persons. The
unemployment rate in the regional economic area is expected to remain at 4.8percent
between 2001 and 2020. Per capita income is projected to increase from $18,300 to $21,000
during this 20-year period. No Action estimates are presented in appendix table D.3-73.
Tritium Supply and Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Construction activities would begin
between 2001 and 2003 and would be completed between 2007 and 2009. Upgrade of the tritium
recycling facilities is expected to be completed between 2004 and 2007. Phasing in of
employment for the operation of the tritium supply and the upgraded recycling facilities
would begin in 2007 or 2009, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue at this level
into the future.
Locating any of the tritium supply technologies and upgrading the tritium recycling
facilities at SRS would create new jobs (direct) at the site. Additional indirect job
opportunities, such as community support services, would also be created in the regional
economic area as a result of these new jobs. The total new jobs (direct and indirect)
created would reduce unemployment and increase income in the economic region surrounding
SRS during both the construction and operation periods of the proposed action.
Construction. Siting a tritium supply technology and upgrading the tritium recycling
facilities at SRS would require a total of approximately 6,470 to 12,700 worker-years of
activity over a 5- to 9-year construction period. This construction-related employment
would indirectly create other jobs in the regional economic area and total employment
would grow at an annual average rate of 1 percent, until the peak year of 2005. Between
peak construction (2005) and full operation (2010), average annual growth in employment
would increase by much less than 1 percent for all of the tritium supply technologies
and recycling facilities upgrade. Figure 4.6.3.8-1 gives the estimates of total
project-related jobs (direct and indirect) that would be created during peak construction
(year 2005) for each of the tritium supply technologies with the tritium recycling facili-
ties upgrade.
As employment opportunities would increase in the regional economic area due to the
proposed action, the unemployment rate would be reduced from the No Action estimate of 4.8
percent. Figure 4.6.3.8-2 presents a comparison of unemployment rates for the different
tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities upgrade during peak construction in
2005. During the project's peak construction phase, the unemployment rate would range from
a high of 4 to 3.9 percent, depending upon the tritium supply technology selected.
Income in the regional economic area would also increase, particularly during peak
construction as shown in figure 4.6.3.8-2. Per capita income is expected to increase
slightly at an annual average of about 1 percent until the peak year of construction,
2005. Between 2005 and 2010, annual average growth in per capita income is also expected
to increase by 1 percent for all of the tritium supply technologies. In comparison, under
No Action, per capita income is expected to increase 1 percent annually during both
periods.
Operation. Siting a tritium supply technology would help offset the employment and income
losses at SRS from the approximately 2,000 jobs lost between 1990 and 1994. The upgrade of
tritium recycling would not create any additional facilities jobs at SRS. Employment for
operation would begin phasing in as construction nears completion and the construction-
related employment begins phasing out. It is expected that full operation employment would
peak in 2010 and continue at this level into the future. Figure 4.6.3.8-1 gives the total
project-related jobs projections (direct and indirect) for each of the tritium supply
technologies with the upgrade of the tritium recycling facilities for the year 2010.
Annual average growth in total employment would be flat between 2010 and 2020, similar to
the No Action annual average growth rate.
Creation of additional job opportunities would also reduce the unemployment rate below
that projected for No Action. Figure 4.6.3.8-2 presents the differences in unemployment
rates during the first year of full operation employment (2010) for each of the tritium
supply technologies with the upgraded tritium recycling facilities. From 2010 to 2020,
unemployment would be reduced from the No Action projection of 4.8 percent to between
4.6 and 4.5percent, depending upon the technology selected for the proposed action.
Income would also increase slightly in the regional economic area as a result of the
proposed action. Per capita income differences for tritium supply technologies with the
upgraded tritium recycling facilities for the year 2010 are given in figure 4.6.3.8-2. Per
capita income annual average increases would be about 1 percent between 2010 to 2020 for
any of the tritium supply technologies located with the recycling facilities upgrade at
SRS. The No Action projected annual average increase during the same period would also be
approximately 1 percent.
Figure (Page 4-432)
Figure 4.6.3.8-1.-Total Project-Related Employment (Direct and Indirect) and Percentage
Increase Over No Action from Tritium Supply Technologies with Recycling Upgrade for
Savannah River Site Regional Economic Area.
Figure (Page 4-433)
Figure 4.6.3.8-2.-Unemployment Rate, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Increase Over No
Action from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade for Savannah River Site
Regional Economic
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phasing out the tritium recycling mission at SRS would result
in the loss of 800 total jobs (300 direct and 500 indirect). The unemployment rate in the
regional economic area would increase from a No Action estimate of 4.8 percent to 4.9
percent. Also as a result of phasing out the tritium recycling mission, per capita income
in the regional economic area would be reduced by approximately $20. Effects on employment
and income from phasing out the tritium recycling mission in 2010 are provided in figure
4.6.3.8-3.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Tritium supply technologies that provide less than the
baseline tritium operation capacities are described in section 3.1. These options may or
may not be collocated with the tritium recycling facilities. The options include lowering
the power in the HWR, using fewer target rods in the MHTGR or ALWR, and the phased
approach for the APT.
Construction. The less than baseline operations case for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR would
have the same construction workforce requirements as discussed in the tritium supply and
recycling upgrade section. Therefore, employment and economic effects in the region would
be the same.
The Phased APT would require the same total number of construction workers as the Full
APT, but the construction period would span from 1999 to 2008 instead of from 2003 to
2007. Additionally, peak construction would occur in 2003 instead of 2005. The effects on
the regional economic area's employment, unemployment rate, and per capita income as a
result of constructing the Phased APT with the tritium recycling upgrade are presented in
appendix table D.3-74. Generally, average annual increases in employment and income are
lower than the Full APT, but these increases are over a longer period of time. These
increases are between 1 and 2percent, the same as the No Action estimates.
Operation. Operation workforce requirements for the less than baseline case for the HWR,
MHTGR, ALWR, and the Phased APT would be the same as those described in the tritium supply
and recycling upgrade section. Thus, regional employment and economic effects would be the
same.
Multipurpose Reactor. Construction activities for the multipurpose reactor would begin in
2001 and would be completed by 2009. Phasing in of employment for the operation of the
multipurpose reactor would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and continue at
that level into the future. Because this option would perform three processes, it would
result in greater changes in employment and local economy characteristics than any of the
four tritium supply technologies.
Construction. Siting the multipurpose reactor and upgrading tritium recycling at SRS would
require 18,240 worker-years of activity over a 9-year period. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of the
multipurpose reactor and tritium recycling upgrade are presented in appendix table
D.3-74a. From the first year of construction to the peak year (2005), average annual
increases in employment and per capita income would be 2percent. Between 2005 and 2010,
employment growth would be flat and per capita income would increase on an annual average
of 1 percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction for this option would be 3.9
percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the multipurpose reactor would begin phasing in
toward the end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full
employment is expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment char-
acteristics, unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of
the multipurpose reactor and tritium recycling upgrade are presented in appendix table
D.3-74a. During operation annual employment growth would be flat and annual average growth
in per capita income would be less than 1 percent. The unemployment rate for the
multipurpose reactor with the recycling upgrade would be 4.2 percent.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Construction activities for the APT power
plant would begin in 2003 and would be completed by 2007. Phasing in of employment for the
operation of the APT power plant would begin in 2007, peak at full employment by 2010, and
continue at that level into the future. This option is similar to the APT with an addition
of a gas power plant. The changes in employment and local economy would be similar, but
greater than those resulting from the APT.
Figure (Page 4-435)
Figure 4.6.3.8-3.-Total Employment, Unemployment Rate, and Per Capita Income for No Action
and Tritium Recycling Phaseout for Savannah River Site Regional Economic Area, 2010.
Construction. Siting this option with an upgraded recycling facility at SRS would require
6,700worker-years of activity over a 5-year period. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during construction of this
option are presented in appendix table D.3-74a. From the first year of construction to the
peak year (2005), average annual increases in employment and per capita income would be
1percent. Between 2005 and 2010, employment and per capita income would increase on an
annual average of 1 percent. The unemployment rate during peak construction for this
option with or without a recycling facility would be 3.8 percent.
Operation. Operation employment for the APT power plant would begin phasing in toward the
end of the construction period and reach full employment in 2010. Full employment is
expected to be maintained for the life of the facility. Employment characteristics,
unemployment rates, and per capita income characteristics during operation of the APT
power plant with the tritium recycling upgrade are presented in appendix table D.3-74a.
During operation annual employment growth would be flat and average annual growth in per
capita income would be 1 percent. The unemployment rate for the APT power plant with the
recycling upgrade would be 4.6 percent.
Population and Housing
Changes to ROI population and housing expected from the proposed location of a tritium
supply technology and the upgraded tritium recycling facility at SRS are described in
this section. If a tritium supply technology is located at SRS, additional population
could be expected to in-migrate to the SRS region, and these people would be expected to
reside in cities and counties within the ROI in the same relative proportion as the
existing population. Increases in population could lead to a demand for additional
housing units beyond existing vacant housing available during construction or operation
phases of the proposed action. Alternatively, the phaseout of the tritium recycling
mission could lead to population out-migration and an increase in housing vacancies in the
ROI. Figures 4.6.3.8-4 through 4.6.3.8-6 present the changes in population and housing for
the tritium supply technologies and tritium recycling facilities and tritium recycling
phaseout.
No Action. Population and housing annual average increases between 2001 and 2005 are
projected to be less than 1 percent. Future annual average increases are also projected to
be less than 1 percent between 2005 and 2010. Population in the ROI is estimated to reach
454,900 in 2010 and 473,000 in 2020. Total housing units in the ROI are estimated to reach
181,400 in 2010 and 188,400 in 2020. No Action estimates are presented in appendix tables
D.3-75 and D.3-77.
Tritium Supply and Tritium Recycling Upgrade. The location of a tritium supply technology
and upgraded tritium recycling facility would increase population and housing demands in
the ROI slightly (2 percent) over No Action projections during peak construction. The
effects are expected to be fewer (much less than 1 percent) during the operation phase of
the proposed action.
Construction. Construction activities would be phased over a 5- to 9-year period. Figure
4.6.3.8-4 illustrates that during peak construction (2005), the ALWR and APT would create
the largest population and housing demand increases over No Action, and the HWR and MHGTR
would have the least effects. The increase in population could require some additional
housing units beyond what are currently available in the existing housing mix. However,
any requirements for additional housing units in the ROI would be at annual average
increases of 1 percent in the first 3years of construction of the ALWR. Between 2005 and
2010, population annual average growth in the ROI would be flat. The other tritium supply
technologies would have annual average population and housing demand growth of less than
1percent. Therefore, there would not be any major effects on any of the ROI communities.
Figure (Page 4-437)
Figure 4.6.3.8-4.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action During
Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade for Savannah
River Site Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-438)
Figure 4.6.3.8-5.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Increase Over No Action at Full
Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade for Savannah River Site
Region of Influence, 2010.
Operation. Operation of tritium supply technology and upgraded tritium recycling
facilities is expected to reach full employment by 2010. In-migrating population is
expected to demand housing units similar to the existing housing mix in the ROI. Figure
4.6.3.8-5 shows that population increases and potential demand for additional housing
units over No Action projections are almost negligible (much less than 1 percent) in this
peak year. Given that the operations of the proposed action would be phased in over a
4-year period, it is expected that existing vacancies would absorb much of this new demand
and that No Action requirements would be exceeded by very few units. The upgrade of
tritium recycling facilities would not contribute to population growth.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phasing out the tritium recycling mission at SRS would result
in the loss of 800 jobs (300 direct and 500 indirect). Annual average growth in population
and housing resulting from the phaseout would be the same as No Action. Effects on
population and housing from this phaseout are presented in figure 4.6.3.8-6.
Less Than Baseline Operations. Population increases and housing demands would be the same
or lower during construction and operation of tritium supply technologies operated at less
than baseline tritium requirements than the alternatives discussed in the tritium supply
and recycling upgrade section.
Construction. Population increases and housing demands would be the same as those given in
figure 4.6.3.8-4 for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR. The Phased APT will increase population and
housing demand during construction to the same level as the Full APT, but this will occur
over a longer construction period with lower average annual increases (much less than 1
percent). Also, the peak construction year would be 2003 instead of 2005. The effects of
the Phased APT with the recycling upgrade on population and housing are given in appendix
tables D.3-76 and D.3-78, respectively.
Operation. The effects on population and housing of operating the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR and
Phased APT at less than baseline tritium requirements would be the same as those given in
figure 4.6.3.8-5.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with an upgraded recycling
facility at SRS would not increase population and housing demands more than 4 percent over
No Action projections during the construction period and 1 percent during operation.
Construction. Because this option would perform three processes, it would result in
greater changes in population and housing characteristics than any of the four tritium
supply technologies. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from the
multipurpose reactor with the tritium recycling upgrade are presented in appendix tables
D.3-76a and D.3-78a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be at an annual
average rate of 1 percent until 2005 and would be flat between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the multipurpose reactor would be reached by 2010.
As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-76a and D.3-78a, potential demand for housing
units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full employment. It is expected
that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as employment would be phased
in from 2007 through 2010.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with the
recycling facility upgrade at SRS would not increase population and housing demands more
than 2 percent over No Action projections during the construction period and 1 percent
during operation.
Construction. This option is similar to the APT with an addition of a gas power plant. The
changes in population and housing demands would be similar, but greater than those
resulting from the APT. Changes to population and housing characteristics resulting from
APT power plant with the recycling upgrade are presented in appendix tables D.3-76a and
D.3-78a. Population and housing growth in the ROI would be at an annual average rate of 1
percent until 2005 and would be flat between 2005 and 2010.
Operation. Full employment levels for the accelerator production of tritium power plant
would be reached by 2010. As illustrated in appendix tables D.3-76a and D.3-78a, potential
demand for housing units would be less than 1 percent in the first year of full
employment. It is expected that existing vacancies would absorb most of this new demand as
employment would be phased in from 2007 through 2010.
Public Finance
Fiscal changes could occur in some ROI local jurisdictions from the proposed action.
Factors influencing these changes include residence of project-related employees and
their dependents, cost and duration of construction, and economic conditions in the ROI
once the tritium supply and upgraded recycling facilities are operational.
Figure (Page 4-440)
Figure 4.6.3.8-6.-Total Population and Housing Percentage Decrease Under No Action from
Tritium Recycling Phaseout for Savannah River Site Region of Influence, 2010.
Implementing the proposed action at SRS would increase population, resulting in more
revenues for ROI local jurisdictions. Additional population would also increase public
service expenditures.
Phaseout of the tritium recycling mission could result in a decrease in total revenues due
to the outmigration of workers and their dependents. These revenue reductions may
require the cities, counties, and school districts in the ROI to develop alternative
revenue sources or reduce expenditures. Figures 4.6.3.8-7 through 4.6.3.8-12 present the
potential fiscal changes that would occur with the different tritium supply technologies
and the upgraded tritium recycling facilities and with the phaseout of the tritium
recycling mission.
No Action. Appendix tables D.3-79 and D.3-80 present the 1992 public finances for ROI
local jurisdictions. Appendix tables D.3-81 through D.3-84, present the impacts from the
tritium supply technologies and upgraded recycling facilities compared to No Action
construction and operation for the local counties, cities, and school districts. Between
2001 and 2005, ROI counties, cities, and school districts are projected to increase total
revenues on an annual average of less than 1 percent. Total expenditures are also
projected to increase on an annual average of less than 1 percent for ROI counties,
cities, and school districts between 2001 and 2005. Additionally, between 2005 and 2010,
total revenues and expenditures are expected to increase annually by less than 1 percent.
Between 2010 and 2020, projected annual average increases in total revenues are less than
1 percent for counties, cities, and school districts in the ROI. Total expenditures are
also projected to increase on an average by less than 1 percent or less for ROI
jurisdictions between 2010 and 2020.
Tritium Supply and Tritium Recycling Upgrade. The proposed action at SRS would create some
fiscal benefits to local jurisdictions within the ROI. Some local government finances
would be affected during the construction and operation phases of the proposed action.
Construction-related effects on revenues and expenditures could span a 5- to 9-year period
with the peak occurring in 2005. The effects of the operation phase would peak in 2010 and
remain at this level throughout the life of the proposed action.
Figure (Page 4-441)
Figure 4.6.3.8-7.-County and City Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Decrease from
No Action for the Tritium Recycling Phaseout for Savannah River Site Region of Influence,
2010.
Construction. The public finances of counties, cities, and school districts within the ROI
would be affected by the construction-related activities associated with the proposed
action. Initially, there would be slight increases to some local government jurisdictions'
revenues and expenditures, which would peak in 2005 and then decline as construction
neared completion. Figures 4.6.3.8-8 and 4.6.3.8-10 present the revenue and expenditure
changes of ROI local government jurisdictions and school districts over No Action during
peak construction for the four tritium supply technologies with the upgraded tritium
recycling facilities. Under the No Action estimates, local government revenues would
increase at an annual average of 1 percent, and most local government expenditures would
increase annually by 1 percent. Between 2005 and 2010 under these two scenarios, revenues
and expenditures would grow less than 1percent annually. With the ALWR, revenues and
expenditures would increase between 4 percent to less than 1 percent in the first 3years
of construction. After the peak construction year, annual average growth in revenues and
expenditures would be flat until 2010. With the HWR, MHTGR, and APT revenues and
expenditures would increase annually less than 1 percent between 2002 and 2005 and then
grow annually much less than 1 percent until 2010.
Operation. The effects of phasing in operation together with the phasing out of
construction on ROI local government finances would be fewer than the effects at peak or
full operation (2010). The effects that the four tritium supply technologies and the
upgraded tritium recycling facilities would have on county, city, and school district
revenues and expenditures are presented in figures 4.6.3.8-5 and 4.6.3.8-11. The upgrade
of recycling facilities would not contribute to revenue and expenditure increases. Between
2010 and 2020, revenues are expected to increase slightly at an average annual rate of
less than 1 percent for all jurisdictions. Expenditures also would increase to the year
2020 at an annual average of less than 1 percent. No Action local government revenues
would also increase at an average annual rate of less than 1percent, and expenditures for
most ROI local governments would grow annually at less than 1percent.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phasing out the tritium recycling mission at SRS would result
in a decrease in total revenues due to out-migration. The projected decreases in total
revenues from baseline conditions are less than 1 percent for all ROI counties, cities,
and school districts. Total expenditures would also decrease by less than 1 percent for
all ROI jurisdictions. Effects on public finance from phasing out the tritium recycling
mission are provided in figures 4.6.3.8-7 and 4.6.3.8-12.
Figure (Page 4-442)
Figure 4.6.3.8-8.-County and City Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over No
Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade for
Savannah River Site Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-443)
Figure 4.6.3.8-9.-County and City Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase Over No
Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade for
Savannah River Site Region of Influence, 2010.
Figure (Page 4-444)
Figure 4.6.3.8-10.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase
Over No Action During Peak Construction from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
Upgrade for Savannah River Site Region of Influence, 2005.
Figure (Page 4-445)
Figure 4.6.3.8-11.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Increase
Over No Action at Full Operation from Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade
for Savannah River Site Region of Influence, 2010.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The fiscal benefits that local jurisdictions would accrue
from the location of a tritium supply technology alone or collocated with recycling would
be the same or less if the tritium supply technology is operated at less than baseline
tritium requirements.
Construction. Increases in local jurisdictions' revenues and expenditures would be the
same as those given in figures 4.6.3.8-8 and 4.6.3.8-10 if the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR is
built. If the Phased APT is constructed, the effects would peak in 2003 instead of 2005,
and increases would be on an annual average lower. Appendix tables D.3-81 through D.3-84
give the revenue and expenditure changes as a result of constructing the Phased APT with
the tritium recycling upgrade for all ROI jurisdictions.
Operation. Operation of the HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and Phased APT at less than baseline tritium
requirements would have the same effects on local jurisdictions' finances as those
presented in figures 4.6.3.8-5 and 4.6.3.8-11.
Multipurpose Reactor. Locating the multipurpose reactor with the tritium recycling upgrade
at SRS would create greater changes in public finance characteristics than the four
tritium supply technologies because this option would perform three processes. Public
finance characteristics for the multipurpose reactor with the upgrade are presented in
appendix tables D.3-81a through D.3-84a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually by 1 percent. Between 2005
and 2010, growth of revenues and expenditures would generally be flat for most
jurisdictions.
Figure (Page 4-446)
Figure 4.6.3.8-12.-School District Total Revenues and Expenditures Percentage Decrease
Under No Action from the Tritium Recycling Phaseout for Savannah River Site Region of
Influence, 2010.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, revenues and expenditures
are generally expected to increase by less than 1 percent for most cities, counties, and
school districts.
Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant. Locating the APT power plant with the
tritium recycling upgrade at SRS would create similar, but greater changes in public
finance characteristics than the APT tritium supply technology. Public finance
characteristics for the APT power plant with the upgrade are presented in appendix tables
D.3-81a through D.3 84a.
Construction. Between the first year of construction and the peak year, 2005, revenues and
expenditures in the local jurisdictions would increase annually between 1 and 3 percent.
Between 2005 and 2010, growth of revenues and expenditures would be flat for most
jurisdictions.
Operation. From the first year of full operation, 2010, to 2020, growth in revenues and
expenditures is generally expected to increase by less than 1percent for most cities,
counties, and school districts.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Adding new missions to SRS would create new jobs and
generally benefit the local economy through increased earnings in the ROI. Some mitigation
measures may be required, such as Federal aid to local school districts where additional
school age children would attend as a result of the proposed action. These new missions at
SRS would increase population and the demand for additional housing units. Temporary
housing units and mobile homes would help to alleviate the demand for new housing during
the construction phase of the proposed action. Generally, construction would be phased
over a 5- to 9-year period with peak construction occurring in 2005. Phasing the start of
operation employment and training between 2005 and 2010 would reduce the annual level of
housing demand and smooth the peak and valley effect that would occur between peak
construction and full operation.
Also, if the tritium recycling facilities is consolidated instead of the unconsolidated
upgrade used in this analysis, the effects on population increase and housing demand would
be lower because of reduced workforce requirements. If the tritium recycling mission is
phased out at SRS, and this mission is relocated to another site, unavoidable adverse
economic consequences and out-migration of population would occur. Housing vacancies
would also occur as a result of out-migration. These adverse effects could be reduced if
the tritium recycling mission is phased out over time rather than in the single year 2010.
Although the effects of the tritium recycling mission phaseout to the region would be
small, DOE is concerned about these workers and has developed proposals for mitigating
employment effects. DOE is implementing a comprehensive economic adjustment program for
all DOE facilities that would accomplish Congressional objectives established in the
National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 (Section 3161).
DOE's economic adjustment initiatives aimed at mitigating job reductions include:
Announce workforce changes early in order to spread required layoffs rather than all in
one action.
Work with the local community to help define and obtain funding for economic development
initiatives.
Coordinate with Federal and state agencies to provide retraining assistance. Eligible
defense programs workers could enter retraining programs for new jobs in Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management.
Continue health benefits.
Where appropriate, DOE would offer cash incentives to encourage early retirements or
voluntary separations.
Establish employee and outplacement assistance programs Complex-wide. Employees subject to
layoffs at one site would receive preference for hiring at other sites.
Some of the tritium recycling mission workers could be redeployed to meet other SRS
mission requirements or new missions such as decommissioning and decontamination, or be
transferred to another site where the tritium recycling mission would be located.
Local Transportation
The following is a description of the effects on local transportation resulting from
locating new missions at SRS. Construction and operation of a tritium supply technology
and the upgraded tritium recycling facilities are expected to increase traffic volume and
flow on site access routes.
No Action. Under No Action, the worker population at SRS would not increase. Therefore,
any increases in traffic would not be the result of DOE-related activities at SRS. Access
to the nearest interstate highway is 30 miles via 2-lane roads that pass through congested
and populated areas. Other nearby interstate highways are 50 miles via predominantly
2-lane roads that pass through rural areas and small towns. The ROI would rarely be
affected by winter weather conditions that would restrict access to the site. Traffic
conditions on site access roads would remain as described in section 4.6.2.8.
Tritium Supply and Tritium Recycling Upgrade. Locating any of the tritium supply
technologies with the upgraded tritium recycling facilities at SRS would result in
increases, depending on the technology, of worker population at the site. Traffic
conditions on site access roads leading to and from SRS would worsen due to increased
traffic volume and flow rates. The primary access route to SRS is State Route 125. This
route would carry the greatest increase in traffic from site development. Currently, this
route and secondary branches leading to the various internal areas of SRS are congested
during peak travel time. Locating the MHTGR or ALWR at SRS would have the greatest effect
of the tritium supply technologies on traffic volume and flow (Huber 1990).
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. Phaseout of the tritium recycling mission would decrease
worker population enough to change traffic conditions on site access roads leading to and
from SRS, but this decrease would help reduce traffic volume and flow and improve traffic
conditions only slightly.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The effects on traffic volume and flow would be the same
whether or not the HWR, MHTGR, or ALWR were operated at baseline or less than baseline
tritium requirements. Construction of the Phased APT would increase traffic volume and
flow during the construction phase but less than that for the Full APT.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Mitigation of traffic conditions may be necessary due to
the proposed action at SRS. Mitigation could include the widening and extension of State
Route 125, the primary access route to SRS, as well as possible realignment of roadways
and construction of interchanges at roadway intersections overburdened by increased
vehicle traffic and congestion. In addition, internal access routes connecting State Route
125 with the project area could be upgraded to carry the increased load.

4.6.3.9 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents
This section describes the impacts of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
resulting from either normal operation or accidents at facilities involved with the
tritium supply technologies and recycling at SRS. The section first describes the impacts
from normal operation followed by a description of impacts from facility accidents.
During normal operation at SRS, all tritium supply technologies would result in impacts
that are within regulatory limits. The risk of adverse health effects to the public and to
workers would be small.
For facility accident impacts, the results indicate that for all tritium supply technology
alternatives, the risk of fatal cancers (taking into account both the portability of the
accident and its consequences) from an accidental release of radioactive or hazardous
chemical substances at SRS is low when compared to fatal cancers from all causes, even for
a severe accident.
The impact methodology is described in section 4.1.9. Summaries of the radiological and
chemical impacts associated with normal operation are presented in tables 4.6.3.9-1 and
4.6.3.9-2, respectively. Summaries of impacts associated with postulated accidents are
given in tables 4.6.3.9-3, 4.6.3.9-4, and 4.6.3.9-5. Detailed results are presented in
appendix E for normal operation and appendix F for accidents.
Normal Operation
No Action. The current missions at SRS are described in section 3.3.5. The site has
identified those facilities that will continue to operate and others, if any, which will
become operational by 2010. Based on projected operations, the radiological and chemical
releases for 2010 and beyond were developed and used in the impact assessments.
Radiological Impacts. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-1, No Action would result in a calculated
annual dose of 2.9 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public, which projects to
an estimated fatal cancer risk of 5.7x10-5 from 40years of total site operation. This
annual dose includes a dose from liquid releases of 0.077 mrem and a dose from atmospheric
releases of 2.8 mrem. Both the liquid and atmospheric doses are within radiological
limits, and when combined are 0.91 percent of the natural background radiation dose
received by the average person near SRS.
Table 4.6.3.9-1.-Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting from
Normal Operation of Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Savannah River Site
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling
- No HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small Full APT Phased Tritium Tritium
Action ALWR APT Recycling Recycling
Upgrade Phaseout
Affected Environment - - - - - Helium-3 SILC Helium-3 - -
Target Target Target
System System System
Maximally Exposed Individual
(Public)
Atmospheric Releases
Dose (mrem/yr) 2.8 3.4 3 3.9 3.6 2.5 2.8 2.5 2 0.47
Percent of natural background 0.89 1.1 0.94 1.2 1.1 0.78 0.89 0.78 0.63 0.15
40-year fatal cancer risk 5.6x10-5 6.9x10-5 5.9x10-5 7.8x10-5 7.1x10-5 4.9x10-5 5.6x10-5 4.9x10-5 4.0x10-5 9.4x10-6
Liquid Releases
Dosec (mrem/yr) 0.077 0.16 0.077 0.16 0.26 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077
Percent of natural backgroundd 0.024 0.052 0.024 0.052 0.084 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
40-year fatal cancer risk 1.5x10-6 3.3x10-6 1.5x10-6 3.3x10-6 5.3x10-6 1.5x10-6 1.5x10-6 1.5x10-6 1.5x10-6 1.5x10-6
Atmospheric and Liquid Releasesb
Dosec (mrem/yr) 2.9 3.6 3 4.1 3.7 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.1 0.55
Percent of natural backgroundd 0.91 1.1 0.97 1.3 1.2 0.81 0.91 0.81 0.66 0.17
40-year fatal cancer risk 5.7x10-5 7.2x10-5 6.1x10-5 8.1x10-5 7.5x10-5 5.1x10-5 5.7x10-5 5.1x10-5 4.1x10-5 1.1x10-5
Population Within 50 Miles
Atmospheric and Liquid Releases
Year 2030
Dose (person-rem) 250 300 260 340 310 220 250 220 180 37
Percent of natural backgroundd 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.093 0.11 0.093 0.075 0.016
40-year fatal cancers 4.9 6.1 5.2 6.8 6.2 4.4 4.9 4.4 3.6 0.73
Workers Onsite
Average site worker dosec (mrem/yr) 32 34 33 42 38 33 33 33 4 32
40-year fatal cancer risk 5.2x10-4 5.4x10-4 5.3x10-4 6.7x10-4 6.1x10-4 5.3x10-4 5.3x10-4 5.3x10-4 6.5x10-5 5.2x10-4
Total site workforce dose 480 520 510 650 580 520 522 520 1.6 480
(person-rem/yr)
40-year fatal cancers 7.7 8.3 8.2 10.0 9.3 8.3 8.4 8.3 0.026 7.7
The population dose from total site operation in 2030 was calculated to be 250 person-rem
which projects to an estimated 4.9 fatal cancers from 40years of total site operation. The
population dose includes 0.45 person-rem from liquid releases and 250 person-rem from
atmospheric releases, and would be approximately 0.11 percent of the annual dose received
by the surrounding population from natural background radiation.
The annual average dose to a site worker resulting from No Action would be 32 mrem, which
projects to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 5.2x10-4 from 40years of site operation. The
annual dose to the total site workforce would be 480 person-rem, which projects to an
estimated 7.7 fatal cancers from 40years of total site operation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-2, No Action would result in a
calculated HI of 0.70 and a cancer risk of 3.2x10-5 to the maximally exposed member of the
public. The calculated worker HI would be 1.8 with a cancer risk of 5.9x10-3. The HI value
is within the acceptable regulatory health limits for the maximally exposed member of
the public, but exceeds the EPA action level of 1.0 for the onsite worker, based on EPA's
regulations for public exposure limits and OSHA's regulations for worker exposure
limits. However, recalculating the HI for specific target organs or tissues reduces the
HIs for chemicals with related non-cancer adverse effects. These effects are presented in
appendix table E.3-1. The cancer risks for the maximally exposed member of the public and
the onsite worker at SRS are also in excess of the typical threshold of regulatory concern
of 1x10-6. For details on the derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix table
E.3.4-29 and summary table E.3.4-36.
Tritium Supply and Recycling Upgrade. There will be no radiological releases during the
construction of upgraded tritium recycling facilities that are associated with all
tritium supply technologies under consideration. Limited hazardous chemical releases are
anticipated as a result of construction activities. However, their concentration will be
within the regulated exposure limits and would not result in any adverse health effects.
During normal operation, there would be both radiological and hazardous chemical releases
to the environment and also direct in-plant exposures. The impacts from radiological and
hazardous chemicals from each tritium supply technology are the summations of the
impacts from the various facilities in operation for that technology. The resulting doses
and potential health effects to the public and workers from each technology are described
below.
Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts resulting from normal operation of various
tritium supply technologies and upgraded recycling facilities at SRS are listed in
table 4.6.3.9-1. The supporting analysis is provided in appendix section E.2.8.2.
The doses to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual site operation at SRS
range from 2.5 mrem for both the APT with the helium-3 target and the Phased APT, to 4.1
mrem for the Large ALWR. From 40years of operation, the corresponding risks of fatal
cancer to this individual would range from 5.1x10-5 to 8.1x10-5. As a result of total site
operations in the year 2030, the population doses would range from 220 to 340 person-rem
for the same technologies, respectively. The corresponding numbers of fatal cancers in
this population from 40years of operation would range from 4.4 to 6.8.
Table 4.6.3.9-2.-Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to the Public and Workers Resulting
from Normal Operation at Savannah River Site
Health Impact No Tritium Supply Technologies, -
Action
- - HWR MHTGR ALWR APT Tritium
Recycling
Upgrade
Maximally Exposed
Individual (Public)
Hazard Index 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.71 0.7 2.5x10-6
Cancer risk 3.3x10-5 3.3x10-5 3.3x10-5 3.3x10-5 3.3x10-5 0
Worker Onsite
Hazard Index 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.8x10-5
Cancer risk 5.9x10-3 5.9x10-3 5.9x10-3 5.9x10-3 5.9x10-3 0
The annual dose to the total site workforce would range from 510 person-rem for the MHTGR
to 650person-rem for the Large ALWR. The corresponding annual average doses to a site
worker would be 33 mrem for the MHTGR, and 42 mrem for the Large ALWR. The risks and
numbers of fatal cancers among workers from 40years of operation are included in table
4.6.3.9-1.
Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation as described above, all
of the tritium supply technologies and upgrade recycling facilities are acceptable for
siting at SRS. All resulting doses are within radiological limits and are well below
levels of natural background radiation.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts resulting from normal operation of
tritium supply technologies at SRS are listed in table 4.6.3.9-2. HIs for the maximally
exposed member of the public range from 0.7 (HWR, MHTGR, and APT) to 0.71 for the ALWR
with a cancer risk of 3.3x10-5 for all technologies due to No Action. The worker HIs are
1.8 for HWR, MHGTR, and APT, and 1.9 for ALWR with cancer risks of 5.9x10-3 due to No
Action alone. Only the public HI value is within acceptable regulatory health limits.
However, the cancer risk for workers at 5.9x10-3 and the public at 3.3x10-5 exceeds the
typical threshold of regulatory concern of 1x10-6. For details on the derivation of these
HIs and cancer risks, see appendix tables E.3.4-30 through E.3.4-33, and summary table
E.3.4-36.
New Tritium Extraction Facility. A new tritium extraction facility would need to be
constructed and operated at SRS to support the commercial reactor alternative. This
facility is described in section 3.4.4.
There would be no radiological releases and only minor hazardous chemical releases during
the construction of the new tritium extraction facility. Potential concentrations would
be expected to be within the regulated exposure limits and would not result in any adverse
health effects. During normal operation, there would be radiological releases to the
environment via the air pathway and also direct inplant exposures; releases of hazardous
chemicals to the environment would be negligible. The resulting doses and potential health
effects to the public and workers are described below.
Radiological Impacts. The release of airborne tritium to the environment would result in a
calculated dose of 0.35 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual
facility operations. This projects to an estimated fatal cancer risk of 7.0x10-6 from
40years of operation. The population dose from operations in the year 2030 is calculated
to be 30 person-rem, which projects to an estimated 0.6 fatal cancers from 40years of
facility operation. These impacts are all small fractions of those associated with total
site operations under the No Action alternative (table 4.6.3.9-4).
The average annual dose to a worker in the new tritium extraction facility would be
approximately 10mrem, which projects to a fatal cancer risk of 1.6x10-4 from 40years of
facility operation. The annual dose to the entire facility workforce is estimated to be
about 0.10 person-rem, which projects to 1.6x10-3 fatal cancers from 40years of facility
operation. The impacts to the average worker from operations associated with the tritium
extraction facility would be less than those to the average SRS worker and would represent
an extremely small fraction of the impacts to the total site workforce under the No Action
alternative (table 4.6.3.9-4).
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. The impacts to the maximally exposed individual of the public
and to the onsite worker resulting from the normal operations of the tritium extraction
facility at SRS would be less than those described for the upgraded tritium recycling
facility (table 4.6.3.9-2). There would be no cancer risk to the maximally exposed member
of the public or SRS worker.
Tritium Recycling Facility Upgrade
Radiological Impacts. The tritium recycling facilities upgrade is described in section
3.4.3.2. The radiological impacts to the general public will not change from those of No
Action with operation of the upgraded tritium recycling facilities. This is because
upgrading will not change the radiological releases from the facility from those that
would result from existing facilities. The radiological impacts to workers will
effectively remain the same because the workforce associated with operations will change
only slightly.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. The impacts to the maximally exposed individual of the public
and to the onsite worker resulting from normal operation of the upgraded tritium recycling
facilities at SRS are listed in table 4.6.3.9-2. The calculated HI for the maximally
exposed member of the public is 2.5x10-6 with no cancer risk. The worker HI and cancer
risk were calculated to be 2.8x10-5 and 0, respectively. If the supply technologies is
placed at a site other than SRS and the recycling upgrade was implemented at SRS, the
hazardous chemical impact would either remain the same as No Action or show a slight
reduction to workers and the public. This means that the HI for workers and cancer risks
to the public and workers would exceed acceptable regulatory health limits due to the No
Action contribution. It is to be noted, however, that the tritium recycling upgrade alone
is well within the limits because the fraction it contributes is only 1/3.6x106 of the
total risk. For details on the derivation of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix
tables E.3.4-34 and E.3.4-36.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. If tritium recycling is performed at another site, existing
recycling and extraction facilities at SRS would be phased out. The annual dose to the
maximally exposed individual will decrease to a value that is 2.4 mrem less than the No
Action dose (table 4.6.3.9-1). The estimated risk of fatal cancer to this individual would
decrease by 4.6x10-5 over 40years of total site operation. The elimination of the tritium
recycling and extraction processes at SRS would also result in a decrease of 213
person-rem to the population within 50 miles in the year 2030, and 4.2 fewer fatal cancers
over 40years of operation compared with continued No Action operation. The doses and
associated health effects among workers would remain virtually the same as for No Action.
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. The impacts to the maximally exposed individual of the public
and to the onsite worker resulting from normal operation with a phaseout of the tritium
recycling function are listed in table 4.6.3.9-2. The calculated HI for the maximally
exposed member of the public is 0.70 with a cancer risk of 3.2x10-5. The worker HI and
cancer risk were calculated to be approximately 1.8 and 5.9x10-3, respectively. The HI for
the maximally exposed member of the public is within the acceptable regulatory health
limits based on EPA's regulations for public exposure limits during an 8 hour work
period. The cancer risks for both the maximally exposed member of the public and onsite
workers exceed the typical threshold of regulatory concern of 1x10-6. For details on the
threshold of these HIs and cancer risks, see appendix table E.3.4-35 and summary table
E.3.4-36.
Less Than Baseline Operations. The normal operation radiological impacts for the HWR
operating at reduced tritium production capacity to meet a less than baseline operations
requirement would be proportioned to the level of operation (approximately 50 percent of
baseline). The MHTGR or ALWR normal operation radiological impacts would not change
because the reactor would maintain power requirements to produce steam or electricity.
The Phased APT is already less than the baseline tritium requirement and thus the impacts
are as presently given in the PEIS.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Radioactive and hazardous chemical airborne emissions to
the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing
the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public
exposure from emissions, improved methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the
releases to the environment. Similarly, the use of remote, automated, and robotic
production methods are examples of techniques that are being developed which could reduce
worker exposure. Substitution of less toxic/noncancer causing solvents would result in
reductions of the HI and possible complete elimination of the cancer risk.
The incorporation of an alternate upgraded tritium recycling plant, which would include
transferring certain functions to the Replacement Tritium Facility, would reduce the
annual release of airborne tritium by 12,000 Ci. This would result in annual dose reduc-
tions of 0.8 mrem to the maximally exposed member of the public and 70 person-rem to the
50-mile population for each tritium supply technology. For example, the corresponding
annual doses associated with the HWR alternative would decrease from 3.6 mrem to 2.7 mrem,
and from 300 to 230person-rem. For 40years of operations, the annual dose reductions would
project to a decreased fatal cancer risk to the individual of 1.6x10-5 and 1.4 fewer fatal
cancers in the population for each supply alternative.
Facility Accidents
No Action. Under No Action, tritium recycling will continue to be performed in Building
233-H, the Replacement Tritium Facility. All reactors previously used for tritium
production operations have already been shut down.
The potential accidents and their consequences are documented in safety analysis reports
that have been prepared for the existing tritium recycling facilities. The major hazards
associated with the operation of these facilities is the release of tritium to the
environment. Other facilities at SRS such as the F- and H- Canyons, Defense Waste
Processing Facility, Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility, Receiving Basin for Off-Site
Fuel and various laboratories will continue to operate or be shut down. Potential
accidents and consequences for these facilities are documented in existing safety analysis
reports.
As shown in table 4.6.3.9-3, the highest consequence accident under No Action for tritium
operation would be an earthquake-induced leak/ignition and fire in the Unloading Station
Carousel A Reservoir. The analysis postulated the release of 8.4x106 Ci of tritium in
oxide form to the environment. If this accident occurred, it could result in 0.15 cancer
fatalities to the population within 50 miles of the site. The risk of this accident,
that takes both accident probability and consequence into account, would be approximately
3.0x10-6 cancer fatalities per year for the same population.
Figure 4.6.3.9-1 shows the number of latent cancer fatalities that may result for each
technology, including tritium extraction and recycling, if an accident were to occur.
Specifically, each curve in the figure shows the conditional probability (vertical axis)
that the number of cancer fatalities (horizontal axis) will be exceeded if the accident
occurred. The curves do not reflect the probability of the accident.
Table 4.6.3.9-3.-Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences for Existing No Action
Tritium Recycling Operations at Savannah River Site
Accident Description Beyond
Design-Basis
Earthquake
Accident frequency (per year) 2.0x10-5
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Dose (rem) 0.045
Cancer fatalities 2.2x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 4.4x10-10
Population Within 50 Miles
Dose (person-rem) 300
Cancer fatalities 0.15
Risk (cancer fatalities 3.0x10-6
per year)
Note: Model results.
Figure (Page 4-454)
Figure 4.6.3.9-1.-High Consequence Accident-Cancer Fatalities Complementary Cumulative
Distribution Functions for Tritium Supply and Recycling Severe Accidents at Savannah River
Site.
The secondary impacts of accidents affect elements of the environment other than humans.
For example, a radiological release may contaminate farmland, surface and underground
water, recreational areas, industrial parks, historical sites, or the habitat of an
endangered species. As a result, farm products may have to be destroyed; the supply of
drinking water may be reduced; recreational areas may be closed; industrial parks may
suffer economic losses; historical sites may have to be closed to visitors; and endan-
gered species may move closer to extinction. In the region of the SRS, the natural
background level of radiation (excluding radon) is 76 mrem per year. For a hypothetical
design basis accidental release, the radiation levels exceeding 76 mrem per year are well
within the site boundary. The size of the area in which exposure levels would exceed
exposures from natural background radiation is 2.9x107 square meters (7,166 acres).
Tritium Supply Alone. The proposed action at SRS has the potential for accidents that may
impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The potential for and associated
consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents have been assessed for each technology
at SRS and are summarized in this section and described in more detail in appendix F. The
methodology used in the assessment is described in section 4.1.9.
The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high consequence/low probability to low
consequence/high probability events, have been evaluated in terms of the number of
cancer fatalities that may result. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated
to provide an overall measure of an accident's impacts and is calculated by multiplying
the accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number
of cancer fatalities). Analyses of postulated accidents for the tritium supply
facilities at SRS indicate that, for the high consequence accident, the estimated risk of
cancer fatalities to the public within 50 milesof the site due to the accidental release
of radioactive material or chemicals would be 5.1x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table
4.6.3.9-4). This accident risk, which corresponds with the HWR, is low when compared to
the risk of cancer fatalities to the same population from all other causes.
Details on the range of accidents for the tritium supply technologies at SRS are presented
in appendix F. Each of the technologies has been analyzed from the standpoint of
identifying the consequences of design-basis/operational accidents (using the GENII Code)
and beyond design basis, or severe accidents (using the MACCS computer code). The severe
accident consequences are shown in table 4.6.3.9-4 for each technology. The table also
shows the consequences of each accident for the population and for an individual who may
be located at the site boundary. The results of the analysis indicate that the tritium
supply technology with the highest severe accident risk is the ALWR.
The technology with the lowest accident risk is the APT with the helium-3 target system.
The APT accident risks are much lower than the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR consequences. Upgraded
tritium recycling facilities are common to all tritium supply technologies but, except for
the APT, the accident consequences and risks are dominated by reactor accidents. The
tritium extraction facility accident dominates the accelerator accidents.
Heavy Water Reactor. A set of five high consequence accident sequences were postulated. In
the event any of these accidents were to occur, there would be an estimated 5 cancer
fatalities in the population within 50 miles and a cancer fatality risk of 6.6x10-4 to an
individual who may be located at the site boundary, and 0.023 to a collocated worker at
1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of
the accident into account, is less than 5.1x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table
4.6.3.9-4).
Table 4.6.3.9-4.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling High Consequence/Low
Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Savannah River Site
- Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR MHTGR Large Small Full/Phased Full Tritium Target Tritium
ALWR ALWR APT APT Extraction Recycling
Facility Facilitye
Parameter - - - - Helium-3 SILC Target - -
Target System,
System,
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 6.6x10-4 6.3x10-5 1.3x10-3 1.9x10-3 5.7x10-9 1.0x10-7 6.4x10-6 2.2x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 6.0x10-9 1.0x10-9 2.0x10-10 2.9x10-10 4.1x10-15 7.3x10-14 9.0x10-10 4.4x10-10
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalitiesj 5.5 0.63 1.7 14 3.9x10-5 3.8x10-4 0.043 0.15
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 5.1x10-5 1.0x10-5 2.6x10-7 2.3x10-6 2.8x10-11 2.7x10-10 6.0x10-6 3.0x10-6
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.023 3.2x10-3 0.023 0.067 2.7x10-7 3.8x10-6 3.0x10-4 1.0x10-3
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.1x10-7 5.1x10-8 3.4x10-9 1.1x10-8 1.9x10-13 2.7x10-12 4.2x10-8 2.0x10-8
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesj 0.01 1.1x10-3 0.013 0.03 1.0x10-7 1.6x10-6 1.1x10-4 3.9x10-4
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 9.5x10-8 1.8x10-8 2.0x10-9 4.6x10-9 7.1x10-14 1.1x10-12 1.5x10-8 7.8x10-9
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. A set of four high consequence accident
sequences were postulated for the MHTGR. In the event that any of these accidents were to
occur, there would be an estimated 0.63 cancer fatalities in the population within 50
miles and an increased likelihood of a cancer fatality of 6.3x10-5 to an individual who
may be located at the site boundary, and 3.2x10-3 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters
from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the accident
into account, is 1.0x10-5 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.6.3.9-4).
Advanced Light Water Reactor. A range of accident sequences with various release
categories was analyzed for the ALWR. One release category for a Large ALWR and one for a
Small ALWR were selected to represent the accident consequences for an ALWR (appendix
section F.2.1.3). In the event that such an accident were to occur, there would be an
estimated 1.7 cancer fatalities for a Large ALWR and 14 cancer fatalities for a Small ALWR
in the population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of
1.3x10-3 for a Large ALWR, and 1.9x10-3 for a Small ALWR to an individual who may be
located at the site boundary, and 0.023 for a Large ALWR to a collocated worker at 1,000
meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the
accident into account, is 2.6x10-7 cancer fatalities per year for a Large ALWR and
3.2x10-7 cancer fatalities per year for a Small ALWR (table 4.6.3.9-4).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with Helium-3 Target System. The large break loss of
coolant accident with the total loss of the active emergency cooling system and the heat
sink with and without confinement were postulated as the high consequence accidents for
this APT and target option. In the event that any of these accidents were to occur, there
would be an estimated 3.9x10-5 fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an
increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 5.7x10-9 to an individual located at the site
boundary, and 2.7x10-7 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk
to the population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the
order of 2.8x10-11 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.6.3.9-4).
Accelerator Production of Tritium with SpallationInduced Lithium Conversion Target
System. The large break loss of coolant accident with a successful beam trip and the total
loss of the active emergency cooling system with and without confinement were postulated
as the high consequence accidents for this APT and target option. In the event that this
accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 3.8x10-4 cancer fatalities in the
population within 50 miles and an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.0x10-7 to
an individual located at the site boundary, and 3.8x10-6 to a collocated worker at 1,000
meters from the accident. The risk to the population, that takes the probability of the
accident into account, is on the order of 2.7x10-10 cancer fatalities per year (table
4.6.3.9-4).
Tritium Target Extraction and Recycling Facility Upgrade. The tritium extraction facility
is required to support all tritium supply technologies except the APT technology with the
helium-3 target system. The tritium recycling facility upgrade at SRS is required to
support all tritium supply technologies. The analyses of postulated high consequence
accidents for the tritium extraction and recycling facilities at SRS are presented below.
Tritium Target Extraction Facility. An earthquake and release of process vessel tritium
inventory was postulated as the high consequence accident. In the event that this accident
were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.043 cancer fatalities in the population
within 50 miles and a cancer fatality risk of 6.4x10-6 to an individual who may be located
at the site boundary, and 3.0x10-4 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the
accident. The risk to the population, taking the probability of the accident into
account, is less than 6.0x10-6 cancer fatalities per year (table 4.6.3.9-4).
Tritium Recycling Facility. An earthquake induced leak/ignition and fire in the unloading
station carousel reservoir was postulated as the high consequence accident for the
tritium recycling facility. In the event that this accident were to occur, there would be
an estimated 0.15 cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and an increased
likelihood of cancer fatality of 2.2x10-5 to an individual located at the site boundary,
and 1.0x10-3 to a collocated worker at 1,000 meters from the accident. The risk to the
population, that takes the probability of the accident into account, is on the order of
3.0x10-6 cancer fatalities per year.
Tritium Recycling Facility Upgrade. Upgrade of the existing tritium recycling facilities
at SRS may change the existing risks of accidents. Under upgrade, all tritium recycling
facilities would be brought into compliance with DOE orders and other applicable
regulations and standards. This may result in a reduction of risk compared to No Action.
For comparison purposes with high consequence tritium supply facility accidents, for the
same total population of 773,000 in the year 2050 within 50miles of the site, there is a
risk of 1,550 cancer fatalities per year from all other natural causes.
The analysis of facility accidents for tritium supply technologies at SRS shows that, for
high consequence accidents analyzed using MACCS computer code, the ALWR has the highest
risk and the APT has the lowest risk. The risk of accidents for any of the tritium supply
technologies, tritium extraction, and tritium recycling facilities common to all technolo-
gies is low when compared to the human risk of cancer from all other causes.
Design-Basis Accidents. The consequence of the operational basis or design-basis accident
for the tritium extraction facility at SRS is shown in table 4.6.3.9-5. The results in
table 4.6.3.9-5 should not be compared with the severe accident analysis results in table
4.6.3.9-4 because different computer codes using different calculational approaches were
used. More detailed descriptions of design-basis accidents is included in appendix F.2.2.
Less Than Baseline Operations
Facility Accidents. Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change
to the current accident analyses consequences for the HWR unless the baseline HWR core
design was downsized. The baseline HWR configuration would adjust to the reduced target
through-put requirements by reducing the time that the reactor is required to operate at
100 percent power. It is not anticipated that the overall risk from operating the reactor
in this mode would decrease significantly. Accident analyses have not been performed to
address accident sequences and initiating events when the reactor is in the cold shut down
mode. In addition, operator error has a significant effect on facility risk and if the
reactor is shut down a high percentage of the time, operator error may actually increase
when the reactor is at power.
Less than baseline tritium operations would have no significant change to the current
accident analyses consequences for the ALWR. The reactor surplus capacity would be used
to generate steam for electric power production.
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no change to the MHTGR accident analyses
because the analyses assumed that only one of the reactor modules would be involved in
the accident.
Table 4.6.3.9-5.-Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Low-to-Moderate
Consequence/High Probability Radioactive Release Accidents and Consequences at Savannah
River Site
Parameter Tritium Supply Technologies - -
- HWR,b MHTGR. Large Small APTb, Tritium Target Tritium Recycling
ALWRb,d ALWRb, Extraction Facility
Facilityb
- - - - - SILC - -
Target System
Accident
Description Fuel assembly Moderate break in Fuel handling Fuel handling Large break loss Deflagration Hydride Bed
failure during primary system of coolant Rupture
charge and piping. accident
discharge
operations
Frequency (per year) 1.0x10-3 2.5x10-2 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-5 1.0x10-3 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4
Consequence
Maximally Exposed Individual
Cancer fatalities 2.3x10-5 1.2x10-8 1.3x10-5 2.0x10-5 negligible 1.2x10-4 4.9x10-7
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.3x10-8 3.0x10-10 1.3x10-10 2.0x10-10 negligible 2.4x10-9 9.8x10-11
Population Within 50 Miles
Cancer fatalities 0.73 2.5x10-4 0.037 0.6 negligible 6 0.025
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 7.3x10-4 6.3x10-6 3.8x10-6 6.0x10-6 negligible 1.2x10-4 5.0x10-6
Worker at 1,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 2.9x10-4 3.4x10-7 2.8x10-4 3.6x10-4 negligible 4.8x10-3 2.0x10-5
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 2.9x10-7 8.5x10-9 2.8x10-9 3.6x10-9 negligible 9.6x10-8 4.0x10-9
Worker at 2,000 meters
Cancer fatalitiesi 9.8x10-5 1.2x10-7 9.6x10-5 1.2x10-4 negligible 1.6x10-3 6.8x10-6
Risk (cancer fatalities per year) 9.8x10-8 3.0x10-9 9.6x10-10 1.2x10-9 negligible 3.2x10-8 1.4x10-9
Less than baseline tritium operation would have no significant change to the APT accident
analyses consequences. The accident consequences for Full and Phased APT accidents with
low to moderate consequences were negligible. For the beyond design basis accident,
there was no difference in the Full and the Phased accident consequences. Review of the
source terms for the Full and the Phased APT indicated that the tritium component of the
source term is identical for both accidents. Review of the MACCS computer code output data
for each accident analysis indicated that the tritium component of the source term
dominated the dose calculation results. The impact of the other source term isotopes on
the dose calculation results is negligible.
Potential Mitigation Measures. The accidents postulated for tritium supply technologies
and upgraded recycling facilities are based on operation and safety analyses that have
been performed at similar facilities. One potential mitigation measure is to transfer
certain tritium extraction activities from Building 232-H to the Replacement Tritium
Facility, Building 233-H, to take advantage of improved safety and other new technology
features in the Replacement Tritium Facility. This transfer would result in additional
sources of tritium in the Replacement Tritium Facility and the potential for additional
risk of accidents. This additional risk in the Replacement Tritium Facility is offset by
the elimination of a higher risk of performing these activities in the older facilities of
Building 232-H. If these activities were transferred to the Replacement Tritium Facility,
the change would have to be examined from the standpoint of Unreviewed Safety Questions
in accordance with DOE Order 5480.21 to determine if the authorization basis for the
facility has changed. If the authorization basis changes, operational restrictions are
placed on the facility until detailed safety evaluations are completed. One of the major
design goals for a tritium supply and recycling facilities is to achieve a reduced risk to
facility personnel and to public health and safety to as low as reasonably achievable.
Current estimates are that there would be no collocated workers within 1,000 meters from
a tritium supply facility accident and 3,516 collocated workers within 1,000 meters of the
recycling facility. There would be 500 tritium supply and 545 tritium recycling collocated
workers between 1,000 and meters of those facilities. There would be 7,463 collocated
workers beyond 2,000 meters of the tritium supply facility and 4,588 collocated workers
beyond 2,000 meters of the recycling facility.
Worker exposures that may result from the accidental release of radioactive material will
be minimized through design features and administrative procedures that will be defined
in conjunction with the facility design process. The radiological impacts to involved
workers from accidents could not be quantitatively estimated for this PEIS because the
facility design information needed to support the estimate has not yet been developed. The
impacts on workers from accidents will be analyzed as part of subsequent project-specific
NEPA documentation and in detailed safety analysis documentation that are prepared in
conjunction with the facility design process.
The tritium supply and upgraded recycling facilities would be designed to comply with
current Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and industrial codes and standards.
This would provide facilities that are highly resistant to the effects of severe natural
phenomena, including earthquake, flood, tornado, and high wind, as well as credible events
as appropriate to the site, such as fire and explosions, and manmade threats to its
continuing structural integrity for containing materials.
The tritium supply facility would be designed to resist the effects of severe natural
phenomena as well as the effects of man-made threats to its continuing structural
integrity. It also would be designed to provide containment of the tritium inventory at
all times through the use of multiple, high quality confinement barriers to prevent the
accidental release of tritium to the environment. It also would be designed to produce a
lower quantity of waste materials as compared to the tritium facilities of the existing
weapons complex.
In addition, DOE orders specify the requirements for emergency preparedness at DOE
facilities. SRS has comprehensive emergency plans to protect life and property within the
facility and the health and welfare of surrounding areas. The emergency plans would be
revised to incorporate future DOE requirements and expanded to incorporate the addition of
tritium supply facilities to SRS. See section 4.6.2.9 for emergency preparedness and
emergency plan details at SRS.

4.6.3.10 Waste Management
Construction and operation of tritium supply and upgrading recycling facilities would
impact existing SRS waste management operations, increasing the generation of low-level,
mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes, and reintroducing the generation of
spent nuclear fuel. There are no high-level or TRU wastes associated with the proposed
action. As part of their design, all reactor technologies would provide stabilization and
storage of spent fuel for the life of the facility.
The impacts of a decision to use existing facilities would range from filling onsite LLW
disposal facilities at the rate of 13 acres per year; utilizing 50percent of the
capacity of the liquid LLW treatment facilities; increasing the generation of mixed LLW to
a rate that would fill the storage facilities in half of their planned lifetime; and
increasing the quantity of hazardous waste generated by a factor of nine requiring new
RCRA-permitted staging facilities. The reactor technologies produce liquid LLW in
quantities requiring new treatment facilities, and all technologies require expanded or
new treatment facilities for their liquid sanitary wastes. This section provides a
description of the waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal requirements of
the tritium supply technologies and upgraded recycling facilities and the potential impact
on waste management activities at SRS.
No Action. Under No Action, high-level, TRU, low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and
nonhazardous wastes and spent nuclear fuel would continue to be managed from the missions
outlined in section 3.3.5. Table 4.6.3.10-1 lists the projected waste generation rates as
well as treatment, storage, and disposal capacities under No Action. Projections for No
Action were derived from 1991 environmental data, with appropriate adjustments made for
those changing operational requirements where the volume of wastes generated is
identifiable. These wastes could be managed adequately by existing and currently planned
facilities. The projection does not include wastes from yet uncharacterized environmental
restoration activities.
Spent nuclear fuel from past production reactor operations will have been stabilized and
stored onsite awaiting the availability of a Federal repository. Since the K-Reactor is in
a cold standby with no provision for restart, there will be no additional spent reactor
fuel generated. However, SRS would continue to receive aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel
from offsite facilities in accordance with the ROD from the Department of Energy
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Programs Final EIS. This fuel would be stabilized and prepared for long-term
storage onsite. As reflected in this ROD, the DOE estimated inventory of spent nuclear
fuel in 2035 is 2,742 metric tons. For comparison purposes, the commercial spent nuclear
fuel inventory in 2030, assuming no reprocessing or new orders, is projected to be
85,700metric tons of heavy metal (DOE1994d:16).
TRU waste previously stored or buried would be repackaged to meet WIPP waste acceptance
criteria and stored in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility for eventual shipment to WIPP
once it is demonstrated to be in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR191 and 40 CFR
268 or to another TRU waste disposal facility should WIPP prove unsatisfactory. If
additional treatment is necessary for disposal at WIPP, SRS would develop the appropriate
treatment capability. If shipments to WIPP are delayed, additional storage facilities
would be designed and constructed as needed.
Liquid LLW would be processed into saltstone and disposed of in engineered facilities
onsite. Solid LLW would be compacted and disposed of in engineered trenches. The planned
burial ground expansion in the E-Area is expected to accommodate the current waste
disposal requirements through 2012. Additional waste disposal facilities would be
constructed as needed to ensure compliance. The Consolidated Incineration Facility would
also be utilized to reduce the volume of LLW requiring disposal.
Table 4.6.3.10-1.-Projected Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management for No Action at
Savannah River Site [Page 1 of 2]
Category Annual Treatment Treatment Storage Storage Disposal Disposal
Generation Method Capacity Method Capacity Method Capacity
Rate (yd3/yr) (yd3) (yd3)
(yd3)
Spent Nuclear None Stabilization Under Fuel pools and Planneda To repository Not designed
Fuel (offsite receipts of development dry storage
aluminum-clad
spent fuel)
High-level
Liquid 5,079 Adsorption, 135,362 Tank farm 307,714 NA NA
(1,026,000 gal) evaporation, (27,343,000 GPY) (62,158,074 gal)
vitrification
Solid None None None Shielded vault 5,562 To repository NA
Transuranic
Liquid None Grout Not designed None None NA NA
Solid 431 Sort, shred Not designed Trupact II Expandable as None-WIPP in the NA
Containers required future
Low-Level
Liquid None Chemical, 520,158 Ponds, tanks- NA NA NA
filtration, (105,072,000 GPY) awaiting
saltstone processing
Solid 5,100 Compact 32,781 yd3/yr Not stored Not stored Burial vaults 1,400,000
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid 1,336 Chemical, 520,158 Tanks, containers 326,380 NA NA
(275,900 gal) filtration, (105,072,000 GPY) in buildings (65,928,760 gal)
saltstone
Solid 151 Incineration, Planned DOT containers 1,521 To solid LLW burial 9,679
stabilize (solid), facility onsite
Hazardous
Liquid Included in Incineration, Planned Planned RCRA Planned NA NA
solid stabilize facility
Solid 13 Incineration, Planned Planned RCRA Planned Onsite RCRA Planned
stabilize facility facility
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 920,000 Filter, strip, settle 1,900,000 yd3/day Flowing ponds NA NPDES discharge Planned
(186,000,000 gal) (383,000,000 GPY)
Solid 80,000 Incinerate, Expandable as None None Onsite lined pit Planned
compact required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in
sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary
SRS plans to incinerate mixed waste in compliance with applicable RCRA Land Disposal
Restriction Standards, stabilize it, and dispose of the residue onsite as LLW. These
processes are under development in accordance with terms and schedules of the Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement on RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions signed by DOE and EPA on
March 13, 1991. Details of this agreement are provided in appendix section A.2.5. This
agreement is being reviewed in light of the Federal Facility Compliance Act which requires
DOE to submit a sitespecific treatment plan to the State of South Carolina to address
compliance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions for mixed waste. At the present time,
mixed waste is stored in a RCRA-permitted facility in DOT-approved containers until
treatment capacity becomes available.
SRS also plans to incinerate hazardous waste in compliance with applicable RCRA
incinerator permit and RCRA Land Disposal Restriction Standards, and NESHAPs (hazardous
air pollutants) and New Source Performance Standards of the CAA onsite (in the
Consolidated Incineration Facility), stabilize it, and dispose of the residue onsite. A
RCRA-permitted hazardous waste storage and disposal facility is currently being designed
to handle projected wastes from current operations. Specific areas are being reserved for
future expansion. Offsite disposal (current practice) would remain an option. Specifics of
this hazardous waste incineration and/or shipment to offsite commercial, RCRA-permitted
facilities would be addressed in site-specific tiered NEPA documents.
Sanitary and nonhazardous process waste liquids are treated by various means to remove
water and must comply with two CWA settlement agreements discussed in appendix section
A.1.5. Disposal of the treated sanitary and process water is addressed in section 4.6.3.4.
The resultant solids are disposed of with solid nonhazardous waste in a permitted landfill
sized to handle projected future waste volumes. The current sanitary waste landfill is
nearing design capacity. Disposal offsite in a permitted commercial facility is being
considered for the future.
Tritium Supply and Recycling. Tritium supply and upgraded recycling facilities would treat
and package all waste generated in support of the nuclear weapons stockpile into forms
that would enable long-term storage and/or disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy
Act, RCRA and other relevant statutes as outlined in chapter 5 and in appendix section
H.1.2. The resultant waste effluents are shown in section 3.4. Since tritium recycling is
a mission already performed at SRS, the incremental waste volumes would come from the new
tritium supply facility. Waste generated during construction of any tritium supply
technology would consist of wastewater, solid nonhazardous, and hazardous waste. The
nonhazardous wastes would be disposed of as part of the construction project by the
contractor, and the hazardous wastes would be shipped to a RCRA-permitted treatment and
disposal facility. Operation of the three reactor-based tritium supply technologies would
generate spent fuel, and all four technologies and the upgraded tritium recycling
facilities would generate low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes.
The volume of the waste streams from tritium supply would vary according to the tritium
supply technology chosen. Table 4.6.3.10-2 lists the total estimated waste volumes
projected to be generated at SRS as a result of various tritium supply technologies and
upgraded recycling facilities. The incremental waste volumes from the tritium supply
technologies that were added to the tritium recycling phaseout projection can be found in
appendix section A.2. The phaseout projection was derived by subtracting the
unconsolidated recycling upgrade volumes from No Action.
Table 4.6.3.10-3 lists potential waste management impacts at SRS at the time of initial
operation of the tritium facilities. Spent nuclear fuel storage for the life of the
reactors is provided for in the reactor designs (appendix section A.2.1). Because spent
nuclear fuel reprocessing is not planned, no HLW would be generated. Without plutonium
production, no TRU waste would be generated. The treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed
LLW would be in accordance with the SRS Site Treatment Plan which is currently being
developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act.
Table 4.6.3.10-2.-Estimated Annual Generated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes for
Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling at Savannah River Site
- - Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Upgrade -
Category No Action HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT Tritium Recycling Tritium Recycling
(yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Upgrade Phaseout
(yd3) (yd3)
Spent Nuclear None 7 80 55 36 None None None
Fuel
Low-level
Liquid None 10,400 2,600 24,800 3,910 None None None
(2,100,000 gal) (525,000 gal) (5,000,000 gal) (790,000 gal)
Solid 5,100 10,300 6,400 5,810 5,760 5,640 5,100 4,750
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370
(276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal) (276,000 gal)
Solid 151 271 152 157 157 158 151 149
Hazardous
Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid
Solid 13 53 113 48 48 16 13 12
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 920,000 12,500,000 8,990,000 32,100,000 15,000,000 2,130,000 920,000 767,000
(186,000,000 gal) (2,530,000,000 gal) (1,820,000,000 gal) (6,480,000,000 gal) (3,040,000,000 gal) (431,000,000 gal) (186,000,000 gal) (154,000,000 gal)
Solid 80,000 87,600 87,400 86,900 84,200 81,200 80,000 72,200
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in
sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary sanitary
Solid 6,800h 13,300h 13,200h 12,600 10,300h 6,800h 6,800h Included in
sanitary
Table 4.6.3.10-3.-Potential Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Impacts from Tritium
Supply Technologies and Recycling at Savannah River Site [Page 1 of 2]
- Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling -
- HWR MHTGR Large ALWR Small ALWR APT Tritium Recycling Tritium Recycling
Upgrade Phaseout
Category Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change Impact
from No from No from No from No from No from No from No
Action Actiona Actiona Actiona Actiona Actiona Actiona
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Spent Nuclear New New Newb New Newb New Newb New None None None None None None
Fuel storage storage storage storage
facility facility facility facility
Low-Level
Liquid New New Newc New Newc New Newc New None None None None None None
treatment treatment treatment treatment
facility facility facility facility
Solid +102 0.4 acres +25 0.1 acres +14 0.1 acres +13 0.06 acres +11 0.05 acres None None -7 Extend
per yr of per yr of per yr of per yr of per year LLW
additional additional additional additional of disposal
LLW LLW LLW LLW additional facility
disposal disposal disposal disposal LLW life
area area area area disposal
area
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None None None -<1 None
Solid +79 Additional <1 None +4 Expansions +4 Expansions +5 Expansions None None -1 None
facilities of of of
treatment treatment treatment
capacity capacity capacity
Hazardous
Liquid Included - Included - Included - Included - Included - Included - Included -
in solid in solid in solid in solid in solid in in solid
solid
Solid +308 Additional +769 Additional +269 Additional +269 Additional +19 Expand None None -8 None
storage storage storage storage storage
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid +1,260 Additional +877 Additional +3,380 Additional +1,530 Additional +132 Additional None None -17 None
treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment
facilities facilities facilities facilities facilities
Solid +10 Reduce +9 Reduce +9 Reduce +5 Reduce +2 Negligible None None -10 Extend life
landfill landfill landfill landfill of landfill
life or life or life or life or
expansion expansion expansion expansion
required required required required
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None None None None None None None None None None None None None
Solid +96 None- +94 None- +85 None- +51 None- None None - None None - Included Included
Project Project Project Project Project Project in in sanitary
wastes are wastes are wastes are wastes are waste are wastes are sanitary
recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable recyclable
Heavy Water Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of 7 yd3per year.
This would add 0.3 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent nuclear fuel
inventory. The HWR would be designed to provide the necessary stabilization and storage
for the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid LLW generated by
the HWR would require treatment facilities to reduce LLW volume and stabilize the
remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare it for disposal onsite. The solid LLW
generated would double the No Action volume, and require 0.4 acres per year of additional
onsite LLW disposal area (assuming a 4,500 yd3 per acre disposal usage factor). There
would be no increase in liquid mixed LLW generated, but the solid mixed LLW volume would
increase by 79percent over No Action. Expansion of existing or planned, or new treatment
facilities may be required. The HWR would generate hazardous waste at a rate that is 4
times that of No Action. Thus, appropriate RCRA-permitted staging facilities would be
planned for the HWR. A factor of 14 increase in liquid sanitary wastes generation would
require new treatment facilities. The 10 percent increase in solid sanitary wastes would
reduce the life of the landfill or require its expansion.
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the
rate of 80 yd3 per year. This would add 0.24 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the
DOE spent nuclear fuel inventory. The MHTGR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage for the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition.
The liquid LLW generation would require treatment facilities to concentrate and stabilize
the radionuclides for disposal onsite. Solid LLW generation would increase by 25 percent
over No Action, requiring 0.1 acres per year of additional new disposal area. There would
be no increase in liquid mixed LLW generation, and the solid mixed LLW generation would be
less than 1 percent more than No Action; therefore no impacts are expected. The MHTGR does
generate solid hazardous waste at a rate that is eight times that of No Action. Additional
facilities would be required where this waste could be accumulated and prepared for
shipment to a RCRA-permitted disposal facility. A factor of 10increase in liquid sanitary
wastes would require new treatment facilities. Solid sanitary waste generation would
increase by 9 percent, reducing the life of the landfill or requiring its expansion.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
55 yd3 per year. This would add 105 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Large ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage for the spent fuel while awaiting final disposition. The liquid
LLW generated by the ALWR would require treatment facilities to concentrate and stabilize
the radionuclides for disposal onsite. The solid LLW generated would be 14 percent more
than the No Action volume. This would require 0.1 acres of additional LLW disposal area
per year. There would be no increase in liquid mixed LLW generated by the ALWR; however,
the solid mixed LLW volume would be 4 percent more than No Action. Some expansion of
planned treatment facilities may be required. The ALWR would cause hazardous waste
generation to increase by a factor of four. Additional RCRA-permitted facilities may be
required to prepare the waste for shipment to a RCRA-permitted disposal facility. Liquid
sanitary wastes generated by the ALWR would increase 35 times the No Action volumes. This
would require expansion of existing facilities, or the construction of new facilities.
Solid sanitary wastes increase the No Action volumes by 9percent, reducing the life of the
landfill or requiring its expansion.
Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small). Spent nuclear fuel would be generated at the rate of
36yd3 per year. This would add 68 metric tons of heavy metal per year to the DOE spent
nuclear fuel inventory. The Small ALWR would be designed to provide the necessary
stabilization and storage for the spent nuclear fuel while awaiting final disposition. The
liquid LLW generated by the ALWR would require treatment facilities to reduce its volume
and stabilize the remaining concentrated radionuclides to prepare the waste for disposal
onsite. The solid LLW volume would increase by 13 percent from the No Action volume,
requiring 0.06 acres of additional LLW disposal area per year. There would be no increase
in liquid mixed LLW generated by the ALWR. The ALWR solid mixed LLW generation would cause
the rate at SRS to increase by 4 percent above No Action, and therefore would have a minor
impact. The ALWR would generate a factor of four increase in hazardous waste; additional
RCRA-permitted facilities may be required to prepare the waste for shipment to a
RCRA-permitted disposal facility. Liquid sanitary wastes generated by the Small ALWR would
require new treatment facilities since the volume is 16 times the projected No Action
volume to be treated in the SRS centralized facilities. The solid sanitary wastes
generated by the Small ALWR would increase the generation at SRS by 5percent more than No
Action. This would reduce the life of the landfill or require its expansion.
Accelerator Production of Tritium. The APT does not generate spent nuclear fuel. Any
liquid LLW generated can be solidified at the point of generation. Solid LLW generation
would increase at SRS by 11percent from No Action, requiring 0.05 acre per year of
additional LLW disposal area. There would be no increase in mixed liquid LLW by the APT.
Solid mixed LLW would increase by 5 percent and may require some expansion of planned
treatment facilities. Hazardous waste generation would increase 19percent over No Action,
requiring possible expansion or new RCRA-permitted staging facilities. The liquid sanitary
wastes generated would be three times the No Action volume and would require additional
treatment facilities. The volume of solid sanitary wastes is less than 2percent of that
generated under No Action, and would have a negligible impact to the design life of the
existing landfill.
Less Than Baseline Operations. In the event of a reduced tritium requirement, the waste
volumes shown in table 4.6.3.10-2 would not appreciably change as a result of the HWR
operating at less power and the MHTGR and ALWR irradiating fewer target rods. In the case
of a Phased APT using the helium-3 target, the waste volumes with the exception of cooling
tower blowdown, which decreases by 36 percent (86 MGY), are approximately the same as the
Full APT using the helium-3 target.
Tritium Recycling Upgrade. As described in appendix section A.2.2.2, the unconsolidated
tritium recycling upgrade at SRS involves only structural upgrades and other modifications
that would have no affect on the operational waste volumes from the recycling mission;
thus, there are no waste management impacts for the unconsolidated upgrade. A con-
solidated upgrade is described in the potential mitigation section.
Tritium Recycling Phaseout. The phasing out of tritium recycling facilities would decrease
the generation of solid low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and sanitary wastes. The
7-percent decrease in solid LLW generation would extend the planned life of the onsite LLW
disposal facility. The less than 1-percent decrease in mixed LLW generation would have
negligible impact. An 8-percent decrease in hazardous waste generation would decrease
the number of offsite hazardous waste shipments. The 17-percent decrease in liquid
nonhazardous sanitary waste and 10-percent decrease in solid nonhazardous sanitary waste
would occur over time as the facilities are transitioned to EM.
Multipurpose Reactor
Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. The volume of spent nuclear
fuel generated by the six-reactor module multipurpose MHTGR would be approximately double
the spent nuclear fuel from the three-reactor module tritium supply MHTGR. Similar to the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, the plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time before dry storage, the spent nuclear fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the three-reactor module tritium
supply MHTGR. No increases in waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due
to the change from uraniumoxide reactor fuel to plutonium-oxide reactor fuel. However,
there would be increases in waste generation for all waste categories due to operation
of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes from both the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility and the fabrication of
plutonium-oxide fuel. These increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.6.3.10-2
for the tritium supply MHTGR. Table 4.8.3.1-8 provides the quantity of waste effluents
from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility. In addition, approximately 385 yd3 of mixed
TRU and TRU wastes would result from the fabrication of plutonium-oxide fuel. The 399 yd3
of mixed TRU and TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one
is available) after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
SRS has existing and planned TRU waste handling facilities that could be used.
The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per
year, 18regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. One
hundred gallons of liquid and 0.2 yd3 of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in
accordance with the SRS Site Treatment Plan. Approximately 0.003 acres per year of LLW
disposal area would be required to dispose of the 10yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging
capacity exists to accumulate the 1,000 gallons of liquid and 1yd3 of solid hazardous
wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An
additional 87 yd3 of solid non-hazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary
landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be
required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility is not collocated with the
multipurpose reactor.
Multipurpose Advanced Light Water Reactor. Spent fuel would be generated at the same rate
with approximately the same amount of residual heavy metal content as the tritium supply
ALWR. The decay heat in the mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could be 10 to 20percent greater
than the heat in spent uraniumoxide fuel assemblies. The increased decay heat load could
reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool and dry storage casks or
increase fuel pool dwell time before dry storage. No increases in waste generation rates
or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium-oxide reactor fuel to
mixed-oxide reactor fuel. However, there would be increases in waste generation for all
waste categories due to operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to include the introduction of mixed TRU and TRU wastes. These
increases are in addition to those listed in table 4.6.3.10-2 for the Large and Small
tritium supply ALWR. As shown in table 4.8.3.1-4, approximately 399 yd3 of mixed TRU and
TRU wastes would require transport to a geologic repository (assuming one is available)
after they have been processed to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria. SRS has
existing and planned TRU waste handling facilities that could be used.
The transport of the mixed TRU and TRU wastes to WIPP would require 35 truck shipments per
year, 18regular train shipments per year, or six dedicated train shipments per year. Two
hundred gallons of liquid and 13 yd3 of solid mixed LLW would require treatment in
accordance with the SRS Site Treatment Plan. Approximately 0.12 acres per year of LLW
disposal area would be required to dispose of the 524yd3 of solid LLW. Sufficient staging
capacity exists to accumulate the 200 gallons of liquid and 13yd3 of solid hazardous
wastes while awaiting shipment to a RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facility. An
additional 3,920yd3 of solid nonhazardous wastes would require disposal in the sanitary
landfill. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facilities may be
required if the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility is not
collocated with the multipurpose reactor.
Potential Mitigation Measures. Each tritium supply technology and the upgraded recycling
facilities would be designed to process its own waste into forms suitable for storage or
disposal and would use proven waste minimization and pollution prevention technologies to
the extent possible. A consolidated recycling facility upgrade could further reduce and
minimize waste management. The consolidated upgrade is described in appendix section
A.2.2.2 and includes the transferring of functions from Building 232-H. This would result
in a 400 yd3 per year decrease in the generation of solid sanitary waste. All other waste
volumes would be unchanged. Some facility designs would produce waste quantities or waste
forms that could undergo additional reductions by utilizing emerging technologies, thereby
further reducing or mitigating impacts. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would
be considered in determining the final design of any facility constructed as part of the
proposed action at SRS. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would also be
evaluated as part of site-specific analyses and tiered NEPA documents.
Utilization of existing treatment, storage and disposal facilities could further reduce
impacts. For example, the liquid LLW processing facilities at SRS have capacity exceeding
the generation rates of any of the technology options and may be able to process those
wastes. The saltstone process in the defense waste processing facility could be utilized
for these wastes. Similarly, the Consolidated Incineration Facility is scheduled to
complete its mission of treating existing LLW, mixed LLW and hazardous wastes by the time
the new tritium supply facility would be constructed. It therefore could be utilized to
process LLW, mixed LLW and hazardous wastes from the tritium supply facility. The use of
existing incineration at SRS could reduce the volume of solid LLW to be disposed by a
factor of up to 20. The new central sanitary waste treatment plant could also be utilized.
Utilization of these facilities would require site-specific engineering studies and NEPA
analysis.

4.7 Intersite Transport of Tritium Supply and Recycling Materials
This PEIS examines alternatives to accomplish the future mission for tritium supply and
recycling: to retain and upgrade the existing tritium recycling facility at SRS or to
locate one of the tritium supply technologies with or without recycling facilities at one
of five candidate sites. All of these would require transporting quantities of hazardous
materials, including tritium, between sites. All hazardous materials, except tritium and
highly enriched uranium, would be transported by commercial carrier in compliance with
DOT regulations. Tritium and highly enriched uranium would be transported by authorized
government means. Under all alternatives, tritium reserves would remain in place at SRS;
therefore, there would be no impacts for relocating tritium inventory.
Transportation impacts could result from normal operation of the tritium supply and
recycling facility. With the tritium supply and recycling facility, there are two types of
DOE tritium shipments for normal operation: those between DOE facilities and those
between a DOE facility and a military first destination. Impacts could also result from
the transport of highly enriched uranium for fuel feed materials under the HWR and MHTGR
alternatives. Multipurpose reactor impacts are addressed separately in section 4.8.3.
DOE has extensively studied the risk of accidental dispersal of radioactive materials,
including tritium transported by Ross Aviation, Inc., DOE's air cargo contractor. The
assessment showed that the probability of an accident by Ross Aviation was 2.7x10-4 per
year. The annual tritium release probability was 1.0x10-5 and the consequences from the
accidental release of tritium is estimated to be 9.0x10-8 latent cancer fatalities per
year.

4.7.1 Affected Environment
Although DOE has experienced traffic accidents related to the intersite transport of
Complex materials, historically there has never been a traffic accident involving the
release of radioactive materials. Therefore, risk impacts were determined using standard
analysis criteria and universally accepted computer models.
The Complex's hazardous material (radioactive and nonradioactive) transport requirements
are minor compared to the large shipment volume from non-DOE hazardous material transport
activities. DOT estimates that approximately 4 billiontons of regulated hazardous
materials are transported each year and that approximately 500,000 movements of materials
occur each day (PL 101-615, Section 2(1)). There are approximately 2 million annual
shipments of radioactive materials involving approximately 2.8million packages. This is
about 2percent of the Nation's annual hazardous materials shipments. Most radioactive
shipments involve small or intermediate quantities of material in relatively small
packages. During 1991, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the
Complex shipped about 6,200 radioactive packages (commercial and classified) between its
sites. This represents less than 0.3percent of all radioactive shipments in the United
States and about 2percent of all Complex intersite shipments.
The Complex's unclassified radioactive and other hazardous materials are transported by
commercial vehicles (truck, rail, and air carriers). Special nuclear material and
radioactive weapons components, representing approximately 3percent of DOE's total
hazardous materials shipments, are transported by DOE's safe secure trailers and the Ross
Aviation, Inc., air contract carrier. Typically, these special nuclear materials and
weapon components require continual surveillance and accountability by DOE's Transporta-
tion Safeguards Division located in Albuquerque, NM.
Tritium shipments between sites are made almost exclusively by air by Ross Aviation, Inc.
A small number of tritium shipments and most highly enriched uranium shipments are made by
DOE-owned and-operated safe secure trailers. The safe secure trailers are vehicles
designed specifically for the safety and security of the cargo. Shipments by safe secure
trailers are accompanied by armed guards and are monitored by a tracking system.
Regulatory authority is discussed further in appendixG.
For the analysis of intersite shipments of tritium, the baseline used is the number of
limited-life components (tritium reservoir) needed per year to meet all stockpile
requirements, including limited-life components needed for replacement in existing
weapons. This baseline represents DOE's anticipated tritium workload. The historical and
projected data for tritium shipments are classified information.

4.7.1.1 Site Transportation Interfaces for Hazardous Materials
The existing transportation modes that serve each of the five candidate sites and the
links to those modes for the intersite transport of hazardous materials are summarized in
table 4.7.1.1-1.
In A Report by the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Site Evaluation Panel
(October 1991), four sites (INEL, ORR, Pantex, and SRS) were given a comparative rating
based on the strengths and weaknesses of their transportation services. For consis-
tency, the rating methodology and evaluation procedures established by the Nuclear Weapons
Complex Reconfiguration Site Evaluation Panel were also applied to NTS. A more detailed
discussion of transportation issues is included in appendixG.
Table 4.7.1.1-1.-Transportation Modes and Comparison Ratings for the Candidate Sites
Candidate Site Onsite Nearest Distance to Barge Possible Overall Level
Railroad Inter-State Airport for Service Weather of
Service Highway Cargo Delays Transport
(miles) Shipments Service
(miles)
Idaho National Yes 46 40 No Yes Good
Engineering Laboratory
Nevada Test Site No 60 65 No No Good
Oak Ridge Reservation Yes 4 31 Yes Minimal Good
Pantex Plant Yes 7 20 No Minimal Outstanding
Savannah River Site Yes 30 20 Yes Minimal Good

4.7.1.2 Packaging
Packaging refers to a container and all accompanying components or materials necessary to
perform its containment function. Packagings used by DOE for hazardous materials shipments
are either certified to meet specific performance requirements or built to specifications
described in DOT hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR). For relatively harmless radio-
active materials, DOT Specification Type A packaging is used. Type A packaging is designed
to retain its contents under normal transportation conditions. More sensitive
radioactive materials shipments, including limited-life components (tritium reservoirs)
and highly enriched uranium, require the use of highly sophisticated Type B packaging,
designed to prevent the release of contents under all credible transportation accident
conditions.
Tritium, a low-energy beta emitter, is shielded in its packaging to prevent radiation of
detectable levels outside the packaging. Tritium is shipped in packaging specifically
designed for containment should an accident occur. Thus, during normal operation,
tritium-related transportation poses no significant risk to transportation workers or
the public.
Highly enriched uranium for fuel feed material would be placed in DOT-specification, Type
B packaging and transported by DOE safe secure trailer.

4.7.1.3 Reactor Vessel Transport
The reactor vessel is the largest component shipped to a site for installation. The vessel
size and weight will vary, depending on the reactor technology and manufacturer selected.
Based on past experience, it is possible to transport a reactor vessel to any of the
candidate sites. Transport of this type of equipment would require specific routing,
special transport vehicles, and assurance that the transportation infrastructure, from
origin to destination, is compatible to accept the size and weight of the load. Barge is a
preferred mode of transport, when available. Transport of the reactor vessel is typically
the vendor's responsibility. Any potential impacts for reactor vessel transport would be
included in sitespecific tiered NEPA documentation.

4.7.2 Environmental Impacts
Transportation-related impacts result from the movement of materials between sites. The
analysis of transportation impacts focused on the movement of tritium because of its
greater potential for impacts. The transportation impact assessment on tritium is
presented in a qualitative manner because of a lack of historical accident data.
Because there will be no relocation of existing tritium inventory, regardless of the
tritium supply technology selected, the only type of tritium transportation impact that
could result from alternatives analyzed in this PEIS are yearly impacts associated with
the transport of limited-life components during normal operation. Yearly operational
transportation impacts could occur regardless of the site selected for tritium supply and
recycling. However, if the tritium supply and recycling functions are collocated with the
assembly and disassembly function at Pantex, tritium transportation risk would be
reduced between DOE sites.
Radiological impacts could result from the transport of highly enriched uranium fuel
material under the HWR and MHTGR alternatives. These risks are assessed.

4.7.2.1 No Action
Under No Action, tritium functions would remain at SRS. There would be no new tritium
supply and no one-time tritium relocation impacts. The only impacts for No Action would be
from minimum operational activity. Hence, tritium-related transportation impacts would
decrease under No Action, as the tritium inventory is reduced through component
replacement or decay.
Under No Action, DOE would have the capability to perform stockpile surveillance and
weapons disassembly activities. These activities would necessitate some transportation
of tritium. For both stockpile surveillance and weapons disassembly activities, the
weapons would be dismantled at Pantex and tritium components shipped to SRS. The amount of
tritium to be transported under stockpile surveillance activities is determined by
quality assurance factors (i.e., random selection of weapons for testing and type and
number of weapons). Tritium components from stockpile surveillance activities would be
shipped at a low level of activity, based on specific requirements of the stockpile. The
annual number of nuclear weapons being dismantled would decrease as goals of the current
disarmament treaties are reached. By 2005, weapons disassembly under No Action would be
performed primarily to meet weapons inventory replacement needs and is expected to involve
approximately 5percent of the stockpile annually.
The No Action impacts for the transportation of tritium can be summarized as follows:
Normal (Incident-Free) Operation-The risk of transporting limited-life components
to/from SRS is negligible because there are no detectable levels of radiation outside the
package.
Accident Condition-The estimated consequences of transporting limited-life components
to/from SRS and Pantex is 9.0x10-8 latent cancer fatalities per year.
Without a new source of tritium, DOE is projected to eventually run out of tritium
reserves. Transportation risks would decrease thereafter until the tritium inventory was
depleted.

4.7.2.2 Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives
With each of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities, radiological risk
could be incurred from transporting limited-life components between Complex sites in the
course of normal operations. The impacts from transporting limited-life components would
vary depending on where the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities are
located in relation to Pantex or military first destinations. Factors affecting impacts
include air mileage, exposed populations, ground support facilities, and road miles
travelled to and from airfields.
All possible transportation route combinations were evaluated. Although differences exist,
such as air miles traveled, the consequences of an accidental tritium release during
transport is estimated to be 9.0x10-8 latent cancer fatalities per year, regardless of the
site selected, because takeoffs and landings will remain the same.
A simplified method of estimating the changes in transportation risk for tritium is to
compare with No Action the relative changes in the distance that limited-life components
might be transported to or from the assembly/disassembly plant at Pantex. Using this
approach, transportation risk increases or decreases, depending on miles traveled, can be
expressed as a relative mileage factor. The changes in relative transportation risk for
the five candidate sites are presented in table 4.7.2.2-1. Compared to the current
transportation risk of tritium, the relative transportation risk would be 29percent lower
if tritium supply and recycling is located at INEL, 30percent lower at NTS, and 13percent
lower at ORR. There would be no transportation risk if tritium supply and recycling is
collocated with assembly/disassembly functions at Pantex. For a comparison of air mileage
distances between sites, see appendix table G.6-3.
An alternative to collocating tritium supply and new recycling facilities at INEL, NTS,
ORR, or Pantex would be to place only tritium supply at these sites and upgrade and
continue to use the recycling function at SRS. In this case, the following tritium-related
transportation would occur:
Virgin tritium would be shipped from the tritium supply facilities at INEL, NTS, ORR, or
Pantex to SRS for processing in the tritium recycling facilities;
Tritium limited-life components would continue to be shipped from SRS to Pantex for
weapons production;
Table 4.7.2.2-1.-Comparison of Relative Mileage Risk
- Tritium Supply and Recycling Site
Assembly and INEL NTS ORR Pantex SRS
Disassembly Site
Pantex 0.71 0.7 0.87 0 1.0
Excess tritium limited-life components from disassembled weapons would continue to be
shipped from Pantex to SRS for recycling; and
Tritium limited-life component exchanges would continue to be shipped between SRS and
military locations for replenishment.
This option could result in additional impact for transporting virgin tritium from the
tritium supply facility to SRS. Two additional trips are estimated per year, or
approximately 2percent of the total distance travelled. Using the relative risk criteria
described above, the cumulative risk of this option would vary slightly depending on the
location of the selected tritium supply site, but would not exceed a relative risk factor
of 1.02. This option poses the highest risk because of the greater distances tritium would
be transported.
To estimate radiological impacts from transportation, the probability of an accident
occurring was derived from DOE and DOT empirical data bases, and the upper bound
additional exposures (50-year committed effective dose equivalent) that might be
experienced were used. Factors considered in the analysis include historical accident
rates, population densities along the route, and national atmospheric dispersion
parameters. These factors were incorporated in the RADTRAN transportation risk computer
code used for the calculations.
Based on transporting two truckloads of highly enriched uranium per year over the highest
risk route (from Y-12 to INEL), the estimated population dose risk from radiological
accidents during transportation is 3.9x10-11 person-rem per year.
Nonradiological impacts are fatalities that could result from traffic accidents. Standard
risk factors (fatalities per miles) for transport by truck in the U.S. are: 6.8x10-8 for
rural, 1.7x10-8 for suburban, and 9.6x10-9 for urban population zones. Using the highest
risk route (from Y-12 to INEL), the nonradiological accident impact would not exceed
4.9x10-4 fatalities per year.
Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Alternative
For this analysis, highly enriched uranium-oxide would be shipped in DOT-specification,
Type B packaging approved for this purpose. Each truckload would contain twenty packages.
Based on an annual usage of 2,200 lb of highly enriched uranium (DOE 1995a) and a limit of
40 pounds of highly enriched uranium per package (FDI 1995b), approximately three
truckloads per year would be required to transport the material.
The estimated population dose risks from radiological accidents during transportation
are 5.8x10-11 person-rem per year for the highest risk route (from Y-12 to INEL). The
estimated nonradiological accident risks are 7.3x10-4 fatalities per year for the highest
risk route (from Y-12 to INEL).
The maximum number of fatalities that would occur within 1 year from both radiological and
nonradiological accidents involving the transportation of highly enriched uranium-oxide
for both HWR and MHTGR would not exceed 0.00051 (DOE 1995a:3).
LLW results from industrial processes and includes radioactively contaminated paper,
protective clothing, cleaning materials, metal and glass equipment, tools, and
construction items. The Complex's LLW is disposed of at permitted onsite locations with
the exception of Pantex, which ships its LLW to NTS. If the tritium supply and recycling
facilities are located at Pantex, the additional transportation risk of shipping LLW to
NTS for normal operation would be negligible, regardless of the reactor technology, for
the reasons described in appendix G. Table 4.7.2.2-2 presents the health impacts from
transportation accidents due to siting of tritium supply and recycling facilities at
Pantex and shipment of LLW to NTS.
The number of fatal cancers per year by radiological release from all credible accidents
ranges from a high of 3.0x10-8 to a low of 3.3x10-9. For traffic accidents not involving
radiological releases, the number of fatalities ranges from a high of 4.0x10-4 to a low of
4.3x10-5. Regardless of the tritium supply and recycling alternative, health impacts from
transporting additional LLW shipments from Pantex to NTS are small.
Regardless of the tritium supply technology selected, locating the tritium supply and
recycling facilities at Pantex would not appreciably increase impacts should an accident
from the transport of LLW to NTS occur.
The impacts for the transportation of tritium, highly enriched uranium, and LLW under
tritium supply and recycling alternatives can be summarized as follows: Normal
(Incident-Free) Operation-The risk of transporting limited-life components is negligible
because no detectable levels of radiation outside the package are expected.
Accident Conditions-The estimated latent cancer fatalities per year from radiological
effects due to an accident involving the transport of limited-life components is 9.0x10-8.
If the transport of highly enriched uranium is required (HWR and MHTGR alternatives), the
estimated number of fatalities is 5.1x10-4. The worst-case values for transporting LLW
between Pantex and NTS are not expected to exceed 3.0x10-8 fatalities per year from
radiological effects and 4.0x10-4 traffic fatalities per year from traffic accidents not
involving radiological releases.
Table 4.7.2.2-2.-Accident Impacts from Transporting Low-Level Waste from Pantex Plant to
Nevada Test Site
- - With a Radiological Release Without a Radiological Release
Alternative Additional Fatal Fatal Traffic Traffic
Shipments of Cancers from Cancer Fatalities Fatality
Low-Level Additional Frequency (per year) Frequency
Waste to NTS Shipments (years) (years)
(per year) (per year)
Heavy Water Reactor 86 2.8x10-8 3.6x107 3.7x10-4 2,703
Heavy Water Reactor 92 3.0x10-8 3.3x107 4.0x10-4 2,525
and Recycling Facility
Modular High Temperature 22 7.2x10-9 1.4x108 9.5x10-5 10,571
Gas-Cooled Reactor
Modular High Temperature 27 8.8x10-9 1.1x108 1.2x10-4 8,621
Gas-Cooled Reactor
and Recycling Facility
Large Advanced Light 26 8.5x10-9 1.2x108 1.1x10-4 8,929
Water Reactor
Large Advanced Light 32 1.0x10-8 9.6x107 1.4x10-4 7,246
Water Reactor and
Recycling Facility
Small Advanced Light 13 4.2x10-9 2.4x108 5.6x10-5 17,889
Water Reactor
Small Advanced Light 18 5.9x10-9 1.7x108 7.7x10-5 12,920
Water Reactor and
Recycling Facility
Accelerator Production 10 3.3x10-9 3.1x108 4.3x10-5 23,256
of Tritium
Accelerator Production 16 5.2x10-9 1.9x108 6.9x10-5 14,535
of Tritium and
Recycling Facility

4.8 Potential Impacts From Tritium Supply Options
In addition to the impacts described in section 4.2 through 4.7 for the proposed tritium
supply technologies and recycling facilities, impacts due to various options are
qualitatively described in this section. Where possible, a quantitative analysis is
presented. The options identified relate to additional reactor capabilities (electrical
production) which have been included in the designs evaluated in this PEIS, an option for
providing a dedicated power plant for the APT, and a plutonium or mixed-oxide fueled
reactor.

4.8.1 Sale of Steam from Tritium Supply Technologies
Two of the tritium supply reactor technologies, the MHTGR and the ALWR, operate at
temperatures high enough to produce electricity by a power conversion facility. Heat
transferred to the secondary cooling system could be used to generate steam that would
drive turbine generator units. The MHTGR and the ALWR reactor technologies, as described
and analyzed in this PEIS, include a power conversion facility. Thus, this PEIS includes
the consequences of the production of electricity. Impacts to air, water, land, and human
health from energy production are included in section 4.2 through 4.7 for the MHGTR and
ALWR; however, distribution and transmission of generated power by the reactors are not
assessed. The offsite impacts of the distribution and transmission of electrical power
to operate a reactor or an accelerator are also not addressed. Because the conditions
associated with the sale of steam for power, or the generation and sale of electricity,
are uncertain, it is not possible to assess any specific offsite environmental impacts.
However, it is clear that it would be necessary to construct electrical distribution or
transmission lines and that electricity would be transmitted across the lines. Thus, the
following section discusses the general impacts from the sale of steam or electricity.
Similar impacts would also be expected from the construction of transmission and
distribution lines to operate the reactor and accelerator technologies. A separate tiered
site-specific NEPA review would be required to support a decision to sell steam for power
production or to generate electricity.
Because it is not known where or how much new offsite transmission capacity would be
required for any of the sites, no site-specific impacts can be assessed. However, the
general impacts of transmission lines are discussed below.
Construction of an electric distribution or transmission line would result in land use
and visual impacts. The level of impact would depend on the existing land uses and the
surrounding visual environment. Transmission lines could create strong vertical line and
moderate texture contrasts with surrounding landscape, particularly where they run
parallel to regional highways. These contrasts would draw attention to the transmission
line. Visual impacts may occur along the segments of transmission lines where they cross
ridgelines or lands with high visual qualities. The location of towers would likely
introduce impacts to the skyline along ridgeline segments and draw strong visual attention
from viewers traveling on highways or using regional recreational resources.
Construction of an electric distribution or transmission line would also disturb
terrestrial habitats. For example, any crossed wetlands or riparian areas might be
disturbed by activities to clear vegetation, place transmission towers, construct
maintenance road access, and string cables. With time, disturbed areas in the
right-of-ways would undergo some degree of natural succession; however, continued
maintenance by the utility would limit the succession stage. The transmission lines could
open previously inaccessible areas to human presence through the introduction of roads for
construction and maintenance. Workers as well as trespassers using the access roads could
increase road kills and general harassment of wildlife in the area of the transmission
corridor.
Birds could also be affected by transmission lines. During periods of decreased visibility
due to fogging or adverse weather, it is not unusual for birds to collide with lines or
transmission towers. The most frequent victims of such collisions are large migratory
water birds and raptors in areas where lines are located adjacent to raptor concentration
areas, waterfowl wintering staging areas, or other areas with avifauna concentrations. The
placement of lines near to where birds congregate (e.g., roosting areas, lakes, and
wetlands) could increase the risk and frequency of bird collisions.
Transmission lines produce a corona, which is a physical manifestation of energy loss.
This phenomenon results in audible noise, radio and television interference, and the
production of ozone in the immediate area of the lines. The effects of corona production
decrease dramatically as distance from the line increases.
There is limited scientific understanding of the potential health risks from
electromagnetic fields exposure. Electric fields associated with transmission lines are
a function of the voltage of the line, while magnetic field levels are a function of the
current carried by the conductors. Both field magnitudes are affected by the size of the
conductor, conductor separation distance, and distance from the conductor. Electromagnetic
field exposure typically is attenuated with distance from the conductors. Therefore,
electromagnetic field exposure would vary along a transmission line right-of-way.
Currently it is not known whether certain magnitudes of electromagnetic field exposure are
safer or less safe than other levels. For example, with most chemicals, it is assumed
that exposure to higher concentrations is worse than exposures at lower concentrations.
This may or may not be true in the case of electromagnetic field exposure. The basic
nature of the interaction between electromagnetic field exposure and biological processes
is still not understood and, because of this, it is inappropriate to make generali-
zations about the exposure-response relationships and cancer effects. Also, other health
effects have not been studied as extensively as cancer effects, so it is even more
uncertain if there are any noncarcinogenic health risks associated with electromagnetic
field exposure.

4.8.2 Dedicated Power Plant for Accelerator Production of Tritium
As indicated in section 3.4, an option to collocate a dedicated power plant (500 to 600
MWe) at a DOE site or in the site region by a utility to support an APT may be considered
a potential but unknown cost saving measure at some sites.
To identify potential site-specific impacts at the five candidate sites from a dedicated
power plant, a typical 500 to 600 MWe gas-fired power plant was evaluated. The gas-fired
plant was selected for site-specific analysis based on utility trends in power plant new
construction and requirements to meet environmental regulatory standards and guidelines.
Potential site-specific impacts on site infrastructure, biotics, air quality, and waste
management are included in each site's environmental analysis for these issues in section
4.2-4.6.
Because it is not known if the power plant option is viable or even reasonable for any of
the candidate sites, where such a plant would be located (onsite or offsite), or what type
of power plant would be designed, more detailed site specific impacts can not be assessed.
However, the general impacts that may potentially be expected from construction and
operation of such a power plant whether it be coal or natural-gas, are discussed below in
a qualitative manner. These impacts would be in addition to those described in section
4.8.1 for transmission lines from the regional power pool because the APT would still
require this power source as a backup.

4.8.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Plant
The design of a 500 to 600 MWe coal-fired, steam-electric generating power plant would
vary greatly depending on the site characteristics. However, the major components which
could be common to any design can be used to assess general environ- mental impacts.
The major components of the power plant would include the following: a steam generator
(boiler); turbine-generator; air emissions control system (dry scrubber and baghouse);
stack; circulating water (cooling water) system; water supply, storage, and treatment
facilities; waste management and disposal facilities; and fuel receiving, storage, and
handling facilities. In addition to the above components, ancillary facilities for the
plant as a whole would typically include access roads, parking areas, a railroad spur, a
switchyard, warehouses, and maintenance facilities.
Construction Activities and Potential Impacts. Construction activities for the plant site
would typically include road access construction and site preparation; construction of
plant facilities (fire pumphouse, wells, power lines, an electric substation, etc.);
concrete and structural steel erection for main building and support facilities; and
construction of a coal receiving and unloading siding. The construction period of a
plant of this size is estimated to be approximately 3 years. An estimated average
construction workforce for this period would be approximately 500 persons, with a peak
workforce of approximately 800 persons.
Based on power plants of similar size (500 to 600 MWe), approximately 300 acres would be
disturbed by construction activities. The area disturbed could increase substantially when
ancillary facilities are constructed, such as new railroad spurs. For example, at NTS a
new 60-mile-long railroad spur would be required if the plant is collocated with the APT.
Land clearing, grading, and general construction activities would impact land use,
soils, air quality, and biotic resources at the site. The land use and biotic resources
impacts would be long-term. The air quality and soil impacts would be short-term and minor
with appropriate standard construction methods. Cultural resources may be potentially
affected by clearing, grading, and excavation activities depending on the site. The
construction workforce could benefit the revenues of local communities, but could also
have adverse impacts on local traffic. Housing and community services in the areas
probably would not be affected by a construction project of this size.
Operation and Potential Impacts. The power plant is assumed to operate 24 hours a day, 365
days per year, using three 8-hour workshifts. Based on similar sized plants, an estimated
operational workforce of approximately 145 persons would be needed. Operation of the plant
would typically involve four major activities on a continuous basis: fuel receiving,
storage, and handling; power generating system; plant water supply; and plant water
treatment.
Fuel Receiving, Storage, and Handling. The power plant is assumed to burn coal delivered
to the plant site by unit trains. A unit train is defined as a train with 55 coal cars,
each with the capacity of 104tons. Depending on the site, the source of coal could be in
another state.
Coal to supply Western power plants is generally extracted from the earth by stripmining.
Coal in the East is both stripmined and extracted from below ground mines. Below surface
mining has fewer and less adverse environmental effects than stripmining. Most below
ground mine impacts are the result of spoils storage and water runoff from the mine area.
With proper controls and treatment of contaminated runoff, the environmental effects to
surface, groundwater, and terrestrial resources are expected to be minor.
Stripmining disturbs a considerable amount of land and affects vegetation and wildlife; it
also affects air and water quality. In the stripmining process, surface soil and
vegetation are removed, to a depth of 30 feet or more, and piled nearby ("spoils"). The
coal is then dug and stored. The stripmining process is then repeated except that the
spoils are placed in the preceding pit. The landscape becomes a series of uneven piles.
Eventually surface soil is returned and the land is reclaimed.
Potential impacts resulting from stripmining include land disturbance, vegetation removal,
runoff, erosion, and increased stream sedimentation. Increased surface water turbidity
would affect inhabitants and potentially result in changes in water temperature and loss
of habitat. The land reclamation and revegetation process would result in competition
among species (including invasive species), soil compaction, and displacement by nonnative
plant species. Although coal companies are required to undertake reclamation of mined
lands, mining imposes at least a short-term change in land use, with longer-term changes
depending on the success of reclamation efforts.
After extraction, coal is transported to generating plants by large trucks and/or unit
trains. These methods of transport produce diesel engine emissions, some release of dust
to the atmosphere, and consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., diesel fuel). Coal
would be received from the mine(s) in unit trains that would operate continuously between
the mines and the plant. Assuming a 500 to 600 MWe plant operating at a 100-percent
capacity factor, approximately 6,000tons per day of coal would be consumed. Based on an
average annual load factor of 85 percent, the demand would be somewhat lower. Average
total annual coal consumption thus would be approximately 1,853,000tons. To support this
average firing rate would require 324 unit trains to be delivered every year.
Once the coal is unloaded it is transferred by conveyor to storage silos that feed boilers
or to a coal storage yard. Storage silos for the assumed plant size would typically have a
capacity of 12,000tons and be approximately 70 feet in diameter by 210 feet high. The size
of a coal storage yard would typically be based on a 45-day supply at an average annual
load of 85percent of nominal generation capacity. The coal storage yard provides a reserve
from which the station can be supplied during coal shortages or emergency situations
(e.g., mine strikes and rail strikes).
The potential impacts of fuel receiving, storage, and handling are principally associated
with fugitive dust (approximately 16tons per year) generated by the handling and
processing of coal and groundwater quality degradation from the potential releases of
constituents leached from coal. However, with current technologies for dust control and
coal stockpile management, these potential impacts would be minor.
Power Generating System. The power generating system typically includes boilers,
turbine-generators, lime spray dry scrubbers, fabric filters, stacks, and mechanical draft
cooling towers.
Coal-fired power plants are designed to ensure that coal combustion is complete. Air
emissions would include substantial amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and hydrogen chloride on an annual basis. The estimated controlled annual
average emissions from a typical 500MWe plant would be: sulfur dioxide (3,440tons);
nitrogen oxides (8,600tons); particulate matter (293tons); and carbon monoxide
(2,219tons). These products of coal (and to a lesser extent gas) combustion contribute to
the regional acid rain problem in the eastern United States, adverse health effects, and
potentially the unsolved issue of global warming. Excluding flue gas, the principal
products of burned coal would be bottom ash and fly ash carried through to the scrubber
and baghouse. An air emission control system designed with best available control
technology would minimize air quality impacts and meet applicable state and Federal air
quality standards.
A lime spray dry scrubber would require approximately 100tons per day of lime, and
assuming 25-ton capacity pneumatic transfer trailers, 4 additional truck trips per day
would be added to site traffic. The air emission control system would also be expected to
generate considerable waste products that when added to bottom ash and mill rejects
(pyrites) would generate additional truck traffic and land disposal area impacts. An
estimated 22tons per hour of fly ash and scrubber byproduct and an estimated 3tons per
hour of bottom ash and mill rejects would require disposal in a landfill. Assuming the
landfill is permitted and meets regulatory requirements, no impacts, outside of developing
the landfill if one does not exist, would be expected. Truck traffic impacts would vary
depending on the site and the locations of the landfill (onsite or offsite).
The turbine-generators and associated cooling towers would not be expected to have adverse
environmental impacts since no discharges to the environment (except for cooling tower
water mist) would occur. In best available control technology designed coal-fired power
plants, cooling tower blowdown water is typically used for the scrubber, coal dust
suppression, bottom ash transport, and other uses; therefore, minimal discharge or
potential impacts to surface waters would be expected.
Plant Water Supply. Water, for use in generating steam and for transferring
plant-generated waste heat to the atmosphere, would be obtained from either groundwater or
surface water depending on the resources available to the site. The estimated water
requirement for a 500 to 600 MWe plant is approximately 2.6 BGY. If surface water is
used, impacts to land use, soils, and biotic resources and possible wetlands from
construction of a pipeline could occur. Operation of the pipeline could also affect the
surface water source. Where groundwater was used, new well fields may need to be
established along with pumphouses and pipeline. Impacts may potentially occur to
groundwater resources (due to drawdown), land use, cultural resources, and biotic
resources due to construction of well fields, pipelines, and powerlines.
Plant Water Treatment. A number of chemicals would also be expected to be used to treat
cooling systems water and boiler feedwater. The use of such chemicals would not have
direct environmental impacts in a properly designed plant; however, the storage of these
chemicals in large quantities could increase the risk of environmental impacts in accident
situations. Typical chemicals for treating cooling system waters include sulfuric acid,
lime soda, and chlorine. Boiler feedwater treatment would depend on the quality of the
water available for use at the site. Typical treatment chemicals would include lime,
sulfuric acid, caustic soda, hydrazine, and ammonia.

4.8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Power Plant
A natural gas-fueled combustion turbine electric generating power plant design would
also vary greatly depending on the site characteristics. Typically, the natural gas
combustion turbine facility requires less land, support facilities, water resources, and
waste management than coal-fired plants. The following major components would typically be
expected in a 500 to 600 MWe generating facility: five or six combustion turbine
generator units (approximately 90MWe rated capacity each); a natural gas supply system; a
fuel oil delivery and storage system; a water supply system (wells or surface water); a
water demineralization system; and transmission and distribution equipment. In addition
to the major components, ancillary facilities for the plant could typically include
access roads, parking areas, warehouses, and maintenance facilities.
Construction Activities and Potential Impacts. Construction activities would be similar to
those described for the coal-fired plant but at a much reduced level. The construction
period is estimated to be approximately 2 years and the estimated average construction
workforce for this period would be approximately 150 persons (approximately 225peak
workforce). Based on similar facilities, approximately 25 acres would be required for this
size combustion turbine facility. Ancillary facilities could increase the land requirement
and disturbance area substantially. Construction impacts would affect the same resources
as those described for the coal power plant but at a substantially reduced level because
of the smaller plant size and land disturbance area. Socioeconomic effects would be
negligible with this size project.
Operation and Potential Impacts. Operation of a natural gas electric generating facility
would require a very small workforce compared to a coal power plant. Approximately 50 to
75 workers would be needed. If constructed at an existing utility site, additional
workforce requirements could be less since the turbine units could be designed for
unattended operation and remotely operated from the utility dispatch center.
Natural gas, the primary fuel for the combustion turbine, would be directly supplied to
the units by pipeline. Assuming an average heat rate of 14,500Btu per kWh and 1,000Btu per
ft3 (DOE 1993y), approximately 14.5 ft3 of natural gas per kWh would be consumed. Thus,
for the Full APT electrical requirement of 3,740,000 MWh per year, 54,200 million ft3 of
natural gas would be needed. The Phased APT electrical requirement of 2.4million MWh per
year would consume 34,800 million ft3 of natural gas. No additional gas handling or
storage facilities would be needed. However, most natural gas combustion plants have the
backup capability to burn No. 2 fuel oil in the event of gas supply interruption. This
auxiliary fuel would require construction and maintenance of storage facilities.
Typically, these are 625,000-gallon above-ground steel tanks approximately 50 feet in
diameter and 45 feet in height. Approximately 8 to 10 tanks would be needed for 5 turbine
units. To contain accidental spills and prevent potential soil, groundwater, and surface
water contamination, a dike system with low permeability floors is typically constructed
around the tanks. Fuel oil deliveries to the plant are typically by truck; however,
other means such as barge transport may be used depending on the site. Potential impacts
to groundwater, surface water resources, air quality, and soils would be minimal with
standard industry control measures.
The plant would generate no visible emissions during normal operation; however, the plant
could generate and contribute substantial sulfur dioxide (5tons), particulate matter
(179tons), nitrogen oxide (314tons), carbon monoxide (75tons), and volatile organic
compounds (215tons) emissions on an annual basis. Using a plant design with best available
control technology to minimize emissions and comply with applicable air quality standards
and permits would minimize impacts to local and regional air quality.
Approximately 80MGY of water would be needed to operate the plant. A majority of the water
requirement (approximately 83percent) would be for NOx emission control. Approximately
15percent of the total water requirement would be used for backwashing deionizer resins
and carbon filters used to demineralize the NOx injection water. The natural gas turbine
plant would typically use approximately 3.5percent of the water needed for the same size
coal power plant. The potential environmental impacts would be anticipated to be similar
to those described for the coal power plant; however, the impacts on groundwater and
surface water resources may be smaller because of the reduced water requirement.
The demineralized backwash could potentially degrade groundwater and surface water
resources if not treated before discharge. Typically, backwash would contain dilute
concentrations of trace metals and low-to-moderate concentrations of calcium, sodium, and
sulfate. With appropriate wastewater treatment, no impacts to surface water or groundwa-
ter resources would be expected.

4.8.3 Multipurpose Reactor
This PEIS for Tritium Supply and Recycling evaluates alternative technologies and sites
for long-term, assured tritium supply and recycling. Another DOE program office, the
Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, is preparing a PEIS addressing the issue of how
to dispose of plutonium that is excess to the Nuclear Weapons Complex (section 1.5.3).
Among the alternatives expected to be analyzed in Long-Term Storage and Disposition of
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS is the use of plutonium as a fuel in existing,
modified, or new nuclear reactors. Using plutonium in reactor fuel would burn up a portion
of the excess plutonium and embed any remaining plutonium in highly radioactive spent
fuel, thus reducing the proliferation risks of the material.
The nuclear reactors evaluated for tritium production in this PEIS utilize uranium as the
fuel source in their cores, and the analysis is based on that design. Nonetheless, it is
conceivable and technically feasible to also use a plutonium or plutonium-uranium oxide
(mixed-oxide) fuel for a tritium production reactor. Appendix section A.3 discusses this
technical feasibility for each of the tritium supply technologies analyzed in this PEIS.
Thus, a tritium production reactor could be utilized by DOE to also dispose of excess
plutonium.
Congress and commercial entities have expressed interest in developing a multipurpose
reactor that could meet both DOE's tritium supply requirements and dispose of the excess
plutonium. A multipurpose reactor is defined as one capable of producing tritium,
"burning" plutonium, and generating revenues through the sale of electric power.
Of the four tritium supply technologies evaluated in this PEIS, only the MHTGR and ALWR
meet the above definition of a multipurpose reactor. The HWR and APT were not recommended
by the Materials Disposition Office Screening Committee for plutonium disposition. Thus,
the HWR and APT are not considered for impact analysis in this section.
However, the MHTGR and ALWR can with minor or moderate design changes produce tritium,
burn plutonium, and generate revenues through the sale of electric power. This section
analyzes the potential environmental impacts if the MHTGR or ALWR were used as a
multipurpose reactor. As noted in section 3.2.3, tritium production is the only need
addressed in this PEIS. However, if the MHTGR or ALWR were used to produce tritium they
could also be used to dispose of plutonium. Therefore, the environmental impacts of a
plutonium-burning MHTGR and ALWR are qualitatively presented in this section. These
impacts are not analyzed to the same level of detail as those presented for the tritium
supply technology alternatives. Furthermore, most of the information required for
detailed analysis does not currently exist. Where data does exist, more detailed analysis
is presented.
While this section describes a new ALWR operating in a multipurpose mode, the discussion
is also applicable to the Commercial Reactor alternative. A commercial reactor could
be used to make tritium, produce electricity, and burn plutonium as fuel. The environ-
mental impacts associated with performing those missions would be similar to those
described for the multipurpose ALWR. Throughout the document, references to and
discussion of impacts for the multipurpose ALWR can be applied to a multipurpose
commercial reactor alternative.
The environmental impacts from tritium and steam production using the MHTGR and ALWR
technologies at each of the five candidate sites are described in sections 4.2 through
4.6. The generic impacts from the sale of steam or electricity, including construction of
electric transmission lines, are analyzed in section 4.8.1. This section describes the
impacts resulting from plutonium burning, the third function that could be performed by a
multipurpose reactor.
The ALWR multipurpose reactor would require the construction of a new Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility described in section
4.8.3.1. The reactor changes and potential impacts from using mixed-oxide fuel in an ALWR
are discussed in section 4.8.3.2.
For a modular gas-cooled multipurpose reactor, twice as many reactor modules would be
needed both to meet tritium requirements and to burn plutonium. The additional reactor
modules are needed to compensate for the loss in tritium production due to the intro-
duction of plutonium fuel in such a reactor (appendix A.3.2.2). This is true regardless of
whether a 350 MWt MHTGR or a 600 MWt Modular Helium Reactor is used for tritium production
(see A.3.1.1 for a description of the helium reactor). Substantial technical uncertainty
exists for the use of a gas-cooled reactor for plutonium disposition. The 600 MWt Modular
Helium Reactor would be the most likely gas-cooled reactor for multipurpose use.
The environmental impacts associated with tritium production in this PEIS are based upon
the 350 MWt MHTGR and not the 600 MWt Modular Helium Reactor. The design information for a
350 MWt MHTGR represents the best available information for a tritium producing gas-cooled
reactor. The impacts of three 350 MWt MHTGR reactors are representative of impacts
expected from two 600 MWt modular helium reactors for tritium production (see section
A.3.1.1). This correlation is expected to remain true for the environmental impacts of a
multipurpose reactor. Thus, the environmental impacts discussed in this section for a
gas-cooled multipurpose reactor are based upon the 350 MWt MHTGR design.
In addition to twice as many reactor modules, a new Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility
would also be needed for a multipurpose gas-cooled reactor. While such a facility has not
been designed it is expected to be similar to the facility described in section 4.8.3.1.
The impacts of the MHTGR Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would be minor in
comparison to the construction and operation of three more reactor modules. The impacts
from construction and operation of three additional MHTGR reactor modules are discussed in
section 4.8.3.3.
The discussion of impacts for the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility includes both construction and operation. Impacts are described for a
collocated facility with the multipurpose reactor and alone at a separate DOE site.
Construction impacts of the ALWR multipurpose reactor would not differ from those
described for the tritium production ALWR and therefore are not discussed in this section.
Construction of the multipurpose MHTGR would require three additional reactor modules,
and therefore construction impacts are discussed.

4.8.3.1 Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
The primary purpose of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would be to combine the functions of pit disassembly, conversion, and
mixed-oxide fuel fabrication to produce fuel elements for use in a multipurpose reactor.
The facility would accept surplus plutonium in pit form and produce plutonium-oxide which
would then be combined with uranium-oxide received from offsite commercial sources and
fabricated into mixed-oxide fuel. This fuel would be assembled into appropriate fuel rods
for use in a multipurpose reactor. This process would take plutonium pits, convert them
into plutonium-oxide, blend with uranium-oxide, and form into fuel rods. For any plutonium
disposition alternative, the pit disassembly/conversion portion of such a facility would
be required. For a multipurpose reactor the fuel fabrication portion would also be
required. However, in the case of the multipurpose MHTGR, a fuel fabrication facility is
already integrated in the tritium supply MHTGR reactor design which, with minor modifica-
tions, could be used for plutonium-oxide fuel fabricating. Therefore, only a new Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility would be required to accept surplus plutonium in pit form
and produce plutonium-oxide for the fuel fabrication facility.
Facility Description. A new Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would be housed in four buildings: (1) the manufacturing building; (2) the
plutonium area access building; (3) the administration building; and (4) the technical
services building. Figure 4.8.3.1-1 presents the facility plot plan and figure 4.8.3.1-2
presents the manufacturing building layout plan. The manufacturing building would be a
hardened facility designed to contain the release of radioactive materials should such a
release occur. The plutonium area access, administrative, and technical services buildings
would not contain radioactive material production or storage facilities.
Similarly, for a new Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility, primary buildings would include
the plutonium processing building and the plutonium operations support building. Nuclear
materials would be handled only in the concrete plutonium processing building. Figure
4.8.3.1-1 indicates the conceptual locations of these buildings along with other ancillary
facilities.
Figure (Page 4-483)
Figure 4.8.3.1-1.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Plot
Plan.
Figure (Page 4-484)
Figure 4.8.3.1-2.-Manufacturing Building Layout Plan.
Table 4.8.3.1-1 presents select key design parameters for the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. Construction, operation, and
waste generation data for the facility are presented in tables 4.8.3.1-2, 4.8.3.1-3, and
4.8.3.1-4.
For comparison purposes, tables 4.8.3.1-5 through 4.8.3.1-8 show the design parameters,
construction, operation, and waste management data for the Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility only.
Table 4.8.3.1-1.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Key
Design Parameters
Design Parameter Value
Primary fuel to boilers and Natural gas
other miscellaneous
energy users
Buffer zone between 1 mile
operations and site
boundary
Storage capacity for 3 year capacity
mixed LLW
Source of raw water Ground wells or reclaimed
(dry site) sanitary wastewater
Manufacturing building 115,000 ft2
footprint
Total manufacturing 75,000 cfm
building ventilation rate
Manufacturing building 3 stages
HEPA filters (minimum)
Mixed-oxide fabrication 100
capacity
(metric tons per year)
Public exposure to 100
radiation at site
boundary (mrem
effective dose equivalent
per year)
Worker maximum 1,000
exposure to radiation
(mrem effective dose
equivalent per year
Maximum allowable 5,000
Goal 500
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-2.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
Construction Requirements
Requirement Consumption
Material/Resources
Electrical power (MW peak) 1
Concrete (yd3) 40,000
Steel (tons) 4,000
Fuel (gal) 200,000
Industrial gases (scf) 550,000
Water (gal) 3,000,000
Water (GPD peak) 5,000
Land Disturbance (acres) 129
Employment
Total employment (worker years) 3,155
Peak employment (workers) 745
Construction period (years) 6
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-3.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
Operation Requirements
Requirement Consumption
Utility
Electrical power (MWh per 20,000
year)
Electrical energy (MW peak) 4
Water (gal/yr) <10,000,000
Natural gas (scf) 125,000,000
Diesel Fuel (gal per year) 8,000
Plant Footprint
Plant (acres) 129
Employment
Total employment 650
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-4.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Waste
Volumes
Category Annual Average Annual
Volume Volume
Generated Effluent
During During
Construction Operation
(yd3) (yd3)
Transuranic
Liquid None None
Solid None 392
Mixed TRU
Liquid None None
Solid None 6.5
Low-Level
Liquid None None
Solid None 524
Mixed
Low-Level
Liquid None 1
(200 gal)
Solid None 13
Hazardous
Liquid None 1
(200 gal)
Solid None 13
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid <16,500 495
(<3,330,000 gal) (10,000,000 gal)
Solid < 674 3,920
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None Included in
sanitary
Solid Included in Included in
sanitary sanitary
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-5.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility Key Design Parameters
Design Parameters Values
Primary fuel to boilers and other Natural gas
miscellaneous energy users
Buffer zone between operations 1 mile
and site boundary
Storage capacity for mixed LLW Shipped offsite
Source of raw water (dry site) Underground wells
Manufacturing building footprint 82,800
Plutonium-oxide production 2
capacity (metric tons per year)
Public exposure to radiation at site 100
boundary (mrem effective dose
equivalent per year)
Worker maximum exposure to 1,000
radiation (mrem effective dose
equivalent per year)
Maximum allowable 5,000
Goal 500
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-6.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility Construction Requirements
Requirement Consumption
Material/Resources
Electrical power (MW peak) 5
Concrete (yd3) 25,000
Steel (tons) 2,500
Fuel (gal) 125,000
Industrial gases (scf) 500,000
Water (gal) 2,000,000
Water (GPD peak) 10,000
Land Disturbance (acres) 5
Employment
Total employment (worker years) 530
Peak employment (workers) 125
Construction period (years) 6
Source: LANL 1995b.
Table 4.8.3.1-7.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility Operation Requirements
Requirement Consumption
Utility
Electrical energy (MWh per year) 13,000
Electrical power (MW peak) 5
Water (GPY) 10,000,000
Natural gas (scf) 80,000,000
Diesel fuel (GPY) 5,000
Plant Footprint
Plant (acres) 30
Employment
Total employment 520
Source: LANL 1995a.
Table 4.8.3.1-8.-Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility Waste Volumes
Waste Category Annual Average Annual Volume
Volume Effluent During
Generated Operation
During (yd3)
Construction
(yd3)
Transuranic
Liquid None None
Solid None 13
Mixed TRU
Liquid None None
Solid None 1a
Low-Level
Liquid None None
Solid None 10a
Mixed Low-
Level
Liquid None 0.5
(100 gal)
Solid None 0.2a
Hazardous
Liquid None 5
(1,000 gal)
Solid None 1a
Nonhazardous
(Sanitary)
Liquid 1,650 74,270
(333,300 gal) (15,000,000 gal)
Solid None 87a
Nonhazardous
(Other)
Liquid None None
Solid 84 None
(concrete/steel)
Operation impacts are expected to be less for a Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility than
for a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Fuel Fabrication Facility due to the difference in
annual plutonium product output of 2 metric tons of plutonium-oxide versus 100metric tons
of fabricated fuel, respectively. The decrease is expected for construction impacts as
well; the smaller Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility would require fewer construction
personnel, would consume less materials and resources, and would generate fewer
construction emissions and wastes.
Construction Impacts. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would be constructed in conjunction with a multipurpose ALWR and could be
collocated with the reactor or be sited at another DOE site. The stand-alone option would
require the transport of the finished fuel rods to the multipurpose reactor site.
For the multipurpose MHTGR, the Pit Disassembly/Conversion Facility could either be
collocated with the MHTGR or remain as a stand-alone facility. In the case of the latter,
stable plutonium-oxide produced from pits would be transported to the MHTGR fuel
fabrication facility.
The discussion of potential impacts associated with the two facilities are addressed in
relation to a tritium production MHTGR or ALWR and generally are addressed on a non
site-specific basis. Areas addressed include land resources, air emissions, and
socioeconomics.
Land Resources. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
would require approximately 129 acres of land for a stand-alone facility. The Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility would require approximately 30 acres. For a collocated
facility, the land requirement would be less because some of the land developed for the
reactor complex would be shared. This additional acreage would not result in a large
increase in the percentage of the total land area disturbed by construction at a
tritium production site. The loss of an additional 30 to 129 acres for a stand-alone
facility could lead to increased soil erosion, impacts to biotic resources, and
disturbance to cultural and paleontological resources.
Air Emissions. Air pollutants generated during construction of the facility would
principally be fugitive dust associated with land disturbance and exhaust emissions from
equipment and vehicles. These pollutants would represent an incremental increase in
those generated during construction of a tritium production MHTGR or ALWR, and would
increase the potential for the 24-hour ambient standard for PM10 and TSP to be exceeded
during the peak construction period. Construction emissions would be expected to be
approximately one-half that of constructing a tritium recycling facility. Impacts could be
reduced by the implementation of mitigation measures such as using water sprays on gravel
roads, applying soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, suspending excavation and
grading operations when wind speeds warrant, paving heavily used construction roads, and
using electricity from power poles rather than gasoline and diesel power generators.
Water. Construction water demand would be approximately 0.5 MGY, with a peak demand of
about 5,000GPD. This would represent a less than 1percent increase of the total
construction demand for either an MHTGR or ALWR tritium production facility. The increase
would not be expected to impact either groundwater or surface water supplies if the
facility were sited alone at another location.
Sources of wastewater during construction include storm water runoff and nonhazardous
and/or sanitary discharge. For a stand-alone facility, storm water runoff would result
from disturbance of additional land. A collocated facility would potentially disturb less
acreage since it would be within the tritium supply complex perimeter. Standard erosion
and sediment control measures would minimize adverse impacts from this source. Discharges
of non-hazardous and/or sanitary wastewater would meet NPDES permit requirements. The
combined discharge would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in the flow
of receiving water courses.
Socioeconomics. Construction of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility would require about 550 workers (approximately 530 for a Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility) over a 6-year construction period. This would be an
approximate 3 to 16 percent increase in the work force needed to build either the MHTGR or
ALWR tritium production facility. The number of peak construction workers would be
somewhat less if collocated with a tritium production facility. The increase would have
some additional impact on local traffic and economies, including increased secondary
employment, decreased unemployment, and increased demand for housing and other services.
Operation. The discussion of potential impacts resulting from facility operations includes
atmospheric and liquid emissions, water requirements, socioeconomics, human health
during normal operation and accidents, waste, and intersite transportation.
Atmospheric Emissions. Operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants regulated by
Federal and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. Engineering controls or
mitigations would be used to minimize air quality impacts from operation with respect to
the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants, and achieve
compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local air quality regulations or
guidelines. Air pollutant emission sources associated with the operation of the facility
include power generators, heating boilers, vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust, and other
facility emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions are expected to be approximately one-half
those expected from a tritium recycling facility. The only likely facility emissions of
concern may potentially include trace amounts of volatile organic compounds, hydrogen
cleaning solvents, and plutonium-oxide (15 mCi per year, which is equivalent to
one-millionth of a pound per year).
Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations, which are designed to protect ambient
air quality in attainment areas, apply to new sources and major modifications to existing
sources. Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits may be required for the
facility if constructed at a separate site from the multipurpose reactor. This may
require reductions of existing emissions for the facility to receive permits.
Liquid Emissions. Operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility would generate approximately 10 MGY of sanitary wastewater. This
wastewater would not have radioactive or hazardous constituents. Sanitary effluents would
be treated and discharged in accordance with NPDES permit requirements. Wastewater
would be sampled and analyzed for radioactive materials, tritium, and heavy metals to
determine permit compliance. Storm water would be collected and treated, if necessary,
before discharge.
Water Requirements. Operation of the facility would require approximately 10 million
gallons of water per year, which is approximately 10 percent of the water requirements of
a large ALWR at a dry site. This water would be withdrawn from existing surface water and
groundwater sources. The increase in water requirements may only cause an impact at
Pantex.
Socioeconomics. Operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would require an additional 650 workers including management and operating
contractor, support, and DOE employees. This workforce would represent an approximate 70-
to 130-percent increase in operation workers compared to that required for an MHTGR or
ALWR tritium supply facility. However, this increase may be somewhat less if the facility
were collocated because of shared support facilities and personnel. Additional indirect
impacts may also be felt. The in-migrating population could increase the demand for
housing units. Revenues of local governments could increase along with expenditures due to
an increased burden on community infrastructure.
Human Health. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
design would comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Additional industry consensus codes and standards would be applied to the design as
appropriate.
Normal Operation. As low as reasonably achievable radiological exposure principles would
be incorporated appropriately throughout the design of the facility. Worker exposure to
radiation would not exceed an annual dose of 1,000 mrem effective dose equivalent. The
goal for facility workers is 500mrem effective dose equivalent per year. Based on
historical records at DOE fuel fabrication facilities from 1989 to 1992, a conservative
estimated dose of 50 mrem per year would be expected. If all 650workers were exposed to
such a dose, a highly conservative assumption, 32.5 person-rem per year and 0.52 latent
cancer fatality (less than one) would be expected over the 40 year operation life of the
facility.
The facility design would ensure worker exposure to toxic agents would not exceed 80
percent of the regulatory standard. Any potential use of carcinogens would be minimized
or eliminated.
Public exposure to radiation at the site boundary from routine operations would not exceed
100 mrem per year per DOE Order 5400.5, Radiological Protection of the Public and
Environment, and the Radiological Control Manual. The goal for the facility for public
radiation exposure would be not to exceed 1.0 mrem effective dose equivalent per year. The
facilities would be designed so that radiation exposure to the public would be as low as
reasonably achievable.
Accidents. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility would be
designed to comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws, DOE orders, and
industrial codes and standards. This would provide a plant that is highly resistant to the
effects of severe natural phenomena, including earthquake, flood, tornado, and high wind,
as well as credible events appropriate to the site, such as fire and explosions, and
man-made threats to its continuing structural integrity.
The facility would be designed and operated to reduce accumulation of plutonium-bearing
scrap, plutonium feed stock processed components, and contaminated wastes during
manufacturing operations. This would reduce the potential for an accident and the
material available for dispersal during accident scenarios.
Safety analysis reports have not been prepared for the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. However, for analysis
purposes selected bounding accident scenarios have been identified from safety analysis
reports and Defense Production safety surveys for similar plants of the existing
Complex.
High Consequence Accidents. A set of four beyond design-basis accidents have been analyzed
to represent the consequences and risks of operating the mixed-oxide fuel fabrication
facility. The four accidents were a criticality, beyond design-basis fire, beyond
design-basis explosion, and beyond design-basis earthquake. The consequences and risks to
workers and the public at each site for the composite set of four accidents are summarized
in table 4.8.3.1-9. The number of population cancer fatalities ranges from 4.6x10-3 at NTS
to 0.44 at ORR, and the corresponding population risk of cancer fatalities ranges from
1.8x10-9 per year to 1.8x10-7 per year. The increased likelihood of cancer fatality to the
maximum offsite individual located at the site boundary ranges from 2.6x10-5 at SRS to
6.0x10-4 at ORR and the corresponding risk of cancer fatality ranges from 1.0x10-11 per
year to 2.4x10-10 per year. For the maximum collocated worker located at 1,000meters from
the accident, the increased likelihood of cancer fatality are similar at all sites
ranging from 1.2x10-3 to 3.2x10-3 and the corresponding risk of cancer fatality ranges
from 4.9x10-10 per year to 1.3x10-9 per year. Additional details on high consequence
accidents are provided in section F.2.1.5.
Low Consequence/High Probability Accidents. The impacts on workers and the population of
low consequence/high probability accidents also have been assessed and are summarized in
table 4.8.3.1-10. Impacts are shown for the loading dock fire accident which has the
highest consequences of the four accidents selected for evaluation. The other three
accidents that were evaluated were a process cell fire, a plutonium spill, and a glovebox
explosion. Additional details for these accidents are provided in section F.2.2.5.
Accident Mitigation. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility design would meet the appropriate level of public health and safety goals. DOE
has adopted two quantitative safety goals to limit the risks of fatalities associated with
its nuclear operations. These goals are:
The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a DOE nuclear facility for immediate
fatalities that might result from an accident should not exceed 0.1percent of the sum of
immediate fatalities resulting from other accidents to which members of the affected
population are generally exposed. For evaluation purposes, individuals are assumed to
be located within 1 mile of the site boundary.
The risk to the general population in the area of a DOE nuclear facility for latent cancer
fatalities that might result from normal operations should not exceed 0.1percent of the
sum of all cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. For evaluation purposes,
individuals are assumed to be located within 10miles of the site boundary
(LANL1995a:41).
Waste Management. Construction and operation of the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility would impact existing waste management operations at a site by
increasing the generation of TRU, mixed TRU, low-level, mixed low-level, hazardous, and
nonhazardous wastes. Tables 4.8.3.1-4 and 4.8.3.1-8 list the projected waste volumes
generated from construction and the waste effluent volumes from operations of these
facilities. If the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility was
collocated with the multipurpose reactor, the waste volumes in table 4.8.3.1-8 would be
added to twice those in table 3.4.2.2-3 (MHTGR) or those in table 4.8.3.1-4 added to those
in table 3.4.2.3-3 (Large ALWR). If the multipurpose reactor and the tritium recycling
facility are collocated at any site other than SRS, the waste volumes in table 3.4.3.1-3
(New Tritium Recycling Facility) would also have to be added. Wastes from the Pit
Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility would be treated and
packaged into forms that would enable long-term storage and/or disposal in accordance with
the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and other relevant statutes as outlined in chapter 5 and in
appendix section H.1.2.
Table 4.8.3.1-9.-Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Worker and Population Impacts of High
Consequence Accidents
- Worker at 1,000 meters Maximum Offsite Individual Population to 50 Miles
Site Cancer Risk of Cancer Risk of Cancer Risk of
Fatality Cancer Fatality Fatalitya Cancer Fatality Fatality Cancer Fatality
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 3.2x10-3 1.3x10-9 2.8x10-5 1.1x10-11 0.048 1.9x10-8
Nevada Test Site 2.2x10-3 8.9x10-10 7.5x10-5 3.0x10-11 4.6x10-3 1.8x10-9
Oak Ridge Reservation 3.0x10-3 1.2x10-9 6.0x10-4 2.4x10-10 0.44 1.8x10-7
Pantex Plant 1.2x10-3 4.9x10-10 4.0x10-4 1.6x10-10 0.057 2.3x10-8
Savannah River Site 1.3x10-3 5.0x10-10 2.6x10-5 1.0x10-11 0.18 7.2x10-8
Table 4.8.3.1-10.-Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Worker and Population Impacts of Low
Consequence/High Probability Accidents
- Worker at 1,000 meters Maximum Offsite Individual Population to 50 miles
Site Cancer Risk of Cancer Risk of Cancer Risk of
Fatality Cancer Fatality Fatalitya Cancer Fatality Fatality Cancer Fatality
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Loading dock fire 3.3x10-5 1.7x10-8 9.5x10-7 4.8x10-10 9.0x10-3 4.5x10-6
Nevada Test Site
Loading dock fire 9.6x10-6 4.8x10-9 4.2x10-7 2.1x10-10 1.5x10-4 7.5x10-8
Oak Ridge Reservation
Loading dock fire 5.2x10-5 2.6x10-8 8.0x10-6 4.0x10-9 0.09 4.5x10-5
Pantex Plant
Loading dock fire 3.9x10-6 2.0x10-8 7.5x10-7 3.8x10-10 3.0x10-3 1.5x10-6
Savannah River Site
Loading dock fire 8.8x10-5 4.4x10-8 2.7x10-6 1.4x10-9 0.085 4.3x10-5
Waste generated during construction would consist of wastewater and nonhazardous solid
wastes. The nonhazardous wastes would be disposed of as part of the construction project
by the contractor. For operations, the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility would be the only generator of TRU and mixed TRU wastes. Such wastes
would result primarily from plutonium processing operations and are expected to be
contact-handled TRU waste. Solvents, lead, and scintillation vials would comprise the
hazardous constituent of mixed TRU waste. TRU and mixed TRU wastes would be treated and
packaged according to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria. These
wastes would be stored at the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility or an existing site facility, if available, until WIPP is determined to be a
suitable disposal facility pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 191 and 40CFR 268, or
another suitable repository is found. Assuming 11.4 yd3 per truck shipment, 22.8 yd3 per
regular train shipment, or 68.6 yd3 per dedicated train shipment, approximately 35 truck,
18 regular train, or 6 dedicated train shipments per year of TRU waste would be required.
TRU waste management options would be determined by decisions resulting from the Waste
Management PEIS now being prepared by DOE.
The liquid LLW generated by the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would use the multipurpose reactor treatment facilities if collocated. If not
collocated and depending on the site, a liquid radioactive waste treatment facility may
need to be constructed. The concentrated radionuclides would be solidified and disposed of
in an approved LLW disposal facility. Other solid LLW such as contaminated clothing,
shoes, wipes, and HEPA filters would be compacted as appropriate and disposed of in an
approved LLW disposal facility. Liquid and solid mixed LLW would be stabilized and staged
in a RCRA-permitted storage facility until treatment could be accomplished in accordance
with the site treatment plan that was developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Com-
pliance Act. Liquid and solid hazardous wastes would be stabilized and compacted if
appropriate, and packaged in DOT-approved containers for transport to RCRA-permitted
treatment and disposal facilities using DOT-certified transporters. Depending on the site,
additional hazardous waste accumulation facilities may be required if not collocated
with the multipurpose reactor. Liquid and solid sanitary wastes would be managed in
accordance with current site practices. Additional liquid sanitary and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities may be required if not collocated with the multipurpose
reactor.
Intersite Transportation. The Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility would receive pits and send out completed fuel assembly bundles and associated
waste products. The destination of the completed fuel assembly bundles and associated
waste products would depend on the location of the multipurpose reactor and the final
disposition option selected for plutonium. Transportation of pits, completed fuel assembly
bundles, and associated waste products would be subject to government regulations and DOE
orders. Transportation issues include criticality control, shielding, and containment of
nuclear material. The composition and form of the radioactive materials to be transported
would determine the applicable portions of the regulations as well as the packaging
design.
Locating a multipurpose reactor at one of the alternative sites would require the
transportation of weapons-grade plutonium pits by safe secure trailer from Pantex to
INEL, NTS, ORR, or SRS for fabrication into reactor fuel. Intersite transportation would
not be required if Pantex is selected as the reactor site.
For this analysis, the plutonium pits were assumed to be fully encased in a covering of
stainless steel or similar material and placed in a DOT-specification, Type B packaging
designed for this purpose. Eight packages, each containing one primary containment vessel
(an inner container designed to hold a pit) would be placed in a cargo restraint
transporter and six cargo restraint transporters would be placed in a truckload. Each
truck would transport 48 packages. Based on plutonium usage of 110,000 pounds for the
40-year life of the project and a limit of 9.9 pounds of plutonium per package,
approximately six truckloads per year would be required.
To estimate the radiological impacts from transporting the plutonium pits, the
probability of an accident occurring was derived from DOE and DOT empirical databases, and
the upper bound additional exposures (50-year committed effective dose equivalent) that
might be experienced were used. Factors considered in the analysis include historical
accident rates, population densities along the route, and national atmospheric
dispersion parameters. These factors were incorporated in the RADTRAN transportation risk
computer code used for the calculations.
Based on transporting six truckloads of plutonium per year over the highest risk route
(from Pantex to SRS), the maximum potential impact from radiological accidents during
transportation is 1.3x10-7 person-rem per year for the general population.
Nonradiological impacts are fatalities that could result from traffic accidents. Standard
risk factors (fatalities per kilometer) for transport by truck are: 6.8x10-8 for rural,
1.7x10-8 for suburban, and 9.6x10-9 for urban population zones. Using the highest risk
route (Pantex to SRS), the nonradiological accident impact would not exceed 8.7x10-4 per
year.
The maximum number of fatalities that would occur within 1 year from both radiological and
nonradiological accidents involving the transportation of plutonium would not exceed
0.00066 (DOE1995a:3).
The risks associated with the transport of radioactive material by various transport modes
have been assessed in a number of NEPA related documents such as: the Final Environmental
Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,
NUREG-0170; the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Special Isotope Separation
Project, DOE/EIS-0136, 1988; the Environmental Assessment of the Risks of the Taiwan
Research Reactor Spent Fuel Project, DOE/EA-0515, 1991; and the Environmental and Other
Evaluations of Alternatives for Siting, Constructing, and Operating New Production Reactor
Capacity, DOE/NP-0014, September 1992. Based on the analyses in these documents, it can
be concluded that the transportation risks are very small even for large quantities of
special nuclear materials, including plutonium pits, by safesecure trailers over
extended time periods. In NUREG-0170, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
concluded that "the risks attendant to accidents involving radioactive material shipments
are sufficiently small to allow continued shipments by all modes." Therefore, the
potential public health risks and environmental consequences resulting from normal
transportation and postulated severe accidents are expected to be low.

4.8.3.2 Mixed-Oxide Fueled Advanced Light Water Reactors
The ALWR tritium-producing reactor technology previously described in section 3.4 and
appendix section A.2.1.3 offers the possibility of transforming excess weapons plutonium
into spent nuclear fuel within a few decades. This section discusses this concept for the
ALWR technology. Commercial light water reactors operating in the United States are
similar to the ALWR described in this PEIS and also can perform this plutonium consumption
function. The NRC has already evaluated mixed-oxide burning light water reactors in the
Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycled Plutonium in Mixed-Oxide
Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors August 1976 (NUREG-0002), and presented extensive
information on the changes and impacts in the overall fuel and plant that may occur. This
document was used as the basis for analyzing the impacts of the tritium production ALWR,
analyzed in this PEIS, when operating as a mixed-oxide fueled multipurpose reactor.
For the purpose of plutonium consumption, excess weapons plutonium could be mixed with
natural or depleted uranium to produce a mixed-oxide fuel that could be used in typical
commercial light water reactors. The tritium production ALWR cores are similar to the
commercial light water reactors. Current designs and analyses support using mixed-oxide
fuel in the core without major modifications. The tritium production ALWR reactors are
described in section 3.4.2.3 and appendix section A.2.1.3. This section describes the
potential impacts of using the tritium production ALWR with a mixed-oxide fueled core
derived from weapons surplus plutonium.
Construction Impacts. Construction impacts associated with a multipurpose ALWR would not
be different from those expected from the tritium production ALWR. Impacts from
constructing and operating the new Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility necessary to support the multipurpose ALWR are addressed in section
4.8.3.1.
Operation. For operation impact analysis, changes in the operating characteristics of the
tritium production ALWR were compared with the analysis presented in the Final Generic
Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycled Plutonium in Mixed-Oxide Fuel in Light
Water Cooled Reactors. The identified changes for operating baseline and potential impacts
are addressed for the following categories: emissions; personnel; radiological and human
health (normal operations and accidents); waste; and spent fuel. The other resource issues
would not be expected to change from those described for the tritium production ALWR and
are not analyzed further in this section.
Emissions. The NRC report indicated that chemical discharges released to the air and to
water bodies do not change for the mixed-oxide fueled light water reactor. Similar
findings are anticipated for the ALWR (NRC 1976a). The NRC report also indicated that
there is an increase of tritium in the radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent releases
when light water reactor fuel is changed from uranium oxide fuel to mixed-oxide fuel.
Comparison of comparable reactor systems using different fuels shows that in no case are
emissions significantly altered by changes in fuel types. Therefore, emissions from normal
operations are expected to be changed very slightly by the introduction of mixed-oxide
fuel into reactor systems originally fueled with uranium-oxide (NRC 1976a). Table
4.8.3.2-1 presents a summary of the findings.
Personnel Requirements. The use of mixed-oxide fuel in the ALWR will cause an increase in
personnel requirements for unloading and receipt inspection of the fuel assemblies;
safeguards and security of the nonirradiated fuel assemblies on the reactor site; wet and
dry storage of spent nuclear fuel; unloading, inspection, and storage of empty and
decontaminated spent nuclear fuel storage casks; handling and packaging of spent fuel for
shipment; and loading spent nuclear fuel casks on trucks and/or railroad cars for shipment
offsite. The number of personnel cannot be quantified at this time but is not expected to
increase substantially. The number of additional workers and related impacts would be
addressed in project specific analysis.
Table 4.8.3.2-1.-Increase of Radioactive Materials for the Mixed-Oxide Fueled Light Water
Reactor
Release of Percent Increase Over
Radioactive Materials Uranium Fueled Reactor
Radioactive Materials
Released in Liquid
Effluents
All releases except tritium 0
Tritium only 8.3 to 9.3
Radioactive Materials
Released in Gaseous
Effluents:
All releases except tritium -2.8 to 0
Tritium only 9.1 to 9.3
Radiological and Human Health Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents. During normal
operations of reactors small quantities of fission products and induced activities are
released to the environment. The exposure pathways for radiation doses that might be
delivered to individuals at locations on and beyond the boundaries of the multipurpose
reactor site include liquid effluents, gaseous effluents, and direct radiation. Based on
measurements made at operating commercial light water reactors, direct radiation doses
are negligible (<5mrem per year) and in the case of both boiling water and pressurized
light water reactors, the type of fuel would have virtually no effect on direct radiation
dose rates (NRC 1976a). The analysis performed by the NRC on commercial light water
reactors burning mixed-oxide fuel, which would be expected to be similar for the
multipurpose ALWR analyzed here, showed that in no case is dose significantly altered by
changes in fuel types. The NRC report concluded that the calculated dose to individuals
from normal operations is perturbed very slightly by the introduction of mixed-oxide
fuel into reactor systems originally fueled with uranium-oxide. The total dose to
workers, however, would be expected to increase in relation to the number of additional
workers at the facility.
Workers handling irradiated mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could potentially be exposed to
higher doses since these assemblies would have neutron radiation levels that are about two
orders of magnitude higher than the neutron radiation levels for irradiated uranium oxide
fuel assemblies (NRC1976a). To minimize this increased exposure, irradiated mixed-oxide
fuel handling at the multipurpose ALWR site would be performed remotely as is done for
uranium fuel.
The use of plutonium in an ALWR will not significantly affect the consequences of
radioactivity releases from severe accidents though there will be some small changes in
the source term release spectrum and frequency. This is because plutonium is in the fuel
in the form of an oxide which is not a volatile substance. The transport processes in the
severe accidents result in these nonvolatile substances being retained in the core
debris on the reactor containment floor. It is possible to design mixed-oxide reactors
with up to one-third of the fissile loading being provided by plutonium that retain all
the performance and safety characteristics of the UO2 reactors. With higher plutonium
loadings, the lower flux and the effect of the Pu-239 thermal fission resonance, the
control design, and the accident response may differ. This could lead to changes in
accident frequencies or characteristics, but these are not expected to be significant. As
a result, the expected consequences and risks of accidents for an ALWR with plutonium in
the fuel are expected to be within the envelop of accident consequences and risk for the
tritium supply ALWR described in sections 4.2.3.9 through 4.6.3.9.
Waste. Since waste generation is not a function of reactor fuel type, no increases in
waste generation rates or characteristics are expected due to the change from uranium
oxide reactor fuel to mixed-oxide reactor fuel.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. The NRC report indicated that decay heat in spent mixed-oxide fuel
assemblies could be 10 to 20 percent greater than decay heat in spent uranium oxide fuel
assemblies. Higher decay heat loads may require changes to reactor operational procedures.
The reactor power level may have to be derated and/or the reactor Emergency Core Cooling
System performance requirements may have to be upgraded based on the safety analysis
results for the mixed-oxide-fueled reactor. The increased decay heat load in the
mixed-oxide fuel assemblies could also impact the following: (1) extend refueling outage
reactor cooldown time and (2) reduce the fuel assembly storage density in the fuel pool
and dry storage casks or increase fuel pool cooling requirements and increase the fuel
pool dwell time prior to dry storage.
Transportation/Handling. The use of mixed-oxide fuel would have a significant impact on
transportation and handling of the spent nuclear fuel. The handling of the spent nuclear
fuel would most likely require remote operations (GA 1994a). Due to the higher radiation
levels of the spent mixed-oxide fuel, the weight of the shipping casks would increase
because of the additional shielding. Due to the higher decay heat of the spent fuel, fewer
spent fuel assemblies could be loaded into each shipping cask (NRC1976a). Thus handling
(i.e., packaging), loading, unloading, and transportation requirements would be increased
for spent mixed-oxide fuel.

4.8.3.3 Plutonium-Oxide Fueled Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor
A plutonium fueled MHTGR, unlike the ALWR, would result in a decrease in tritium
production efficiency. The decrease in tritium production is due to the design which
restricts the tritium target placement to only core reflectors. In order to meet the
steady state tritium requirement, six 350 MWt reactor modules would be needed (appendix
A.3.2.2). Therefore, the predominant environmental impact of burning plutonium in MHTGRs
would be the construction of three additional reactor modules. The in-core changes of
individual reactors would be minor contributors to environmental impacts of a multipurpose
MHTGR compared to the construction of three additional modules.
Unlike the light water reactor, which has had significant environmental analysis
prepared for using mixed-oxide fuel, no detailed environmental studies have been prepared
for an MHTGR. Nonetheless, many of the principals in the Final Generic Environmental
Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed-Oxide Fuel in Light Water Cooled
Reactor would apply. Therefore, the impacts discussed in this section are directed to the
construction and operation of three additional MHTGR 350 MWt reactor modules. The Pit
Disassembly/Conversion Facility needed to support the MHTGR, although conceptually
slightly different than the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility described in section 4.8.3.1, would be expected to have similar impacts.
Construction Impacts. Adding three additional 350 MWt reactor modules would increase
construction resource requirements by approximately two as shown in table 4.8.3.3-1. The
construction period would also be somewhat longer, approximately 3 to 4 years, to
accommodate the three new reactor module construction. The resource and issues areas most
affected by the expanded module construction would be land resources, water resources,
geology and soils, and paleontological resources.
Table 4.8.3.3-1.- Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Estimated
Construction Material/Resource Requirements
Material/Resources Six Reactors
Consumption
Electrical energy (MWh) 131,400
Concrete (yd3) 396,000
Steel (tons) 108,000
Fuel (gal) 5,760,000
Water (gal) 288,000,000
Source: Modified from table 3.4.2.2-1.
Land Resources. The addition of 3 reactor modules would require more land. Assuming
economics of scale and shared support infrastructure, approximately 240 additional acres
would be needed. The larger land siting requirements may pose a problem at sites with
limited available land. If the multipurpose MHTGR and Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility were collocated with a new tritium recycling facility, land requirements could
approach approximately 900 acres. Impacts to current and proposed site land use plans and
development would need to be addressed in site-specific analysis.
Water Resources. The estimated total water requirement needed for construction of a six
reactor module MHTGR would be approximately 288 million gallons. This represents an
average annual water requirement increase of approximately 33 percent over a tritium
production MHTGR. At sites where available water supplies were limited or already
experiencing adverse water withdrawal impacts, the additional water requirements would
cumulatively add to existing adverse impacts. Depending on the site, groundwater
dewatering effluent volume and activities might increase due to the additional excava-
tion required for the three added reactor modules. Site-specific analysis would be needed
to identify the extent and severity of water resource impacts.
Geology and Soils. Adding three additional reactor modules would substantially increase
the soil disturbance and excavation requirement at a site. Soil erosion control measures
would minimize impacts to surface water and would not be expected to increase the affects
expected from the tritium production MHTGR with three reactor modules. The additional
excavation required for three more reactor modules would also substantially increase the
volume of soil needing storage and/or disposal. Groundwater flow direction may be
influenced by the extent of excavation depending on the site. Appropriate engineering
measures are available to minimize groundwater infiltration into the excavation.
Paleontological Resource. Depending on the site, the increased excavation required for the
additional reactors may add to the potential for affecting paleontological resources.
Site-specific analysis and studies would be needed to evaluate the extent and severity of
potential impacts.
Operation Impacts. The changes in the operating baseline of the tritium production MHTGR
to accommodate plutonium fuel by adding three additional 350 MWt reactors are addressed
for the following resource and issue areas: site infrastructure, water resources,
socioeconomics, radiological impacts during normal operation and accidents, and waste
management.
Site Infrastructure. Modifications to site infrastructure would be required to
accommodate a six-reactor multipurpose MHTGR. Additional electrical power and other fuel
requirements would increase substantially over the tritium production MHTGR (table
4.8.3.3-2). Water requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR would increase over the tritium
production MHTGR. Additional wells, pumps, pipelines, and water treatment facilities may
need to be constructed to support the multipurpose six-reactor MHTGR.
Table 4.8.3.3-2.-Multipurpose Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Estimated
Operation Utility Requirements
Utility Six Reactors
Consumption
Electrical Energy
(MWh per year)
Wet site 468,000
Dry site 648,000
Electrical Load (MWe)
Wet site 65
Dry site 83
Fuel
Gas (ft3per year) 10,800,000
Liquid (GPY) 146,000
Water (MGY)
Wet site 7,200
Dry site 54
Source: Modified from table 3.4.2.2-2.
Water Resources. Depending on the site, surface water and/or groundwater requirements for
operations would increase by 80 percent by the addition of three more reactor modules.
Water use would be approximately 7,200 MGY at a wet site and 54 MGY at a dry site. Adverse
impacts to groundwater and/or surface water resources may occur depending on the site.
Where water resources are allotted or are currently being adversely impacted due to
existing water use, the additional water requirements for the multipurpose MHTGR would
exacerbate the impact. Discharges due to cooling water discharge (at wet sites) or cooling
systems blowdown could potentially impact receiving water bodies. Potential impacts, such
as stream flow increases, stream bed scouring, and sediment transport, may increase due to
the increase in discharge volume. Engineering measures such as plunge or stilling basins,
retention basins, or lined conveyance channels to minimize impacts of such discharges may
require additional land or new support site infrastructure. Treatment of all wastewater
discharges would minimize potential impacts to water quality. Therefore impacts from the
additional water discharges would not be substantially different than that expected from
the tritium production MHTGR analyzed in this PEIS.
Socioeconomics. Construction and operation of a multipurpose MHTGR would require more
personnel. Therefore, more direct and indirect socioeconomic affects would occur in
the region. Approximately 15,860 worker-years would be needed to construct the six-reactor
multipurpose MHTGR, an increase of 7,050 worker-years over the three-reactor tritium
production MHTGR. Operation of the multipurpose MHTGR would require 1,640workers, an
increase of 730. The specific effects would need to be determined in site-specific
analysis. However, in general the effects would be an increase in housing demand and
benefits to local government public finances. An increase in employment and population
would also be expected once constructed but impacts would not be substantially different
from that expected from a tritium production MHTGR with three reactors. The effects
would be influenced by the specific site region and would need to be addressed in a site
assessment to determine the magnitude of the impacts.
Radiological and Human Health Impacts During Normal Operation and Accidents. Radiological
impacts to the public and site workforce resulting from normal operations cannot be
determined without source term data for a plutonium fueled multipurpose MHTGR. However,
with the addition of three reactor modules total doses to the maximally exposed member of
the public, population doses, and the annual dose to the site workforce would increase.
Worker doses may potentially double from the those expected from a three-reactor tritium
production MHTGR because of the additional three-reactor modules. Site-specific analysis
would need to be performed to determine the estimated radiological impacts to these
potential receptors. Engineering design measures would be required to be incorporated
into any multipurpose MHTGR design to meet applicable standards for the protection of the
public and site workers.
The multipurpose MHTGR with six reactor modules would have a potential for accidents that
may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The assumption can be made and
supported that with more reactors the potential for accidents to occur may increase.
Studies show that for both the 350 MWt and 600 MWt module designs the most severe
accidents are calculated to result in fuel temperatures that peak below the 1,600 C fuel
design criteria, so that any radioactivity release is restricted to a small fraction of
fuel particles whose coatings may have failed during normal operations. Based on these
studies, it can be concluded that the use of plutonium in an MHTGR will not significantly
affect severe accident radioactivity releases and associated consequences because no
fuel failures are expected. Even if there was a small release it would not be significant
because plutonium releases have been shown to not contribute significantly in light water
reactors where higher releases occur. As a result, the expected consequences and risks
of accidents for an MHTGR with plutonium in the fuel are expected to be within the
envelope of accident consequences and risk for the tritium supply MHTGR described in
sections 4.2.3.9 through 4.6.3.9.
Waste Management. The operational waste volumes for the six reactor module multipurpose
MHTGR would almost double those presented in table 3.4.2.2-3. Depending on the site,
additional treatment and storage facilities may be required. Waste management options
would be determined by decisions resulting from the Waste Management PEIS now being
prepared by DOE. New facilities may potentially have adverse impacts on site land use, air
quality, biotic resources, and worker health and safety. Those new facilities already
identified for the three-reactor module tritium production MHTGR would have to be designed
to handle the additional waste volumes associated with a six-reactor module multipurpose
MHTGR.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. The volume of spent nuclear fuel generated in the six-reactor module
multipurpose MHTGR would approximately double the spent nuclear fuel from the
three-reactor module tritium production MHTGR. However, as observed in section 4.8.3.2 for
the light water reactor the spent plutonium-oxide fuel assemblies would have greater decay
heat. Because the increased decay heat reduces storage density in the pool area and
increases the fuel pool dwell time prior to dry storage, the spent fuel storage
requirement would more than double that required for the three-reactor module tritium pro-
duction MHTGR. Additional impacts to worker health and safety from the increased spent
fuel handling may also occur.

4.9 Cumulative Impacts
Impacts from the siting, construction, and operation of a new tritium supply and recycling
facility would be cumulative with impacts from existing and planned facilities and actions
at the five DOE candidate sites. The consequences section for each resource and issue area
identifies, as appropriate, the cumulative effect of tritium supply and recycling impacts
to impacts from existing and planned operations.
A cumulative impact is defined as the "impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7).
This section discusses potential impacts from other facilities, operations, and activities
that in combination with potential impacts from the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal
may contribute to cumulative impacts within the 2010 to 2050 time frame.
Implementing the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal would contribute to cumulative
impacts. Depending on the alternative selected, changes in regional employment,
population, housing, local government finances, and local transportation would occur. For
the tritium supply alternatives at the DOE candidate sites, construction and operation
employment and the cumulative indirect land use impacts associated with housing and
employment would be expected to increase. If a tritium supply facility were sited at any
site other than SRS and new recycling facilities were constructed at INEL, NTS, ORR, or
Pantex, the adverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts resulting from the phaseout of
existing tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be negligible (section 4.6.3.8). The
phaseout would occur over a number of years and the impacts would be offset by the actions
at other DOE sites.
Impacts from reasonably foreseeable near-term projects at DOE candidate sites are included
in the No Action baseline (2010) environmental conditions. For each site except SRS, the
impacts of No Action include the effects of site activities other than tritium supply and
recycling facilities. Information on EM's potential future waste management activities at
DOE sites was included as appropriate in the assessment of waste management impacts.
Project-related impacts are added to the future baseline predicted for air quality,
socioeconomics, human health, and waste management at each site. The sum of the baseline
and the predicted impacts represent the cumulative impacts for each of these resource and
issue areas. Discussion of these impacts can be found in each of the site environmental
consequences sections. Other more long-range impacts associated with the proposed
Environmental Management Program and the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile
Materials Program are speculative at this time, but could increase cumulative impacts,
depending on the decisions resulting from the PEIS being prepared for these programs and
the time frame of site-specific projects. Because of the budget requirements that would be
necessary to implement any of the proposed tritium supply alternatives, other major future
defense program projects at DOE candidate sites would be unlikely or phased in over an
extended period. The potential for programmatic cumulative impacts for the other resources
and issues was analyzed but was determined to be negligible.
Because of the preconceptual design and non-sitespecific location of the technologies
and proposed facilities at candidate DOE sites, cumulative impacts are discussed
qualitatively. More detailed cumulative analysis would occur in site-specific tiered NEPA
documents resulting from decisions stemming from this PEIS and the ROD.
Because it is not known for any of the sites where or how much new offsite electrical
transmission capacity would be required, no site specific cumulative impacts of
transmission lines can be assessed. However, the general cumulative impacts of trans-
mission lines are identified in the following appropriate resource and issue area
discussions. The same approach is used to address potential cumulative impacts from a
dedicated power plant (section 4.8.2) to support the APT and multipurpose reactor option
discussed in section 4.8.3.
Construction and operation of any tritium supply and recycling facility would have a
minimal cumulative impact on the available land at candidate sites or the
continued/expanded missions at the sites. Land requirements for tritium supply and
recycling facilities would be approximately 3.5 percent or less of the total site area at
all sites. Additional onsite cumulative land use impacts at INEL, NTS, and Pantex
associated with new rights-of-way for electric transmission power lines are expected.
Power plant operation within the regional power pool to supply the 500MW of power for the
APT and 50 to 70 MW for the HWR would result in adverse cumulative impacts from air
emissions, liquid emissions, fossil fuel consumption, and waste generation. The MHTGR and
ALWR in comparison would provide approximately 1,300MW of electricity and have a
beneficial cumulative impact (approximately 1,800 MW total compared to the APT) on the
power pool.
A decision resulting from the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile
Material PEIS to locate a consolidated storage facility at one of the candidate sites
would have a minimal cumulative impact on the available land with the largest impact
being with the MHTGR at Pantex. The land requirement for a consolidated plutonium and
highly-enriched uranium storage facility is approximately one-fourth that required for
any tritium supply and recycling facility.
The environmental management program would have minor land use requirements (less than
170acres) at INEL, NTS, ORR, Pantex, and SRS. The largest land use for waste management
combined alternatives would be at ORR (approximately 166acres) which would have a minor
cumulative land use impact at the site with the MHTGR.
Construction of offsite electrical transmission lines would have cumulative land use,
visual, and biotic resource impacts. Where possible these impacts can be minimized by
upgrading or constructing new lines parallel to existing lines. Constructing and operating
a dedicated power plant for the APT would require an estimated additional 25 to 300 acres,
depending on the type of plant, and have a cumulative impact on site land use, biotic
resources, and visual character. Additional acreage would be required for ancillary
infrastructure to support such a facility. If the power plant were constructed offsite by
a utility adjacent to or within an existing power station complex, the potential
cumulative impacts may be reduced.
The MHTGR multipurpose reactor with tritium recycling and Pit Disassembly/Conversion
Facility would require approximately 400 acres of additional land at each site. Cumulative
impacts on each site's land use, biotic resources, and visual character would occur. At
Pantex, the additional acres would represent a 58 percent increase in use of available
land over a tritium supply MHTGR. Constructing the multipurpose MHTGR facilities at Pantex
would require approximately 7 percent of the undeveloped land. Potential cumulative
impacts on land use, biotic resources, and visual character would be greatest at Pantex.
Environmental restoration activities at INEL, ORR, and SRS are expected to coincide with
construction and operation activities of proposed tritium supply and recycling facilities,
thereby increasing impacts to air quality from incineration of contaminated soil and
hazardous waste. The environmental management activities at these sites are expected to
last approximately 30 years while construction and operation of the tritium facilities
would continue for a 40-year period. The net impact to air quality at these sites would be
an increase in emissions during the periods of concurrent construction followed by
operation of the tritium supply and recycling facilities and environmental management
activities. In the long term, air quality at all sites is expected to improve as
facilities are decommissioned and waste minimization programs are instituted. No
exceedance of ambient air quality standards is expected from cumulative impacts.
Operation of a power plant for the APT or a Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to support a multipurpose reactor would add cumulatively to the
expected criteria pollutant air emissions at a site. The expected emissions (tons per
year) from a natural gas-fired power plant are shown in appendix table B.1.3.1-1. A
substantial increase in all criteria and other pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds, methane, ammonia, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and formaldehyde would occur. The
percent increase over No Action emissions are shown in the air quality impact section for
each site. These emissions would be in addition to the APT emissions. Overall, SRS would
experience the least cumulative air quality impact from a dedicated gas-fired power
plant. Operation of a multipurpose reactor would result in a small increase in
radiological air emissions over those expected from the tritium production reactors.
The cumulative impacts of constructing and operating a tritium supply and recycling
facility at any of the DOE candidate sites on the regional economies, population,
housing, local government finances, and local transportation would be minor. Generally,
the regional economies and local government finances would improve without burdening the
housing market, but increased traffic would further aggravate congestion on local roads.
Future environmental restoration management activities and fissile materials program
activities could create additional jobs (both direct and indirect) at potential candidate
sites. For example, the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Program maximum employment would
reach about 1,700 workers for implementation. The Storage and Disposition Program could
add between 1,385 new jobs to the sites under consideration for the Tritium Supply and
Recycling Proposal. The Environmental Management Program could add up to 4,925 new jobs at
INEL, 3,272 jobs at NTS, 3,581 jobs at ORR, 654 at Pantex, and 5,667 jobs at SRS. The
cumulative socioeconomic impact of the three programs would be the primary stimulation of
regional economic growth. The adverse cumulative impact of these programs would be
transportation congestion as well as the increased demand for new housing and other public
services. However, these needs could be offset by additional tax revenues generated by new
residents.
If the APT alternative is selected and a dedicated power plant is constructed, additional
socioeconomic impacts would result. The size of the construction and operation workforce
would depend on the type of fuel used to power the plant. For example, a coal-fired plant
generating 500 to 600 MWe would require a construction workforce of 500 (peaking at 800)
and operation workforce of approximately 145. A natural gas-fired plant would require a
construction workforce of 150 (peaking at 225) and an operation workforce of 50 to 75.
Cumulative human health impacts in the form of additional cancer risk to workers and the
public from the environmental management program and fissile materials program activities
at INEL, NTS, ORR, and SRS are expected to be minor. The cumulative impacts are attributed
to more onsite workers and increased exposure to radioactivity due to waste management
activities at the sites. Cumulative radiological health impacts from the Environmental
Management Program alternatives from the expected maximum radiological releases would
result in a large increase in the risk to the offsite population at INEL and SRS. The
increase would primarily result from the treatment of TRU waste. At all five tritium
supply candidate sites however, the maximum cumulative radioactive releases from the
Environmental Management Program, including INEL and SRS, would be below the EPA standard
of 10 mrem per year to the maximally exposed individual.
The potential cumulative health impacts from the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management program
under the Regionalization Alternative at INEL, NTS, ORR, and SRS are minimal. Over a
40-year period, the estimated number of additional fatal cancers resulting from
Regionalization by Fuel Type would range from zero to about one. Applicable regulations,
standards, and monitoring would pertain to all environmental management program
activities. The annual radiation dose to workers and to individual members of the public
from the tritium supply and recycling activities would remain constant. However, the
collective dose to and numbers of cancers in the population would increase due to the
projected increase in the population within 50 miles of the site.
The expected increase in radiological air emissions from a multipurpose reactor would also
contribute to the cumulative human health impacts at a site. Small increases in site
worker doses would also be expected from the Pit Disassembly/Conversion/Mixed-Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility. The cumulative human health impacts to workers and the public are
expected to be within applicable regulations and standards.
The cumulative impact on waste management activities that would result from siting new
tritium supply and recycling facilities would be affected by future decisions resulting
from the Waste Management PEIS and the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable
Fissile Materials PEIS. The largest cumulative impacts from the Waste Management PEIS
for INEL, ORR, Pantex, and SRS would arise if they were selected to be a regional
treatment and disposal site for LLW and mixed LLW. The largest impact for NTS would occur
if it were selected as a central disposal site for LLW and mixed LLW. If INEL, NTS, ORR,
Pantex, or SRS were selected as a result of the ROD from the Waste Management PEIS, the
waste volumes for the proposed tritium supply and recycling facilities would be a less
significant contributor to the waste management at these sites.
No cumulative impacts on waste management from the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management EIS are
expected at Pantex. Under the Regionalization by Fuel Type alternative, the largest
cumulative impacts from tritium supply and recycling would occur at INEL and SRS. These
sites are expected to receive inventories of spent nuclear fuel (in metric tons of heavy
metal) of 165 and 7, respectively. Cumulative waste management impacts at ORR would also
result from the stabilization processing of existing spent nuclear fuel inventories at ORR
for shipment to INEL and SRS. The stabilization and redistribution of spent nuclear fuel
would occur over the period from 1996 to 2035. The Tritium Supply Program alternatives
would potentially increase the spent nuclear fuel inventories at INEL and SRS from 0 (APT)
to 105 metric tons of heavy metal spent fuel per year (approximately 4,200 metric tons
over the projected 40-year life of the program).
In the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material PEIS INEL,
NTS, ORR, Pantex, and SRS are being considered for the possible consolidated storage of
plutonium and highly-enriched uranium. Site selection for the Storage and Disposition PEIS
analysis for the other alternatives such as mixed-oxide fuel fabrication have not been
completed. Wastes generated from a consolidated storage facility are small; therefore,
cumulative impacts on waste management from a consolidated storage facility are minimal
when added to the tritium supply and recycling projected impacts.

4.10 Commercial Light Water Reactor Alternative and/or Contingency
The purchase by DOE of an existing operating or partially completed commercial power
reactor is a reasonable alternative being evaluated to meet the stockpile tritium
requirement mission. Production of tritium using irradiation services contracted from
commercial power reactors is also being evaluated as a reasonable alternative and as a
potential contingency measure to meet the projected tritium requirements for the
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile in the event of a national emergency. The reactors
employed for domestic electric power generation in the United States are conventional
light water reactors, which use ordinary water as moderator and coolant. Commercial light
water reactors use both pressurized water and boiling water technologies. Feasibility
studies show that of the two types of commercial reactors, pressurized water reactors are
more readily adaptable than boiling water reactors to the requirements of tritium
production by DOE tritium target rod irradiation (FDI 1994i).
The commercial light water reactor alternative does not include a specific site for
analysis in the PEIS. Any one of the existing operating commercial nuclear reactors or
partially completed reactors are potential candidates for the tritium supply mission.
Currently, 109 commercial nuclear power plants are located at 71 sites in 32 of the
contiguous states (figure 4.10-1). Of these, 53 sites are located east of the Mississippi
River. No commercial nuclear power plants are located in Alaska or Hawaii. Approximately
half of these 71 sites contain two or three nuclear units per site.
Figure 4.10-2 shows the commercial nuclear power plants with electric ratings of 1,100 MWe
or more which would be representative of the generic commercial light water reactor
described and analyzed for the commercial reactor purchase alternatives and the
contingency option in this section.
The following discussion in sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 is summarized from the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, August
1991.

4.10.1 Commercial Light Water Reactor Plant Description
Commercial pressurized water reactors are high-temperature, high-pressure reactors that
use ordinary light water as the coolant and moderator and are capable of generating large
amounts of electricity through a steam turbine generator. The range of electrical
production for these plants is approximately 390 million kWh per year to 6,900 million kWh
per year using an assumed annual capacity factor of 62 percent.
Figure (Page 4-503)
Figure 4.10-1.-Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Within Eleven Energy-Demand Regions of the
United States.
Figure (Page 4-504)
Figure 4.10-2.-Commercial Nuclear Power Plants with Design Electrical Rating Greater than
1,100 Megawatts Electric Within Eleven Energy-Demand Regions of the United States.
Commercial pressurized light water reactor nuclear power plants generally contain four
main buildings or structures:
Containment or Reactor Building-A massive containment structure that houses the reactor
vessel, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The building is
generally designed to withstand such disasters as hurricanes, earthquakes, and aircraft
collision, and is the final deterrent to prevent the release of radioactive materials.
Turbine Building-Plant structures that house the steam turbine and generator, condenser,
waste heat rejection system, pumps, and equipment that supports these systems.
Auxiliary Buildings-Buildings that house such support systems as the ventilation systems,
emergency core cooling system, water treatment system, and waste treatment system, along
with fuel storage facilities and the plant control room.
Cooling Towers-Cooling structures designed to remove excess heat from the condenser
without dumping such heat directly into water bodies.
The plant site also contains a large switchyard, where the electric voltage is stepped up
and fed into the regional power distribution system. A plant complex may also include
various administrative and security buildings. During the operating life of a plant, its
basic appearance remains unchanged.
Typically, nuclear power plant sites and the surrounding area are flat-to-rolling
countryside in wooded or agricultural areas. More than 50 percent of the sites have
50-mile population densities of less than 200 persons per square mile, and over 80 percent
have 50-mile densities of less than 500 persons per square mile.
Site areas range from 84 acres to 30,000 acres. Almost 60 percent of the plant sites
encompass 500 to 2,000 acres. Larger land-use areas are associated with plant cooling
systems that include reservoirs and artificial lakes and buffer areas.
United States reactors employed for domestic electric power generation are conventional
(thermal) light water reactors using water as moderator and coolant. The two types of
light water reactors are pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Of the 109
power reactors in the United States, 72 are pressurized water reactors and 37 are boiling
water reactors.
In the pressurized water reactor, reactor heat is transferred from the primary coolant to
a secondary coolant loop that is at a lower pressure, allowing steam to be generated in
the steam generator. The steam then flows to a turbine for power production. All domestic
power reactors employ a containment structure that is a major safety feature to prevent
release of radionuclides in the event of an accident. Pressurized water reactors employ
three types of containments, namely: large, dry containments; subatmospheric contain-
ments; and ice condenser containments. Of the 80 U.S. pressurized water reactors, 65 have
large, dry containments, seven have subatmospheric containments, and eight have ice
condenser containments.

4.10.1.1 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems
The predominant water use at a nuclear power plant is for removing excess heat generated
in the reactor by condenser cooling. The quantity of water used for condenser cooling is a
function of several factors, including the capacity rating of the plant capacity and the
increase in cooling water temperature from the intake to the discharge. The larger the
plant, the greater the quantity of waste heat to be dissipated, and the greater the
quantity of cooling water required.
In addition to removing heat from the reactor, cooling is also provided to the service
water system and to the auxiliary cooling water system. The volume of water required for
these systems for once-through cooling is usually less than 15 percent of the volume
required for condenser cooling. In closed-cycle cooling, the additional water needed is
usually less than 5 percent of that needed for condenser cooling.
Of the 109 nuclear reactors, 42 use closed-cycle cooling systems. Most closed-cycle
systems use cooling towers. Some closed-cycle systems units use a cooling lake or canals
for transferring heat to the atmosphere. Of the 42 plants with closed-cycle cooling
systems, 15 use mechanical draft cooling towers, 19 use natural draft cooling towers, 4
use a canal system, and 4 use a cooling lake. Once-through cooling systems are used at 67
units. A few of these systems are augmented with helper cooling towers to reduce the
temperature of the effluent released to the adjacent body of water. Of the 67 plants with
once-through cooling systems, 24 discharge to a river, 11 discharge to the Great Lakes,
17 discharge to the ocean or an estuary, and 15 discharge to a reservoir or lake. Five of
the once-through plants can also switch to cooling towers.
In closed-cycle systems, the cooling water is recirculated through the condenser after
the waste heat is removed by dissipation to the atmosphere, usually by circulating the
water through large cooling towers constructed for that purpose. Several types of closed-
cycle cooling systems are currently used by the nuclear power industry. Recirculating
cooling systems consist of either natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers,
cooling ponds, cooling lakes, or cooling canals. Because the predominant cooling mechanism
associated with closed-cycle systems is evaporation, most of the water used for cooling is
consumed and is not returned to a water source.
In a once-through cooling system, circulating water for condenser cooling is drawn from an
adjacent body of water, such as a lake or river, passed through the condenser tubes, and
returned at a higher temperature to the adjacent body of water. The waste heat is
dissipated to the atmosphere mainly by evaporation from the water body and, to a much
smaller extent, by radiation loss.
For both once-through and closed-cycle cooling systems, the water intake and discharge
structures are of various configurations to accommodate the source water body and to
minimize impact to the aquatic ecosystem. The intake structures are generally located
along the shoreline of the body of water and are equipped with fish protection devices.
The discharge structures are generally the jet or diffuser outfall type and are designed
to promote rapid mixing of the effluent stream with the receiving body of water. Biocides
and other chemicals used for corrosion control and for other water treatment purposes are
mixed with the condenser cooling water and discharged from the system.
In addition to surface water sources, some nuclear power plants use groundwater as a
source for service water, makeup water, or potable water. Other plants operate dewatering
systems to intentionally lower the groundwater table, either by pumping or by a system of
drains, in the vicinity of building foundations.

4.10.1.2 Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems
During the fission process, a large inventory of radioactive fission products builds up
within the fuel. A small fraction of these fission products escape the fuel and
contaminates the reactor coolant. The primary system coolant also has radioactive
contaminants as a result of neutron activation. These contaminants are removed from the
coolant by an elaborate radioactive waste treatment system. The following sections
describe the basic design and operation of pressurized water reactor
radioactive-waste-treatment systems.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste. Pressurized water reactors have three primary sources of
gaseous radioactive emissions:
Discharges from the gaseous waste management system;
Discharges associated with the exhaust of noncondensable gases at the main condenser if a
primary-to-secondary system leak exists; and
Radioactive gaseous discharges from the building ventilation exhaust, including the
reactor building, reactor auxiliary building, and fuel-handling building.
The gaseous waste management system collects fission products, mainly noble gases, that
accumulate in the primary coolant. A small portion of the primary coolant flow is
continually diverted to the primary coolant purification, volume, and chemical control
system to remove contaminants and adjust the coolant chemistry and volume. During this
process, noncondensable gases are stripped and routed to the gaseous waste management
system, which consists of a series of gas storage tanks. The storage tanks allow the
short-half-life radioactive gases to decay, leaving only relatively small quantities of
long-half-life radionuclides to be released to the atmosphere. In addition, some
pressurized water reactors are using charcoal delay systems rather than gas holdup tanks.
Liquid Radioactive Waste. Radionuclide contaminants in the primary coolant are the
source of liquid radioactive waste in commercial light water reactors. Liquid wastes
resulting from commercial light water reactor plant operation may be classified into the
following categories: clean wastes, dirty wastes, detergent wastes, turbine building floor
drain water, and steam generator blowdown. Clean wastes include all liquid wastes with a
normally low conductivity and variable radioactivity content. They consist of reactor
grade water, which is amenable to processing for reuse as reactor coolant makeup water.
Clean wastes are collected from equipment leaks and drains, certain valve and pump seal
leakoffs not collected in the reactor coolant drain tank, and other aerated leakage
sources. In addition, these wastes include primary coolant. Dirty wastes include all
liquid wastes with a moderate conductivity and variable radioactivity content that, after
processing, may be used as reactor coolant makeup water. Dirty wastes consist of liquid
wastes collected in the containment building sump, auxiliary building sumps and drains,
laboratory drains, sample station drains, and other miscellaneous floor drains. Detergent
wastes consist principally of laundry wastes and personnel and equipment decontamination
wastes and normally have a low radioactivity content. Turbine building floor-drain wastes
usually have a high conductivity and low radionuclide content. Steam generator blowdown
can have relatively high concentrations of radionuclides depending on the amount of
primary-to-secondary leakage. Following processing, the water may be reused or discharged.
Each of these sources of liquid wastes receives varying degrees and types of treatment
before storage for reuse or discharge to the environment under the site National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The extent and types of treatment depend on
the chemical radionuclide content of the waste. To increase the efficiency of waste
processing, wastes of similar characteristics are batched before treatment.
The degree of processing, storing, and recycling of liquid radioactive waste has steadily
increased among operating plants. For example, extensive recycling of steam generator
blowdown is now the typical mode of operation, and secondary side wastewater is
routinely treated. In addition, the plant systems used to process wastes are often
augmented with the use of commercial mobile processing systems. As a result, radionuclide
releases in liquid effluent from commercial light water reactor plants have generally
declined or remained the same.
Low-Level Waste. Solid LLW from commercial nuclear power plants is generated by removal of
radionuclides from liquid waste streams, the filtration of airborne gaseous emissions,
and the removal of contaminated material from various reactor areas. Liquid contaminated
with radionuclides comes from primary and secondary coolant systems, spent-fuel pools,
decontaminated wastewater, and laboratory operations. Concentrated liquids, filter
sludges, waste oils, and other liquid sources are segregated by type, flushed to storage
tanks, stabilized for packaging in a solid form by dewatering, slurried into 55-gal steel
drums, and stored onsite in shielded Butler-style buildings or other facilities until
suitable for offsite disposal. These buildings usually contain volume reduction and
solidification facilities to prepare LLW for disposal at a certified LLW disposal
facility.
High-efficiency particulate filters are used to remove radioactive material from gaseous
plant effluents. These filters are compacted and are disposed of as solid wastes.
Solid LLW consists of contaminated protective clothing, paper, rags, glassware,
compactible and noncompactible trash, and nonirradiated reactor components and equipment.
Most of this waste comes from plant modifications and routine maintenance activities.
Additional sources include tools and other material exposed to the reactor environment.
Before disposal, compactible trash is usually taken to onsite or offsite volume reduction
facilities. Compacted dry active waste is the largest single form of LLW disposed from
commercial nuclear plants, comprising one-half of the total average annual volumes from
pressurized water reactors.
Volume reduction efforts have been undertaken in response to increased disposal costs and
the passage of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (PL 96-573; PL 99-240), which require LLW
disposal allocation systems for nuclear plants. Volume reduction is performed both on-and
offsite. The most common on-site volume reduction techniques are ultra-high-pressure com-
paction of waste drums, monitoring waste streams to segregate wastes, minimizing the
exposure of routine equipment to contamination, and decontamination and sorting of
radioactive or nonradioactive batches before offsite shipment. Offsite waste management
vendors incinerate dry activated waste; separate and incinerate oily, organic wastes,
solidify the ash; and occasionally undertake supercompaction, waste crystallization, and
asphalt solidification of resins and sludges.
Spent Fuel. Spent fuel is produced by the formation of fission products and actinides when
nuclear fuel is irradiated in reactors. After spent fuel is removed from reactors, it is
stored in racks placed in storage pools to isolate it from the environment. Delays in
siting an interim Monitored Retrievable Storage facility or permanent repository, coupled
with rapidly filling spent-fuel pools, have led utilities to seek other storage solutions,
including expansion of existing pools, aboveground dry storage, longer fuel burnup, and
shipment of spent fuel to other plants.
Pool storage has been increased through enlarging the capacity of spent-fuel racks, adding
racks to existing pool arrays ("dense-racking"), reconfiguring spent fuel with
neutron-absorbing racks, and employing double-tiered storage (installing a second tier of
racks above those on the pool floor).
Efforts under way to further develop dry storage technologies include casks, silos, dry
wells, and vaults. Dry storage facilities are simpler and more readily maintained than
fuel pools. They are growing in favor because they offer a more stable means of storage
and take up relatively little land area (less than half an acre in most cases). Dry
storage is currently in use at about 5 percent of the sites.
Transportation of Radioactive Materials. There are four types of radioactive material
shipments to and from nuclear plants: routine and refurbishment-generated LLW transported
from plants to disposal facilities; routine LLW shipped to offsite facilities for volume
reduction; nuclear fuel shipments from fuel fabrication facilities to plants for loading
into reactors (generally occurring on a 12- to 18-month cycle); and, spent-fuel shipments
to other nuclear power plants with available storage space (an infrequent occurrence
usually limited to plants owned by the same utility).
For commercial reactors to be used to produce tritium, the commercial reactor sites would
have to obtain new fuel assemblies with the DOE target rods included or target rods to
replace burnable poison rods from an offsite source. Additionally, irradiated target rods
would have to be shipped offsite to SRS for tritium extraction and recycling.
Workers and others are protected from exposure during radioactive material transport by
the waste packaging. Operational restrictions on transport vehicles, ambient radiation
monitoring, imposition of licensing standards (which ensure proper waste certification
by testing and analysis of packages), waste solidification, and training of emergency
personnel to respond to mishaps are also used. Additional regulations may be imposed by
states and communities along transportation corridors.
A typical commercial pressurized light water reactor makes approximately 40 to 50
shipments of LLW per year. The majority of this LLW is Class A waste packaged in 55-gal
drums or other Type A containers and shipped to disposal facilities by flatbed truck. (A
Type A container is a NRC-certified and DOT-approved container which has been tested
extensively and certified as able to allow for no release of radioactive material under
normal transportation conditions and able to limit radiation exposure to handling
personnel). LLW shipments require manifests that describe the contents of the packages to
permit inspection by state, local, and facility personnel and to ensure that the waste is
suitable for a particular disposal facility.
Currently, the only spent-fuel shipments from nuclear plants are to other plants. A few
spent-fuel shipments have, in the past, been made to fuel reprocessing plants. These
shipments are packaged in Type B casks designed to retain the highly radioactive
contents under normal and accident conditions. These containers range from 25 to 40 tons
for truck shipment (each cask is capable of holding 7 fuel assemblies) to 120 tons for
rail transport (with a capacity for 36 assemblies). The casks are resistant to both
small-arms fire and high-explosive detonation.
The transportation of "cold" (unirradiated) nuclear fuel to the reactor, of spent
irradiated fuel from the reactor, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to a
waste burial ground represents a source of exposure considered in 10 CFR 51:52. The
contribution of the environmental effects of such transportation to workers and the
exposed population is summarized in 10 CFR 51.52 Table 5-4.

4.10.1.3 Nonradioactive Waste Systems
Nonradioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants include boiler blowdown
(continual or periodic purging of impurities from plant boilers), water treatment wastes
(sludges and high saline streams whose residues are disposed of as solid wastes and
biocides), boiler metal cleaning, floor and yard drains, and stormwater runoff. Principal
chemical and biocide waste sources include the following:
Boric acid used to control reactor power and lithium hydroxide used for controlling pH
in the coolant (These chemicals could be inadvertently released due to pipe or steam
generator leakage.);
Sulfuric acid, which is added to the circulating water system to control scale;
Hydrazine, which is used for corrosion control (It is released in steam generator
blowdown.);
Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, which are used to regenerate resins (These are
discharged after neutralization.);
Phosphate in cleaning solutions; and
Biocides used for condenser defouling.
Other small volumes of wastewater are released from other plant systems depending on the
design of each plant. These are discharged from such sources as the service water and
auxiliary cooling systems, water treatment plant, laboratory and sampling wastes, boiler
blowdown, floor drains, stormwater runoff, and metal treatment wastes. These waste streams
are discharged as separate point sources or are combined with the cooling water
discharges.

4.10.1.4 Power-Transmission Systems
Power-transmission systems associated with commercial nuclear power plants consist of
switching stations (or substations) located on the plant sites and of transmission lines
located primarily offsite. These systems are required to transfer power from the gen-
erating station to the utility's network of power lines in its service area.
Switching stations transfer power from generating sources to power lines and regulate the
operation of the power system. Transformers in switching stations convert the generated
voltage to voltage levels appropriate for the power lines. Equipment for regulating system
operation includes switches, power circuit breakers, meters, relays, microwave commu-
nication equipment, capacitors, and a variety of other electrical equipment. This
equipment meters and controls power flow; improves performance characteristics of the
generated power; and protects generating equipment from short circuits, lightening
strikes, and switching surges that may occur along the power lines. Switching stations
occupy onsite areas generally two to four times as large as areas occupied by reactor and
generator buildings but are not as tall or as visible as the plant buildings.

4.10.2 Commercial Light Water Reactor Plant Environment
This section describes commercial nuclear power plants' interaction with the environment.
Commercial nuclear power plants are sited, designed, and operated to minimize impacts to
the environment, including plant workers. Land that could be used for other purposes is
dedicated to electric power production for the life of the plant. The aesthetics of the
landscape are altered because of the new plant structures; the surface and groundwater
hydrology and terrestrial and aquatic ecology may be affected; the air quality may be
affected; and, finally, the community infrastructure and services are altered to accommo-
date the influx of workers into the area. The environmental impact from plant operation
is determined largely by waste effluent streams (gaseous, liquid, and solid); the plant
cooling systems; the exposure of plant workers to radiation; and plant expenditures,
taxes, and jobs.

4.10.2.1 Land Use
Nuclear power plants are large physical entities. Land requirements generally amount to
several hundred acres for the plant site, of which 50 to 100acres may actually be
disturbed during plant construction. Other land commitments can amount to many thousands
of acres for transmission line rights-of-way and cooling lakes, when such a cooling
option is used.

4.10.2.2 Water Use
Commercial nuclear power plants withdraw large amounts of mainly surface water to meet a
variety of plant needs. Water withdrawal rates from adjacent bodies of water for plants
with once-through cooling systems are large. Flow through the condenser for a 1,000 MWe
plant may be 700,000 to 1 million gpm. Water lost by evaporation from the heated discharge
is about 60 percent of that which is lost through cooling towers. Additional water needs
for service water, auxiliary systems, and radioactive waste systems account for 1 to 15
percent of that needed for condenser cooling.
Water withdrawal from adjacent bodies of water for plants with closed-cycle cooling
systems is 5 to 10percent of that with once-through cooling systems, with much of this
water being used for makeup of water by evaporation. With once-through cooling systems,
evaporative losses are about 40 percent less but occur externally in the adjacent body of
water instead of in the closed-cycle system. The average makeup water withdrawals for
several recently constructed plants having closed-cycle cooling, normalized to 1,000 MWe,
are about 14,000 to 18,000 gpm. Variation is due to cooling tower design, concentration
factor of recirculated water, climate at the site, plant operating conditions, and other
plant-specific factors. Consumptive loss normalized to 1,000 MWe is about 11,200 gpm,
which is about 80 percent of the water volume taken in.
Consumptive water losses remove surface water from other uses downstream. In those areas
experiencing water availability problems, nuclear power plant consumption may conflict
with other existing or potential closed-cycle uses (e.g., municipal and agricultural
water withdrawals) and in-stream uses (e.g., adequate in-stream flows to protect aquatic
biota, recreation, and riparian communities).
As discussed previously, some commercial nuclear power plants use groundwater as an
additional source of water. The rate of usage varies greatly among users. Many plants use
groundwater only for the potable water system and require less than 100 gpm; however,
withdrawals at other sites can range from 400 to 3,000 gpm.

4.10.2.3 Water Quality
Water quality is impacted by the liquid effluents discharged from commercial nuclear
power plants. Discharges from the heat dissipation system account for the largest
volumes of water and usually the greatest potential impacts to water quality and aquatic
systems, although other systems may contribute heat and toxic chemical contaminants to the
effluent. The relatively small volumes of water required for the service water and
auxiliary cooling water systems do not generally raise concerns about thermal or chemical
impacts to the receiving body of water. However, because effluents from these systems
contain contaminants that could be toxic to aquatic biota, their concentrations are
regulated under the power plant's NPDES discharge permit. The quality of groundwater may
also be diminished by water from cooling ponds seeping into the underlying groundwater
table.
Sewage wastes and cleaning solvents, including phosphate cleaning solutions, are treated
as sanitary wastes. They are treated prior to their release to the environment to minimize
environmental impacts. In cases where nonradioactive sanitary or other wastes cannot be
processed by onsite water treatment systems, the wastes are collected by independent
contractors and trucked to offsite treatment facilities. Water quality issues relate to
the following: NPDES permit system for regulating low-volume wastewater, adequate
wastewater treatment capacity to handle increased flow and loading associated with opera-
tional changes to the plant and discharges of wastes through emission of phosphates from
utility laundries, suspended solids and coliforms from sewage treatment discharges, and
other effluents that cause excessive biological oxygen demand.
All effluent discharges are regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act and
the implementing effluent guidelines, limitations, and standards established by EPA and
the states. Conditions of discharge from each plant are specified in its NPDES permit
issued by the state or EPA.

4.10.2.4 Air Quality
Overall, commercial nuclear power plants have a minimal effect on air quality.
Transmission lines have been associated with the production of minute amounts of ozone and
nitrogen oxides. These issues are associated with corona, the breakdown of air very near
the high-voltage conductors. Corona is most noticeable for the higher-voltage lines and
during foul weather. Through the years, line designs have been developed that greatly
reduce corona effects. Diesel generators used as backup emergency power source contribute
to air quality impacts.

4.10.2.5 Aquatic Resources
Operation of the once-through (condenser cooling) system requires large amounts of water
withdrawn directly from surface waters. These surface waters contain aquatic organisms
that may be injured or killed through their interactions with the power plant. Aquatic
organisms that are too large to pass through the intake debris screens, which commonly
have a 0.4-inch mesh, and cannot move away from the intake, may be impinged against the
screens. If the organisms are held against the screen for long periods, they will
suffocate; if they receive severe abrasions, they may die. Impingement can harm large
numbers of fish and large invertebrates (e.g., crabs, shrimp, and jellyfish).
Aquatic organisms that are small enough to pass through the debris screens will travel
through the entire condenser cooling system and be exposed to heat, mechanical, and
pressure stresses, and possibly biocidal chemicals before being discharged back to the
body of water. This process, called entrainment, may affect a wide variety of small plants
(phytoplankton), invertebrates (zooplankton), and fish eggs and larvae
(ichthyoplankton). Entrainment mortality is variable; conditions at some plants with
once-through cooling may result in relatively low levels of mortality, although at such
plants the volumes of water (and numbers of entrained organisms) are often high.
Generally no aquatic organisms survive at plants with closed-cycle cooling that recir-
culate water though cooling towers, although the volumes of water withdrawn are relatively
low.
Discharges from the plant heat rejection system may affect the receiving body of water
through heat loading and chemical containments, most notably chlorine or other biocides.
Heated effluents can kill aquatic organisms directly by either heat shock or cold shock.
In addition, a number of indirect or sublethal stresses are associated with thermal dis-
charges that have the potential to alter aquatic communities (e.g., increased incidence
of disease, predation, or parasitism, as well as changes in dissolved gas concentrations).

4.10.2.6 Terrestrial Resources
A number of ongoing issues associated with terrestrial resources can arise in the
immediate area around the plant or its power transmission lines. Most power lines are
located on easements (or rights-of-way) that the utility purchased from the landowner.
Land uses on the easements are limited to activities compatible with power-line operation.
In areas with rapidly growing vegetation, utilities must periodically cut or spray the
vegetation to prevent it from growing so close to the conductors that it causes short
circuits and endangers power line operation. Other terrestrial resource issues can result
from changes in local hydrology. Such changes can occur from altered contouring of the
land, reduced tree cover, and increased paving. These changes can reduce the value of land
and contribute to local erosion and flooding. Additional impacts can include the effect
of cooling tower drift, reduced habitat for plants and animals, disruption of animal
transit routes, and bird collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines.

4.10.2.7 Radiological Impacts
Operational Exposures. Plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively
contaminated systems or working in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. Most of
the occupational radiation dose to commercial nuclear plant workers results from external
radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure from inhaled or ingested radioactive
materials. Experience has shown that the dose to nuclear plant workers varies from
reactor to reactor and from year to year. Since the early 1980s, when NRC regulatory
requirements and guidance placed increased emphasis on maintaining nuclear power plant
occupational radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable, there has been a
decreasing trend in the average annual dose per nuclear plant worker. The average total
annual whole body dose to workers at commercial nuclear power plants is approximately 200
person-rem.
Public Radiation Exposures. Commercial nuclear power reactors, under controlled
conditions, release small amounts of radioactive materials to the environment during
normal operation. These releases result in radiation doses to humans of approximately
0.003 mrem per year that are small relative to the U.S. average dose from natural
radioactivity of 300 mrem per year. Nuclear power plant licensees must comply with NRC
regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 20, 10CFR 50 Appendix I, 10 CFR 50.36a, and 40 CFR 190) and
conditions specified in the operating license.
Potential environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiation
originating in a nuclear power reactor include atmospheric and aquatic pathways.
Radioactive materials released under controlled conditions include fission products and
activation products. Fission product releases consists primarily of the noble gases and
some of the more volatile materials like iodines, cesiums, and tritium. These materials
are monitored carefully before release to determine whether the limits on releases can be
met. Releases to the aquatic pathways are similarly monitored. Radioactive materials in
the liquid effluents are processed in radioactive waste treatment systems. The major radi-
onuclides released to the aquatic systems are cobalts, cesiums, and tritium. When an
individual is exposed through one of these pathways, the dose is determined, in part, by
the exposure time and, in part, by the amount of time that the radioactivity inhaled or
ingested is retained in the individual's body.
Solid Waste. Both nonradioactive and radioactive wastes are generated at commercial
nuclear power plants. The nonradioactive waste is generally not of concern unless it is
classified as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste. Such hazardous waste
is handled, packaged, and disposed of in a licensed landfill in accordance with the provi-
sions of RCRA.
Solid radioactive waste consists of LLW, mixed waste, and spent fuel. LLW is generated by
removal of radionuclides from liquid waste streams, the filtration of airborne gaseous
emissions, and the removal of contaminated material from the reactor environment. Mixed
waste is LLW that also contains chemically hazardous components as defined under RCRA.
Mixed waste consists primarily of decontamination wastes and ion exchange resins. Under
the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1985, states must secure their own disposal capacity for LLW
generated within their boundaries after 1992 by forming waste compacts or siting their own
disposal facilities.
Workers receive radiation exposure during the storage and handling of LLW; however, this
source of exposure is small compared with other sources of exposure at operating
commercial nuclear plants. Members of the general public are also exposed when the LLW is
shipped to a disposal site. The public radiation exposures from radioactive material
transportation have been addressed generically in 10 CFR 51 Table S-4.
Spent Fuel. Spent fuel is produced during reactor operations. The buildup of fission
products and actinides, during normal operation, prevents the continued use of the fuel
assembly. Spent fuel is stored at the reactor site. The average commercial pressurized
water reactor generates approximately 17yd3 of spent fuel per year. A monitored-retriev-
able storage or permanent spent-fuel repository may become available in the near future.
However, NRC has examined this issue and determined that licensees may, without
significant impact on the environment, store spent fuel on-site for 30 years after ceasing
reactor operation (55 FR 38474).

4.10.2.8 Chemical Impacts
Many power plants are periodically treated with biocidal chemicals (most notably some form
of chlorine) to control fouling and bacterial slimes. Discharge of these chemicals to the
receiving body of water can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms.
Chlorine is used widely as a biocide at commercial nuclear power plants and represents the
largest potential source of chemically toxic release to the aquatic environment. Chlorine
application as a cooling system biocide is typically by injection in one of several
different forms, including chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite. It may be injected at the
intake or targeted at various points (such as the condensers) on an intermittent or
continuous basis. Such treatments control certain pest organisms such as the Asiatic clams
or the growth of bacterial or fungal slime. The control of biological pests or growth is
critical to maintaining optimum system performance and minimizing operating costs.
Because of the evolution of the guidelines pertaining to chlorine and changes in biocide
technologies over the past 15 years, the potential for any adverse impacts of chlorine has
been decreasing. Improvements in dechlorination technologies are likely to significantly
reduce the level of chlorine in the aquatic environment. Given the critical need for
controlling biofouling in the cooling system, both alternative and chlorine treatment
technologies are expected to keep pace with regulatory requirements.
Hazardous chemicals do not present a major health risk to personnel at commercial nuclear
power plants, but they must be understood and treated carefully. Hazardous chemicals may
be encountered in the work environment during adjustments to the chemistry of the primary
and secondary coolant systems, during biocide application for fouling of heat removal
equipment, during repair and replacement of equipment containing hazardous oils or other
chemicals, insolvent cleaning, and in the repair of equipment. Exposures to hazardous
chemicals are minimized by observing good industrial hygiene practices. Disposal of
essentially all of the hazardous chemicals used at commercial nuclear power plants is
regulated by RCRA or NPDES permits.

4.10.2.9 Socioeconomic Factors
Work Force. Each nuclear power plant is part of a utility that may own several nuclear
power plants. An on-site staff is responsible for the actual operation of each plant and
an offsite staff may be headquartered at the plant site or some other location.
In most cases, the permanent work force required to operate a nuclear power plant has been
substantially smaller than the work force required to build the plant. However, there are
considerable differences among U.S. nuclear power plants in terms of the size of their
permanent operations-period work forces. One-unit plants average 832 workers, two-unit
plants average 1,247 workers, and three-unit plants average 2,404 workers.
Commercial nuclear plants also differ in the number of nonpermanent personnel required for
various types of outages during normal operating periods. The mean number of additional
workers required per unit of a typical planned outage (for refueling and other routine
tasks) is 783, an in-service inspection outage 734, and the largest single outage (e.g.,
steam generator replacement) 122. These numbers are higher (and quite possibly much
higher) phan the peak number of workers on-site during a single day or week. Replacement
of major components, such as steam generators, can involve between 200,000 and 900,000
work hours. The duration of these shutdowns has lasted from about 8 months to almost 1
year. Less complex modifications [e.g., replacing reactor pressure vessel internal, safe
ends, or recirculation pipes] require between 10,000 and 200,000 work hours. During such
activities, plants have been shut down for periods of 2 to 10 months.
A substantial portion of the regular plant work force is normally involved in many of the
efforts listed above, supplemented as needed by contractor personnel for support during
specialized projects. Peak crew sizes are greatly affected by the specific requirements at
each plant, utility decisions to make major repairs to systems and components to improve
or sustain plant performance, and the relative phasing (schedule overlap) of these
activities. Exact crew sizes can therefore vary widely from plant to plant.
Community. Typically, the immediate environment in which a nuclear power plant is located
is rural, but the population density of the larger area surrounding the plant and the
distance from a mediumor large-sized metropolitan center varies substantially across
sites. Most sites, however, are not extremely remote (i.e., not more than 20 miles from a
community of 25,000 or 50 miles from a community of 100,000). The significance of any
given commercial nuclear power plant to its host area will depend to a large degree on its
remoteness, with the effects generally being most concentrated in those communities
closest to the plant. Major influences on the local communities include the plant's
effects on employment, taxes, housing, offsite land use, economic structure, and public
services.
The average nuclear power plant directly employs from 800 to 2,400 people, depending on
the number of operating reactors, and many hundreds of additional jobs are provided
through plant subcontractors and service industries in the area. In rural communities,
industries that provide this number of jobs at relatively high wages are major
contributors to the local economy. In addition to the beneficial effect of the jobs that
are created, local plant purchasing and worker spending can generate considerable income
for local businesses.
Nuclear power plants represent an investment of several billion dollars. Such an asset on
the tax rolls is extraordinary for rural communities and can constitute the major source
of local revenues for small or remote taxing jurisdictions. Often, this revenue can allow
local communities to provide higher quality and more extensive public services with lower
tax rates. In general, capital expenditures and large changes in public services are
seldom necessitated by the presence of the plant and its operating workers, particularly
after local communities have adapted to greater and more dynamic changes experienced
earlier during plant construction.

4.10.3 Potential Impacts
The option to purchase an operating commercial power reactor or finish construction of a
nearly complete commercial reactor to support the stockpile tritium requirement would
have similar impacts as described in the following discussion. The reactor technologies
and characteristics would be the same. However, some additional land use impacts may occur
to incorporate security infrastructure and other requirements which would be needed for a
DOE owned and operated tritium production facility. The potential land use impacts would
result from new buffer zone requirements, new fencing, security buildings, and road
access restrictions or construction of new roads. The NEPA documents prepared for the
commercial reactors by the NRC would need to be supplemented under the "purchase option"
to address the additional impacts expected with conversion to a DOE site dedicated to a
tritium production mission.

4.10.3.1 Completing Construction of a Commercial Reactor
The environmental impacts of completing construction of an unfinished commercial nuclear
power plant would be relative to the extent that the potential power plant has been
completed by the utility. The degree of completion (percent complete) would principally
affect the amount of construction materials and resources needed to finish the project,
the number of construction workers, the length of construction activities, and the amount
of construction waste and emissions.
Land, construction site infrastructure, and project related offsite supporting
infrastructure would not be affected. Since these resources and support facilities are
the first part of a major construction project they would already be in place. There would
be only minor upgrades to these facilities and infrastructure to support renewed
construction activities. Environmental impacts from these upgrade activities would be
minor.
The following discussion of construction impacts covers a range of reactor completion (45
percent to 85 percent) based on a review of incomplete nuclear power plants in the
country. The impact analysis is also generic since no specific reactor(s) has been iden-
tified as a potential candidate for this alternative. The construction period for
completion is assumed to be 5 years in both scenarios.
Construction impacts would primarily be expected to result from the activities associated
with finishing the permanent concreting of power plant structures and final construction
of all site buildings. All remaining temporary construction facilities would be dismantled
as appropriate during the completion phase and the impacted area landscaped.
The estimated construction materials and resources to finish a 45 percent and 85 percent
completed nuclear power plant are shown in table 4.10.3.1-1. The amount of materials
actually used would depend on the type of reactor design, site construction conditions,
and methods of construction used at a particular site.
Table 4.10.3.1-1.-Estimated Total Construction Materials/Resources Consumption to Complete
a Nuclear Power Plant
Material/ 85 percent 45 percent
Resource complete complete
Utilities
Electricity 575,000 950,000
(MWh)
Water (gal) 74,000,000 105,500,000
Solids
Concrete (yd3) 2,860 4,620
Steel (tons) 390 470
Liquids
Fuel (gal) 2,550,000 3,300,000
Gases
Industrial 17,700 52,100
gases (ft3)
Construction activities would be expected to result in impacts that primarily affect air
resources, socioeconomics, and waste management.
Air Resources. Completing construction of a nuclear power plant would result in air
emissions from construction equipment, support facilities, and general construction
activities. These emissions sources generally include diesel generators, concrete batch
plants, boilers, fuel oil tanks, lube oil systems, and onsite construction vehicle
traffic. Table 4.10.3.1-2 shows the estimated construction emissions during the peak
construction year for the two construction scenarios. These emissions would be temporary
and would not be expected to significantly affect air quality in the project site area.
Table 4.10.3.1-2.-Estimated Peak Year Construction Air Emissions From Activities to
Complete a Nuclear Power Plant
Criteria and Quantity (tons)
Hazardous
Air Pollutants
- 85 percent 45 percent
complete complete
Carbon dioxide 27.5 31.7
(CO2)
Hazardous air 0.06 0.07
pollutants (HAP)
Nitrogen oxides 105.3 121.3
(NOx)
Particulate matter 4.1 5.6
(PM10)
Sulfur dioxide 21.0 24.9
(SO2)
Volatile organic 3.5 4.0
compounds (VOC)
Source: TVA 1995a
Employment. Construction workforce numbers and peak workforce numbers would be dependent
on the percent of completion of a nuclear power plant site. The estimated number of
workers needed to complete a 45 percent or an 85 percent partially completed reactor power
plant in 7 or 5 years, respectively are shown in table 4.10.3.1-3. The 45 percent reactor
scenario would require more workers and higher peak number workforce than the 85 percent
reactor scenario. Impacts to the local economy and area population, housing, and local
services would be expected, however, the significance of these impacts can not be
determined since they are site-specific. These socioeconomic impacts would be evaluated in
project and site-specific NEPA documents if this alternative is selected.
In general, the direct and indirect employment resulting from the 45 percent reactor
scenario would be expected to have a larger socioeconomic effect in the local area because
of the overall larger worker numbers.
Because a majority of the nuclear power plant infrastructure and the power plant itself
have already been completed using a much larger overall workforce and peak workforce, even
the 45 percent reactor scenario socioeconomic impacts are expected to be minor.
Waste Management. Construction activities are expected to generate construction debris and
other hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Table 4.10.3.1-4 shows the estimated total waste
generated during the construction phase for each reactor scenario. Typical hazardous
wastes generated during the completion construction phase would include paints, solvents,
acids, oils, and degreasers. All hazardous wastes would be collected and stored onsite for
transport to a licensed and permitted storage treatment and disposal facility. Adverse
environmental impacts from hazardous waste management would not be expected. Typical
nonhazardous waste generated during the completion construction phase are shown in table
4.10.3.1-4.
Construction projects of this nature generally recover materials that can be used on other
projects. Scrap treated lumber and inert construction and demolition waste (concrete,
block, brick, gravel, asphalt, and gypsum board) would be collected and disposed of at an
offsite permitted landfill. Construction and permanent (once installed) sanitary
wastewater would be disposed of in an approved and permitted sewage treatment system. At
some plants this may be an onsite facility and at others it may be the local community
system. Portable toilets would be utilized as appropriate until the permanent facilities
were operable. Portable toilet wastes would be disposed of by commercial vendors in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
Table 4.10.3.1-3.-Estimated Construction Workers Needed by Year to Complete a Nuclear
Power Plant
Worker Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Total Craft Workers
85 percent complete - 375 1,035 590 60 - -
45 percent complete - 260 750 1,305 1505 770 30
Construction
Management
and Support Staff
85 percent complete 40 325 490 445 170 - -
45 percent complete 30 220 425 675 560 310 25
Total Employment
85 percent complete 40 700 1,525 1,035 230 - -
45 percent complete 30 480 1,175 1,980 2,065 1,080 55
Source: TVA 1995a.
In summary, construction impacts associated with completing a commercial reactor for
production of tritium would be short-term and minor with appropriate construction
mitigation measures. Further sitespecific analysis would be required to determine the
impacts and significance of construction employment on the local community, population,
housing, and local services.Purchase a Reactor or Irradiation Services
Table 4.10.3.1-4.-Estimated Construction Waste Generated to Complete a Nuclear Power Plant
Waste Category 85 percent 45 percent
complete complete
Hazardous
Solids (tons) 6.9 9.7
Liquids (tons) 62.5 87.8
Nonhazardous
Solids
Concrete (yd3) 513 720
Steel (tons) 229 272
Other (yd3) 27,500 75,600
Nonhazardous
Liquids
Sanitary (gal) 81,600,000 114,525,000
Flushing (gal) 1,600,000 13,000,000
Other (gal) 17,200 24,100
Source: TVA 1995a.
The following discussion of impacts applies to the commercial light water reactor
alternative where DOE would purchase an existing operating or partially completed reactor
and convert it to the tritium production defense mission. The discussion of impacts also
applies to the commercial reactor alternative and/or contingency option where DOE would
purchase irradiation services from one or more operating commercial light water reactors.
Since the contingency option covers one to several reactors which would encompass the
purchase of a single reactor alternative, most of the discussion refers to the single
reactor contingency scenario. However, the operation impacts of a DOE-owned commercial
reactor would be the same.
The discussion of impacts is based on the pressurized water reactor technology and two
production scenario options. The first option is the single reactor scenario in which one
reactor would be loaded with sufficient DOE targets to meet weapons stockpile tritium
requirements. Under this scenario, some fuel rods may be replaced with DOE target rods.
The second option is the multiple reactor scenario in which several reactors (2 or more,
but fewer than 10) are used in order to minimize power plant operational impacts. This
scenario entails replacement of burnable poison rods (neutron-absorbing rods designed to
control reactivity and power distribution in the core) with the appropriate number of DOE
tritium target rods, which would have nominally the same effect on core reactivity and
core power distribution over the life of the fuel cycle as the burnable poison rods,
thus enabling each reactor to maintain its current power production.
Operating Baseline. Characteristics for a generic commercial light water reactor are
listed in table 4.10.3.1-1. Data for each reactor characteristic is empirical and taken
from individual site operation reports covering a representative calendar year (1990).
Data for 12 operational reactors were used to determine a nominal average for each listed
characteristic except shipped LLW and stored mixed waste per 1,000 MWe. The waste values
presented are averages for all pressurized water reactors in operation in 1990 and, as
such, are more representative of the reactor type as a group. The characteristics listed
in table 4.10.3.1-1 were considered adequate for describing a generic commercial light
water reactor.
Table 4.10.3.1-1.-Generic Commercial Light Water Reactor Operational Parameters
Operational Parameter Nominal Average
Value
Thermal rating (MWt) 3,500
Thermal generation (MWhr) 21,000,000
Electric rating (MWe) 1,200
Electric generation (MWhr) 7,000,000
Unit availability factor (percent) 76
Water uptake (ft3/sec) 770
Site size (acres) 6,000
Estimated population (2010) 2,000,000
within 50-mile radius
Airborne tritium (Ci/yr) 1,100
All other gaseous radioactive 9,200
effluent (Ci/yr)
Liquid tritium (Ci/yr) 280
All other liquid radioactive effluent 0.25
(Ci/yr)
Shipped LLW (yd3/yr) 330
Number of shipments per year 20
Stored mixed LLW/1000 MWe 130
(yd3/yr)
Total annual whole body personnel 200
dose (person-rem)
Total refueling personnel annual 20
whole body dose (person-rem)
Assemblies discharged 170
Licensed spent fuel pool storage 1,500
capacity (assemblies)
Projected date for last refueling 2006
discharge to spent nuclear fuel
pool storage
A neutron-absorbing material called a burnable poison (typically boron-10) is used in some
commercial light water reactor core designs to reduce local power density and even power
distribution across the core, thereby extending the life of the fuel. Burnable poison is
added to the reactor core design, either in a distributed form mixed with the uranium
oxide fuel or as a discrete rod.
The use of commercial light water reactors to irradiate DOE tritium target rods is based
on the concept of replacing the boron-10 burnable poison rods with lithium-6 target rods
configured to have a similar effect on power density and which, upon neutron interaction,
also results in tritium production. While burnup characteristic of lithium-6 target rods
may not match exactly, the substitution can be accommodated with little impact on the
reactor operations. For the purpose of evaluating commercial light water reactor
feasibility, targets are assumed to be of a single uniform design and lithium-6
enrichment. Symmetry to previous core designs has also been assumed. To produce current
stockpile tritium requirements, about 6,000 target rods would be needed.
The commercial light water reactor would operate at its currently licensed full power for
the generation of electricity while performing a secondary mission of tritium production.
The rate of producing tritium is a function of power level, lithium-6 enrichment, time of
operation, and target-loading density, and therefore would vary based on the specific
reactor and the alternative commercial reactor production scenario option selected.
The following operational characteristics are associated with the single reactor
scenario:
One reactor loaded with sufficient DOE targets to meet current stockpile tritium
requirements;
Some fuel rods may be replaced with target rods which would require fuel disassembly to
remove the target rods for tritium extraction;
Full core refueling required, with a major reduction in attainable fuel burnup;
Significant increases in spent nuclear fuel storage requirements are included, and may
result in requirement for onsite dry storage of spent nuclear fuel;
No effect expected on ability to attain full power, but the reactor may be limited to
baseload operation with restricted rate of load change;
Changes to plant support systems may be required; and
Target handling tools and fixtures must be added to the complement of spent nuclear fuel
pit equipment, and target packaging and transportation are added to the scope of normal
utility activities.
The following operational characteristics are associated with the multiple reactor
scenario:
For analysis purposes, consists of eight reactors deployed to the tritium supply mission;
Replacement of burnable poison rods with the appropriate number of DOE target rods to
yield approximately the same effect on core reactivity and core power distribution over
the life of the fuel cycle;
No effect on core design, refueling cycle durations, or spent fuel storage requirement;
however, some tradeoffs involving fuel enrichment and cycle burnup may arise in optimizing
the fuel management strategy;
No effect on normal operation, including plant maneuvering capability or mode change
restrictions;
Few or no changes to plant support systems would be required; and
Target-handling tools and fixtures must be added to the complement of spent fuel pit
equipment, and target packaging and transportation are added to the scope of normal
utility activities.
In the multiple reactor scenario the number of fuel rods and the performance requirements
imposed on the fuel would not be changed. However, to minimize fuel cycle impacts in the
multiple reactor scenario, it would be desirable to extend the design life and
qualification of the DOE target rod to envelope the longest fuel cycle commonly used in a
commercial light water reactor. Qualification for extended use is not a necessary
condition to the feasibility of the concept, since the single reactor scenario does not
require it.
The single reactor scenario represents the largest number of DOE target rods inserted into
a reactor, the highest tritium content, and the largest perturbation to the existing
safety analysis of the plant. Insertion of the necessary number of DOE target rods to
produce current tritium requirements in a single reactor results in the replacement of
approximately 15 percent of the fuel rods in a large reactor with a 17x17 matrix of rods
per assembly. It is technically feasible to increase the average heat generation in the
remaining fuel rods to compensate for this amount of replacement of fuel rods by DOE
target rods without jeopardizing the plant's ability to operate at full-power.
The use of a commercial reactor or multiple reactors for producing tritium would result in
additional environmental impacts from the changes in the reactor operational
characteristics (table 4.10.3.2-1) due to the introduction of DOE target rods. Impacts
would most likely result from core changes, personnel requirements, effluent, waste, spent
fuel, operational variances (radiation exposure), and transportation/handling. Impacts
from these seven factors are discussed in general terms based on a "typical"
nonsite-specific commercial light water reactor. Table 4.10.3.2-2 shows the incremental
changes. Impacts on all other environmental resources from the commercial reactor
alternative were negligible or not expected, and therefore are not discussed in detail.
Core Changes. Production of tritium in a commercial light water reactor would require
physical changes to the reactor core, which could range from replacement of burnable
poison elements with DOE target elements to the replacement of fuel rods with DOE target
assemblies. Core changes could alter the accident basis and would modify the source term.
The estimated additional core tritium content in curies per reactor at the end of the
irradiation period would be 3.2x107 for a single reactor. Because of the reduced burn up
in the reactor core, the total fission products in each fuel rod would decrease. Using
multiple reactors to produce the same quantity would reduce the curies of tritium per
reactor.
Personnel Requirements. The added requirements to execute DOE target handling and shipping
activities would be expected to create new job tasks and require that additional
personnel be hired at the commercial reactor site. An estimated 72 additional personnel
would be needed for a typical commercial nuclear power facility. The additional personnel
would represent an increase of approximately 9 percent for a single reactor. The number of
personnel would be smaller for each commercial reactor site if multiple reactors were
used. In the case of a single reactor, it is assumed that one work crew would handle 12
DOE tritium target shipments per year, with each shipment containing about 500 target
rods. The work crew would include fuel pool workers to remove and package the target
tritium rods from the fuel assemblies. Assuming multiple reactors, no manpower increases
would be anticipated during refueling. The preparation of the DOE targets for shipment
would require a single crew at one work station for each reactor. Shipments would include
500 targets each and would be handled by a single crew covering all reactors. Three crews
of fuel pool workers could handle all reactors.
Effluent. Because of the addition of DOE target rods, airborne and water-borne effluent
would be expected to change (particularly for tritium). Estimates for expected increases
of gaseous tritium effluent range from 5,740 Ci per year for a single reactor to 3,680 Ci
per year in the multiple reactor scenario. Estimated increases of liquid tritium effluent
ranges from 1,460 Ci per year for a single reactor to 935 Ci per year per reactor in the
multiple reactor scenario. For a single reactor, the release of fission products to the
reactor coolant could be expected to significantly decrease because the fission product
inventory is lower due to the lower average fuel assembly burn up, and the fuel element
failure rate is lower due to the shorter residence time in the core (FDI 1994i). However,
there would be a net 5-percent increase in rod surface areas that would come into contact
with the coolant. This would proportionately increase the reactor "crud" that accumu-
lates on rod surfaces and could lead to a 5-percent increase in the neutron activation
products that enter into the coolant.
Waste. Additional activities associated with the handling, processing, and shipping of DOE
target assemblies would be expected to increase waste generation rates at the commercial
reactor site. Of the 330yd3 of LLW shown in table 4.10.3.1-2, 159yd3 is dry compacted and
93yd3 is dry noncompacted. It is assumed that 50 percent of the dry waste is considered
to be related to refueling outages and maintenance and that this waste quantity (126yd3)
would increase proportionately with the increase in refueling activities. An estimated
164yd3 per year of LLW per reactor would be expected. This would be approximately a
50-percent increase for a typical plant. No increase in mixed waste generation would be
anticipated.
Table 4.10.3.1-2.-Commercial Light Water Reactor Operational Parameter Changes From
Tritium Production [Page 1 of 2]
- No Action Alternative Scenarios
Parameter Typical Average Low High Single Multiple (2)
Plant Value Value Value Reactor Case Reactor Case
Core Changes
Nuclide (curies per reactor)
H-3 NA NA NA NA 3.2x107 1.6x107
Fission products NA NA NA NA -50 percentb -50 percent
Personnel
Reactors (per utility site)
1 unit 832 NA NA NA 72 127
2 units 1,247 NA NA NA NA 100
3 units 2,404 NA NA NA NA 100
Expected refueling cycle NA NA NA NA 12 months 12 months
Effluent
Isotope (curies/year/reactor)
Tritium (gaseous) NA 1,100 NA NA 5,740 3,680
Tritium (liquid) NA 280 NA NA 1,460 935
Waste
Waste type (yd3/year/reactor)
Low-level waste 330 NA NA NA 160 160
Mixed 130 NA NA NA 0 0
Operational Variances - Refueling
Personnel
Job Category (person-rem/reactor)
Maintenance NA 14.7 0 76.5 19.1 19.1
Operations NA 1.3 0 5.3 1.7 1.7
Health physics NA 4.7 0 16.7 6.1 6.1
Supervisory personnel NA 0.6 0 1.2 0.8 0.8
Engineering NA 2.1 0 8.7 2.7 2.7
Total NA 23.4 0 107.0 30.4 30.4
Operational Variances - All Personnel
Job Category (person-rem/reactor)
Maintenance NA 127.1 39.4 459.2 24 12
Operations NA 11.4 2.1 39.4 9.1 4.6
Health physics NA 29.4 11.5 58.5 9 4.5
Supervisory personnel NA 6.0 0.3 19.7 1 2.7
Engineering NA 17.6 3.3 51.2 5.4 24.2
Total NA 191.5 69.8 541.4 48.3 48
Spent Fuel
Spent Fuel (fuel assemblies/yr/reactor)
Total assemblies 56 NA NA NA 137 137
Dry storage assemblies 56 NA NA NA 137 137
Wet storage assemblies 0 NA NA NA 0 0
The amount of LLW requiring disposal would increase by approximately 160 yd3. LLW
treatment and storage facilities may not be adequate to accommodate the 50 percent
increase over the 330 yd3 per year handled by a typical commercial pressurized light water
reactor. Thus, depending on the selected site, expansion of existing or construction of
new facilities may be required. The LLW due to DOE activities could be shipped to an
approved LLW disposal facility such as NTS or through a memorandum of agreement it could
be shipped using the existing shipment practices of the site selected. The small increases
in hazardous and nonhazardous wastes could be accommodated within existing facilities.
In the multiple reactor scenario, there would be a smaller increase in the generation of
spent nuclear fuel, LLW, or mixed LLW. However, since LLW generated by burnable poison rod
assemblies is being replaced by LLW generated by DOE target rod assemblies, the amount
of LLW going to a commercial LLW disposal site could even decrease. The LLW generated by
the DOE target rod assemblies could be shipped to an approved LLW disposal facilities such
as NTS, or through a Memorandum of Agreement it could be shipped using the existing
shipment practices of the site selected. The small increases in hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes could likely be accommodated within existing facilities.
Spent Nuclear Fuel. More frequent refueling operations and the segmenting of fuel
assemblies could result in an increase in spent nuclear fuel volumes. This increase could
result in additional requirements for wet and dry storage space at the reactor site. With
the single reactor case, 137 additional spent fuel assemblies (40yd3, assuming
8ft3/assembly) would be generated each year. This amounts to approximately 58 metric tons
of heavy metal. This represents more than a 3-fold increase over the average of 56
assemblies (24 metric tons of heavy metal) for a typical pressurized commercial light
water reactor. Because existing spent nuclear fuel storage capacities are limited,
additional spent nuclear fuel storage might be required. The additional storage space
needed for 40 years of storage at this rate of accumulation is estimated to be 2.6 acres.
If dry storage facilities were constructed, there is adequate capacity for an 8-year wet
storage. No increase in spent nuclear fuel is expected with the multiple reactor scenario.
The change to 12-month refueling cycles with full core discharge would accelerate the
consumption of available spent nuclear fuel pool storage and would require earlier use of
additional storage alternatives such as dry storage at some commercial reactor sites.
Operational Variances. New DOE target assembly process activities and, in some cases, more
frequent refueling-type operations would be expected to increase radiation exposure for
some categories of workers. Estimates for expected increases of exposure for refueling
personnel range from 19 person-rem per reactor for maintenance workers to less than 1
person-rem for supervisory personnel. In addition to refueling operations, three other
areas of exposure would be anticipated to be associated with the DOE tritium targets.
These areas are waste operations, fuel pool work, and target shipments. The increase in
person-rem per reactor for all personnel ranges from 24 for maintenance workers to 1 for
supervisory personnel. The more reactors used to produce the tritium, the smaller the
increase in person-rem per reactor.
Transportation/Handling. All commercial reactors in the United States are of the light
water reactor design, thus the same criteria for assessing transportation risk can be
used. Irradiated target rods would be removed from fuel assembly bundles and shipped in
NRC-approved, Type B fuel assembly shipping casks by truck, via a routing that conforms
with 49 CFR to SRS where the tritium would be extracted. Some additional risk would be
expected to be incurred due to the transport of these elements.
Shipping tritium-bearing targets from the commercially designed N-Reactor at the Hanford
site to SRS was routinely carried out in the 1960s. Historically, DOE has shipped more
than 50,000 1-foot tritium targets from Hanford to SRS in casks without a radiological
release accident. Approximately 18,000 irradiated targets could be transported yearly
from the commercial reactor site to the DOE extraction facility.
A tritium target, called a "pencil", is a unit that is less than 1 inch in diameter and
approximately 1 foot (0.3 meters) long. The target is made of ceramic (lithium aluminate)
to trap the tritium within the boundaries of the ceramic. There is usually free gas
present; therefore, the ceramic is either encased in an aluminum can, or is surrounded
by a nickel-plated zircaloy-4 "getter" (barrier) to absorb and retain tritium during
irradiation. Of the two designs, the "getter-barrier" target design was recommended by the
Light Water Reactor Tritium Target Development Project as the most practical for use in a
light water reactor.
A tritium target rod is an assembly of up to 12 target pencils placed in a stainless steel
sleeve (cylindrical column) 150 inches (3.8 meters) long. The number of rods in a reactor
depends on the neutronics of the reactor. The target rods would be removed from the
reactor approximately every 12 months. In the past, only the pencils were shipped during
N-Reactor tritium production at Hanford. However, for assessing risk in this PEIS, it is
assumed that full-length target rods would be transported in order to eliminate the need
for additional facilities and handling at the commercial reactor site and to move
extraneous radioactive target rod material to a DOE site.
Assuming that an inventory of 500target rods would be accumulated for shipment at one time
in NRC-approved fuel assembly shipping casks, and one cask per transport truck,
approximately 12shipments per year would occur. The curie content per truck would be
approximately 2.7x106. No additional loading, unloading, or handling facilities would be
required at the commercial reactor site because provision for shipment of spent fuel is
already within the design of these facilities.
Radiological Impacts
Normal Operations. The impact from adding tritium targets to a commercial reactor would
vary depending on the reactor type, reactor site location, and the number of sites
involved in the tritium production mission. The maximum impacts at a given site would
occur if all of the tritium were produced at that site. The impacts would lessen at a
given site if multiple sites are used.
Considering that the arithmetic mean annual radiation dose to people who lived within a
50-mile radius of a commercial nuclear power plant in 1991 was about 1.2 person-rem (0.25
and 0.95 person-rem from airborne and liquid releases, respectively) and the median was
less than 0.2 person-rem (NUREG/CR-2850), impacts of normal operation from tritium
production are expected to be less than the NESHAPS 10 mrem limit for atmospheric releases
and less than the drinking water limit of 4 mrem. It is estimated that the changes in
radioactive releases associated with the production of tritium in a single reactor would
result in an annual dose increase of 0.51 person-rem to the 50-mile population. This would
result in a calculated increase of 0.010 fatal cancer in this population as the result of
40 years of reactor operation. There would be a slightly larger increase in the total
number of fatal cancers in the several population groups for the multiple reactor scenario
compared with the single reactor, but the risk to an individual member of the public would
be less because of the larger number of people exposed.
The estimated probability of accidents occurring during transportation, derived from DOE
and DOT empirical data bases, and the upper bound additional exposures (50-year committed
effective dose equivalent) that might be experienced as a result of transporting
target rods, were used to estimate radiological consequences of a transportation accident.
Factors considered in the analysis included historical accident rates; optimum routes via
interstate highways; rural, suburban, and urban population densities along the route;
and national meteorological atmospheric dispersion parameters incorporated in DOE's
RADTRAN transportation risk computer code (FDI 1994i:16).
Table 4.10.3.2-3 shows the estimated population dose risk in person-rem/yr from
radiological accidents during transportation from a single site to SRS. The values are
based upon 12 shipments of irradiated target assemblies being transported per year and
conservatively assumes that in any truck accident 100 percent of the irradiated target
assemblies would be released into the environment as tritiated water with no plume
drop-out. Shipments from geographically diverse locations could incur some smaller average
of the values shown.
Table 4.10.3.2-3.-Radiological Consequences of Transportation Accidents Shipping Tritium
Target Rods
- - Population Dose
Risk (person-rem
per year)
Reactor Site Total Shipping Total
Origin Distance (miles)
Eastern 1,110 0.061
Midwest 895 0.049
Western 2,750 0.15
Source: DOE 1995y.
Facility Accidents. Based upon the tests and analyses that have been performed for WNP-1,
it is unlikely that there is any target-related design-basis accident or anticipated
abnormal occurrence that significantly impacts or adds significant uncertainties to safety
issues involved with the use of tritium target rods in commercial light water reactors
(FDI 1994j). Although a complete safety evaluation remains to be accomplished, it appears
that no new significant safety hazard is introduced as a result of a decision to produce
tritium in a commercial light water reactor core (FDI 1994i). The accident consequences
for the commercial light water reactor tritium target extraction facility highest
consequence accident are bounded by the accident consequences for the tritium recycling
facility at SRS.

4.10.4 Institutional Issues
Because commercial reactors are highly regulated, civilian, non-defense related
facilities, the potential use of a commercial reactor for tritium production raises
several issues unique to the commercial reactor alternative. Before a commercial reactor
could be used to produce tritium, these "institutional" issues would need to be fully
explored. Generally, institutional issues can be grouped under four major categories:
Statutory, Policy, Licensing, and Economic Regulation. A brief description of each
category follows:
Statutory Issues. A comprehensive statutory review would address the issue of whether
there are any statutory prohibitions to the use of commercial reactors for tritium
production. Initial reviews indicate that there are none.
Policy. The United States has traditionally separated defense nuclear activities from
commercial nuclear activities, and civilian reactors have never before been given roles
that directly support nuclear weapon needs. A comprehensive review would address the issue
of whether the use of commercial reactors for tritium production would violate national
policy, treaties, and weapons non-proliferation initiatives.
Licensing. Commercial reactors are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Changes
to specific conditions of a commercial reactor's license or technical specifications
including potential transfer or termination of an existing license, would require Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and approval prior to implementing the changes. A
comprehensive review would address the issue of NRC regulation and licensing.
Economic Regulation. Commercial reactors are also regulated by economic regulators such as
State Public Utility Commissions (PUC) or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
regarding economic factors. A comprehensive review would address the issue of economic and
financial considerations associated with the production of tritium in commercial
reactors.
The Draft PEIS contained a brief discussion of specific issues in each of these areas
associated with the potential use of commercial reactors to make tritium. However, the
Department believes that it is premature to reach any conclusions regarding these issues
without additional investigation. If the preferred alternative identified in Section 3.7
were selected in the Record of Decision, the Department would, in addition to other
technical work, resolve these institutional issues for the commercial reactor alternative
over the next two to three years before selection of the primary option.

4.11 Producing Tritium at an Earlier Date
This PEIS evaluates alternative tritium supply technologies against the baseline tritium
requirement to support the 1994 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan, which is based on a
stockpile level consistent with START II of approximately 3,500 accountable weapons. Based
on this requirement, a new tritium supply facility would be needed by 2011, and the amount
of tritium produced would support both the steady-state requirement to make up for the
tritium lost through natural decay while also allowing for a surge capability to replace
any tritium that might be used in the event the Nation ever dipped into, or lost, its
tritium reserve. Potential environmental impacts of locating tritium supply and recycling
facilities at the five candidate sites are discussed in sections 4.2 through 4.6 of the
PEIS for the START II stockpile level. For these analyses, construction periods range from
5 to 9 years, peak construction occurs in the year 2005, and full operations begin in the
year 2010. In these sections, the environmental impacts of producing both the steady-state
and surge tritium requirements are analyzed.
While a START II stockpile level represents a reasonable basis against which to evaluate
tritium supply alternatives, it is possible that the START II Treaty may not be ratified.
If that were to occur, a larger stockpile level could represent the future baseline. To
support a stockpile level consistent with START I, new tritium would be needed in
approximately 2005. The amount of tritium needed to make up for the natural decay of a
stockpile level consistent with START I would be approximately equal to the amount of
tritium needed to make up for the natural decay of a START II level stockpile plus the
START II surge capability. This section addresses the environmental impacts of providing
a new tritium supply facility to support a larger stockpile.
Because operations to support a START II level stockpile and make up for any lost tritium
reserves essentially equals the steady-state tritium requirements for a stockpile level
consistent with START I, the environmental impacts of operating tritium supply facilities
to support the larger stockpile level have already been addressed in sections 4.2 through
4.6 of the PEIS. The only difference in environmental impacts would result from changing
the period of operation from 2010-2050, to 2005-2045. While there would be greater
technical risks associated with bringing a new tritium supply facility on line by 2005,
this issue is addressed in the technical risk studies, not the PEIS. Additionally, the
fact that tritium supply facilities would be limited in their ability to provide a surge
supply of tritium for a larger stockpile level is also addressed in the technical risk
studies.
For the most part, the construction impacts to meet an earlier tritium requirement date
would be similar to those discussed in sections 4.2 through 4.6 of this PEIS. Because of
the need to compress the construction schedule to meet a 2005 operation date, short-
term increases in air emissions and construction vehicle traffic over those discussed in
sections 4.2 through 4.6 would be expected. All other construction related impacts would
be similar to those described in the PEIS except for the socioeconomic impacts associated
with the increase in peak workforce due to the compressed schedule. The remainder of this
section discusses the potential impacts on socioeconomics for the compressed con-
struction period at each of the candidate sites.
In order to meet tritium requirements for a larger stockpile level, a new tritium supply
technology and recycling would have to be constructed in 4 years, tested for 1 year, and
at full operation by the year 2005. Under this scenario, construction would begin in the
year 2000, peak in 2002, and end in the year 2003. Operations personnel would begin
testing in the year 2004 and full operation would begin in 2005. Although the operation of
the tritium supply and recycling facility would begin earlier than under START II
protocol, the same operation workforce would be needed and the total employment (direct
and indirect) created at each of the sites would be the same as under START II.
Consequently, the effects that any of the tritium supply technologies and recycling would
have on the socioeconomic environment during operation at each of the sites would be the
same as those described in sections 4.2.3.8 through 4.6.3.8. The effects of an accelerated
construction schedule to meet a larger stockpile level tritium requirements would,
however, be different.
Under the accelerated construction schedule, the number of direct and indirect jobs (total
employment) created by a tritium supply technology and recycling would be the same as
under START II construction requirements. However, the rate at which these jobs would be
created would be faster than under the longer START II construction schedules. The rate of
growth for total employment, in-migration, housing demand, and the effects on public
finance vary depending upon the socioeconomic environment surrounding each of the
candidate sites and are discussed in the following sections. Locating a tritium supply
technology alone would have fewer effects than if collocated with recycling at any one of
the candidate sites.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling to meet a 2005 operation date would
increase total employment at an annual average rate of 3 to 4percent until the peak year
of 2002. Between peak construction (2002) and full operation (2005) total employment would
decline at an annual average of 1 or 2 percent. Population and housing would exhibit
similar trends. Local governments could experience annual growth in revenues and
expenditures ranging from 2 to 8 percent between 2000 and 2002, and then decline annually
by 1 to 2percent from peak construction to operation. The ALWR would have the greatest
effects on socioeconomics in the region surrounding the site. The other tritium supply
technologies would have similar effects on the ROI, but these would be less than the
ALWR.
Nevada Test Site
Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling to meet a 2005 operation date would
increase total employment at an annual average rate of 1 to 1.5 percent until the peak
year of 2002. Between peak construction (2002) and full operation (2005) total employment
would decline at an annual average of 1 to less than 1percent. Population and housing
would exhibit similar trends. Local governments could experience annual growth in
revenues and expenditures ranging from 1 to 1.5 percent between 2000 and 2002, and then
decline annually by 1 to less than 1percent from peak construction to operation. The ALWR
would have the greatest effects on socioeconomics in the region surrounding the site. The
other tritium supply technologies would have similar effects on the ROI, but these would
be less than the ALWR.
Oak Ridge Reservation
Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling to meet a 2005 operation date would
increase total employment at an annual average rate of 1 to 1.5 percent until the peak
year of 2002. Between peak construction (2002) and full operation (2005, total employment
would decline at an annual average of 1 to less than 1 percent. Population and housing
would exhibit similar trends. Local governments could experience annual growth in revenues
and expenditures ranging from 1 to 1.5 percent between 2000 and 2002, and then decline
annually by 1 to less than 1 percent from peak construction to operation. The ALWR would
have the greatest effects on socioeconomics in the region surrounding the site. The
other tritium supply technologies would have similar effects on the ROI, but these would
be less than the ALWR.
Pantex
Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling to meet a 2005 operation date would
increase total employment at an annual average rate of 2 to 3.5 percent until the peak
year of 2002. Between peak construction (2002) and full operation (2005) total employment
would decline at an annual average of 1 to 2 percent. Population and housing would exhibit
similar trends. Local governments could experience annual growth in revenues and
expenditures ranging from 2 to 6 percent between 2000 and 2002, and then decline annually
by 12 to 2 percent from peak construction to operation. The ALWR would have the greatest
effects on socioeconomics in the region surrounding the site. The other tritium supply
technologies would have similar effects on the ROI, but these would be less than the
ALWR.
Savannah River Site
Siting a tritium supply technology and recycling to meet a 2005 operation date would
increase total employment at an annual average rate of 1 percent until the peak year of
2002. Between peak construction (2002) and full operation (2005) total employment
would decline at an annual average of less than 1 percent. Population and housing would
exhibit similar trends. Local governments could experience annual growth in revenues and
expenditures ranging from 2 to 8 percent between 2000 and 2002, and then decline annually
by 1 to 2 percent from peak construction to operation. The ALWR would have the greatest
effects on socioeconomics in the region surrounding the site. The other tritium supply
technologies would have similar effects on the ROI, but these would be less than the
ALWR.

4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Siting, construction, and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at INEL,
NTS, ORR, Pantex, or SRS would result in adverse environmental impacts. The impact
assessment conducted in this PEIS has identified these potential adverse impacts along
with mitigative measures that could be implemented to either avoid or minimize these
impacts. The residual adverse impacts remaining following mitigation are unavoidable and
the worst case impacts of all alternatives at all candidate sites are discussed below.
At each of the candidate sites, up to 562 acres of land could be disturbed to construct
and operate the new tritium supply and recycling facilities and additional supporting
infrastructure and access roads. Loss of habitat in the disturbed area would be
unavoidable. Land requirements would represent 2 percent or less than the total area of
all sites except for Pantex, which represents approximately 4 percent. Soil erosion in the
disturbed area due to wind and stormwater runoff would be minor. Small areas of potential
wetlands could be unavoidably impacted, but mitigation measures approved by the U.S. Corps
of Engineers would be implemented. Construction of both the MHTGR and APT would require
deep excavations resulting in removal of a large volume of soil and dewatering operations.
Reuse of this soil as fill and treatment of dewatering effluent would mitigate much of
this adverse impact.
Cooling towers associated with evaporative cooling systems for the HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR at
ORR and SRS would impact visual resources through their physical structure and vapor
plumes which are visible during certain atmospheric conditions. Construction of tritium
supply and recycling facilities would affect the visual character near the proposed TSS at
NTS, ORR, or SRS. Generally there would be no change in the overall appearance from key
viewpoints with high sensitivity levels, except at ORR. Modifications to the electrical
power infrastructure may be required for certain alternatives to provide the additional
electric load capability required to support the tritium missions.
Construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities would generate
criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the potential to exceed Federal and
state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. Concentrations of PM10 and total
suspended particulates are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient PM10 and
TSP standards during peak construction periods under dry and windy conditions. Such
exceedances are not uncommon for large construction projects. Air pollutant concentrations
during operation would be greater than No Action concentrations, but are expected to
remain within Federal and state ambient air quality standards.
For each of the technologies considered, use of water for cooling system requirements is
unavoidable and could represent an adverse impact depending on the site. The maximum
amount of surface water required for tritium facility operation would be about 16,014 MGY
at ORR, and the maximum total site groundwater requirement at SRS would be 90 MGY.
Cooling system water used at ORR and SRS would be taken from the Clinch River and Savannah
River, respectively. There would be some unavoidable impact to aquatic biota from the loss
of fish, larvae, and fish eggs due to entrainment and impingement at water intakes.
Increased turbidity during construction activities could impact some fish spawning and
feeding habitat. It is expected that this loss would be small in comparison with resident
fish populations and reproductive capabilities. At sites where cooling water comes from
groundwater, the maximum amount of water withdrawn for tritium supply and recycling
operation is about 1,214 MGY for the APT alternative.
Cooling system blowdown activities discharge great quantities of water to surface waters
over short-duration periods (e.g., 26 million gallons over a one hour period, once a
day). This blowdown without mitigation would increase stream velocity, causing scouring of
stream beds, erosion of stream channels, increased turbidity, resuspension and deposition
of contaminated sediments in downstream areas, and potential flooding of areas at either
ORR or SRS. Without mitigation, blowdown discharges could (1)alter the aquatic ecosystem
by displacing existing plant and animal communities, (2)exceed water quality standards or
NPDES discharge requirements, or (3)result in thermal impacts.
Federal-listed threatened or endangered species, such as the desert tortoise, bald eagle,
short-nosed sturgeon and wood stork, could be affected directly or by disruptions to
benthic and foraging habitats during construction and operation of tritium supply and
recycling facilities. Several candidate or statelisted animal species and special status
plant species may also be affected at different sites. Where potential conflicts occur,
mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS. While such
disruptions may be unavoidable, appropriate measures would be implemented and monitored
to ensure that any impacts are not irreversible. Construction of new facilities would
have some adverse unavoidable effects on animal populations. Larger mammals and birds
would move to similar habitats nearby, while less mobile animals within the project areas,
such as amphibians, reptiles and small mammals, would be destroyed during land-clearing
activities. Drift from cooling towers for reactors at ORR and SRS may cause some
unavoidable salt deposition on surrounding land areas and vegetation at or near the
tritium supply site at a rate at which salt stress symptoms could become evident on
sensitive plants.
Some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic resources are expected to occur within the
disturbed area at each candidate site. The appropriate State Historical Preservation
Officers would be consulted to minimize unavoidable adverse impacts. Native American
resources may be unavoidably affected by land disturbance and audio or visual intrusions
on Native American sacred sites or due to reduced access to traditional use areas. DOE
would consult with the affected tribes to minimize any impacts.
With the onset of construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities,
the site and regional population would increase by as much as 13,700 during construction
of an ALWR at NTS or 5,500 during full HWR and MHTGR operation at NTS. Population and
housing could increase in the NTS total ROI by 2percent during construction and less than
1percent during operation. There would be an associated increased burden on community
infrastructure while subsequent effects on the public finances of local governments in
the region of influence would be for the most part positive. An increase in vehicle
traffic associated with construction and operation of tritium supply and recycling
facilities would affect the roads and transportation network surrounding some of the
candidate sites. The resulting impacts in traffic, congestion, and road accidents
resulting from socioeconomic growth is unavoidable, but can be reversed. For example, site
access roads which are degraded during construction can be upgraded beyond their original
condition to accommodate increased worker traffic.
Some amount of radiation would be released unavoidably by normal tritium supply and
recycling operations. The greatest radiation dose to the maximally exposed member of the
public would be 8.8 mrem per year from atmospheric releases and 14 mrem from liquid
releases at ORR. The associated risk of fatal cancers from 40 years of operations with
these doses is 4.6x10-4. The greatest annual population dose from total site operations
through the year 2030 is 340 person-rem which occurs at SRS; such a total dose would
result in 6.8 fatal cancers over the entire 40 years of operations. The largest average
annual dose to a site worker is 140 mrem at NTS and would result in an associated risk of
fatal cancer of 2.3x10-3 from 40 years of operations. The greatest annual dose to the
total site workforce is 650 personrem occurring at SRS and would result in 10 fatal
cancers over 40 years of operations.
Since hazardous and toxic chemicals are present during construction and operation of
tritium facilities, worker exposure to these chemicals is unavoidable. The maximum
hazard to site workers, based solely on emissions of hazardous chemicals, is represented
by a HI of 1.8 at SRS, which exceeds the OSHA action level of 1.0. Cancer risks to the
public and site workers are 3.3x10-5 and 5.9x10-3 respectively; both values exceed the
typical acceptable standard of 1.0x10-6. The use of remote, automated, and robotic
production methods are being developed to reduce this worker exposure. Substitution of
less toxic solvents would also result in reductions of the hazard index and possible
complete elimination of the cancer risk. Other mitigative and protective measures would
minimize this expected exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals.
Spent nuclear fuel would be generated as an unavoidable result of reactor operations to
produce tritium. Each of the candidate sites would require construction of a new spent
fuel storage facility. Although each site would implement waste minimization techniques,
generation of additional low-level, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is unavoidable. Any
introduction of new waste types could be an adverse impact since treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities may have to be developed and permitted to deal with certain new
types of wastes. In addition, the generation of additional LLW would require a new
treatment facility for liquid waste at Pantex and a new staging facility for solid LLW,
prior to offsite shipments to NTS. Generation of additional hazardous or mixed wastes
could require expansion of existing or planned treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
for these wastes at some sites. Generation of additional nonhazardous wastes may also
require expansion of existing, or construction of new, liquid and solid waste treatment
facilities or reduce the lifetimes of current solid waste landfills.

4.13 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
The use of land on any of the five candidate sites being considered for tritium supply and
recycling facilities would enhance the long-term productivity of each site in two ways.
First, tritium missions represent a long-term production function compatible with
historic nuclear weapons support and requires a skilled and stable workforce. Second,
since existing facilities do not have the capability to produce the required amounts of
tritium, construction of new, modern tritium supply facilities would enhance the long-term
productivity of the selected site.
Each alternative requires the use of additional land for additional disposal of
radiological and hazardous materials. Such short-term usage would remove this land from
other beneficial uses indefinitely because of the presence of long-lived hazards. Disposal
of solid nonhazardous waste generated from tritium supply and recycling facilities
construction and operations would require additional land at onsite sanitary landfills.
Solid nonhazardous waste generated from these facilities would continuously require
additional land at a sanitary landfill site which would be unavailable for other uses in
the long term. LLW would require additional space for onsite storage and waste process-
ing and would involve the commitment of associated land, transportation, processing
facilities, and other disposal resources. Creation of waste disposal facilities allows
the site to be productive for the long-term by protecting the overall environment and
complying with Federal and state environmental requirements.
Construction of a tritium supply and recycling facility at NTS would require short-term
resource uses which could compromise long-term productivity. The range of the endangered
desert tortoise lies in the southern one-third of NTS. The proposed TSS is located near
one of the areas on NTS having a relatively high number of desert tortoises compared to
the rest of the site. Construction and operation of tritium facilities could pose a threat
to both individual tortoises and their habitat. Measures designed to avoid impacts to the
desert tortoise from previous projects at NTS have been implemented with mitigation
measures developed in consultation with USFWS.
Losses of other terrestrial and aquatic habitats from natural productivity to accommodate
new facilities and temporary disturbances required during construction of these
facilities are possible. Land clearing and construction activities resulting in large
numbers of personnel and equipment moving about an area would disperse wildlife and
temporarily eliminate habitats. Although some destruction would be inevitable during and
after construction, these losses would be minimized by site selection and thorough
environmental reviews at the project-specific level. In addition, short-term
disturbances of previously undisturbed biological habitats from the construction of new
facilities could cause long-term reductions in the biological productivity of an area.
These long-term reductions could occur, for example, at facilities located in arid areas
of the western United States such as at INEL and NTS, where biological communities recover
very slowly from disturbances. Additional nuclear operations at SRS and ORR could affect
wetlands habitat and aquatic biota because of cooling water withdrawals and thermal
effluent discharges. These impacts could be mitigated by avoiding sensitive areas,
reducing water withdrawals, and reducing the temperature of thermal discharges through the
use of cooling towers.
Phasing out the tritium recycling activities at SRS offers the possibility of restoring
existing facilities at that site to another purpose. Environmental restoration
activities could have minor or short-term impacts similar to those normally associated
with construction activities, such as habitat disturbance and soil erosion. If
contaminated structures were removed and site areas restored to a natural state, these
areas could provide improved conditions for the long term.

4.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
This section describes the major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
that can be identified at this programmatic level of analysis. A commitment of resources
is irreversible when its primary or secondary impacts limit the future options for a
resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources
neither renewable nor recoverable for later use by future generations.
The tritium supply and recycling facility proposal was initiated to ensure a continuing
and secure supply of tritium for the Complex. As such, the programmatic decisions
resulting from this PEIS will ensure the commitment of resources to new construction and
renovation of tritium facilities at locations in line with the future workloads and
long-range nuclear weapons production strategy. This section discusses three major
resource categories that are committed irreversibly or irretrievably to the proposed
action: land, materials, and energy.
Land Use. The land that is currently occupied by, or designated for, future tritium supply
and recycling facilities, could ultimately be returned to open space uses if buildings,
roads, and other structures were removed, areas cleaned up, and the land revegetated.
Alternatively, the facilities could be modified for use in other nuclear programs.
Therefore, the commitment of this land is not necessarily irreversible.
However, land rendered unfit for other purposes, such as that set aside for radiological
and hazardous chemical waste disposal facilities, represents an irreversible commitment
because wastes in below-ground disposal areas may not be completely removed at the end of
the project. The land could not be restored to its original condition or to minimum
cleanup standards, nor could the site feasibly be used for any other purposes following
closure of the disposal facility. This land would be perpetually unusable because the
substrata would not be available for other potential intrusive uses such as mining, util-
ities, or foundations for other buildings. However, the surface area appearance and
biological habitat lost during construction and operation of the facilities could to a
large extent be restored.
Material. The irreversible and irretrievable commit ment of material resources during the
entire life-cycle of tritium facilities includes construction materials that cannot be
recovered or recycled, materials that are rendered radioactive but cannot be
decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste. Where
construction is necessary, materials required include wood, concrete, sand, gravel,
plastics, steel, aluminum, and other metals. At this time, no unusual construction
material require ments have been identified either as to type or quantity. The
construction resources, except for those that can be recovered and recycled with present
technology, would be irretrievably lost. However, none of these identified construction
resources is in short supply and all are readily available in the vicinity of locations
being considered for new facilities. The commitment of materials to be manufactured into
new equipment that cannot be recycled at the end of the project's useful lifetime is
irretrievable. Consumption of operating supplies, miscellaneous chemicals, and gases,
while irretrievable, would not constitute a permanent drain on local sources or involve
any material in critically short supply in the United States as a whole. Materials
consumed or reduced to unre coverable forms of waste, such as uranium, are also
irretrievably lost. However, strategic and critical materials, or resources having small
natural reserves, are of such value that economics promotes recycling. Plans to recover
and recycle as much of these valuable, depletable resources as is practical should depend
on need and each item would be considered individually at the time a recovery decision is
required.
Energy. The irretrievable commitment of resources during construction and operations of
the facilities would include the consumption of fossil fuels used to generate heat and
electricity for the sites. Energy would also be expended in the form of diesel fuel,
gasoline, and oil for construction equipment and transportation vehicles. The amount of
energy required to operate the tritium facilities is estimated in section 3.4.2 and would
be irretrievable. These estimates are roughly comparable to past energy requirements
except for the APT, which represents a significant increase over amounts historically
consumed for operation of tritium supply facilities.

4.15 Facility Transition
The final disposition of all Complex facilities is the responsibility of EM. DOE is
committed to remediate these sites, to comply with all applicable environmen tal
requirements, and to protect public and worker health and safety. DOE is currently
considering many technologies for the treatment of contaminated materials and equipment,
and for the long-term management of sites. DOE has prepared a PEIS to identify
configurations for selected waste management facilities. The term "configurations" as
used in this context means the arrangement of facilities and related activities at one or
more DOE sites for a specific waste type. The selected waste management facilities for
each of these waste types are: interim storage facilities for treated HLW; treatment and
storage facilities for TRU waste in the event that treatment is required before disposal;
treatment and disposal facilities for LLW and interim storage facilities for commercial
Greater-Than-Class C LLW; treatment and disposal facilities for mixed LLW; and treatment
facilities for hazardous waste.
At the end of their useful life, all facilities (new ones and those phased out as a result
of mission changes) would undergo transition to EM. Facility transition begins when the
Program Secretarial Office or the Secretary of Energy determines that there is no further
need for a facility. The transition process involves developing a transition plan, the
deactivation and preliminary characterization of the facility against turnover
requirements, preparation of budget requests, and other necessary planning and informa-
tion exchange activities. Each transition plan would incorporate site-specific details and
define actions necessary to bring identified facilities into a condition acceptable for
transfer to EM. The facility would be accepted by EM after the acceptance criteria are
met. Deactivation of the facility could include the removal of usable equipment and
material, classified documents, and parts of other activities in order to reduce the
long-term surveillance and maintenance costs. Ideally, deactivation would be completed
prior to turnover to EM. However, turnover to EM may occur at any time between formal
acceptance and completion of deactivation activities, including the possibility of
turnover occurring at the time of acceptance. Timing of acceptance, deactivation, and
turnover to EM is controlled by funding, political, and departmental workload
considerations. Facility transition ends when the facility has been turned over to EM for
final disposition, including any decontamination and decommissioning (D&D).
It is important to recognize that the decisions to conduct near-term cleanup and D&D
activities at the potential phaseout site do not depend on whether the proposals for
tritium supply and recycling are implemented. Regardless of whether tritium recycling is
phased out at SRS, substantial cleanup of both soil and groundwater contamination and
substantial D&D of buildings already determined to be unnecessary for future operations
are either occurring or planned. These cleanup and D&D activities represent a sub-
stantial percentage of the total scope of activities that must occur at the potential
phaseout site. When specific proposals are completed for the D&D of facilities that
would be phased out as a result of the implementation of the proposed tritium supply and
recycling action, the appropriate NEPA documentation would be prepared. Depending on the
level and type of contamination, D&D may involve: (1)decontamination and return of an area
to its original condition without restrictions on use or occupancy or (2)partial
decontamination and isolation of remaining residues with continued surveillance and
restrictions on use or occupancy.
In making any final disposition decisions, DOE will face many complex issues, including:
human resources; cost; future site use; public involvement; and health, safety, and
environmental issues. Public involvement in facility transition activities would be
considered in making the DOE facility transition and the associated environmental resto-
ration program a success. DOE has established and will continue to establish transition
working groups at the affected site to work with the public throughout the transition
process.
In planning the transition of facilities and sites from a production mission to an
environmental restoration mission, the following guidelines would be followed (DOE 1993e):
Laws, regulations, formal agreements, and DOE orders will form the basis for transition
planning and execution.
Transition planning will be coordinated with the appropriate regulatory agencies, host
state, and other affected stakeholders.
All vital safety and utility systems within the affected facility will be fully func-
tional upon transfer.
Facilities will have a current safety analysis report and other technical safety
requirements that address the change in facility mission and condition of the facility at
the time of turnover.
Facilities used in waste management operations or other support functions will remain
operational as required to support future environmental restoration activities,
including facility decontamination and dismantlement.
Management of waste streams during the transition period will be in accordance with
existing regulations.
A systems engineering risk assessment approach will be used to determine future site and
facility uses and possible directions for achieving them.
The required level of effort to complete D&D of facilities would be a function of the
types of chemical and radiological materials utilized when the facility was operational,
and the extent to which radioactive and hazardous/toxic materials have been deposited on
the internal and external surfaces of components, systems, and structures.
In sequence, the steps to accomplish D&D of a facility associated with weapons
reconfiguration are: (1)deactivation-DP characterizes the facility waste; (2)facility is
transferred to EM; (3)facility is decontaminated; and (4)final disposition.
Because designs are preconceptual, it is impossible to analyze potential impacts at this
time. However, a relative comparison of D&D activities and potential impacts between the
tritium supply technologies can be made. It is expected that the APT would have the
smallest impact from D&D activities. Although extensive excavation may be required to
remove the tunnel, the amount and level of activity for radioactively contaminated waste
volumes would be considerably less than the reactor technologies. Because of multiple
reactor vessels and the fact that its reactor vessels are below grade, the MHTGR would
probably have the largest impact from D&D activities. Because of fuel and target
fabrication being done offsite, the impacts from D&D for the ALWR and HWR would be
similar. Radiological impacts from D&D activities to the general population are expected
to be negligible. All D&D activities would be regulated by DOE orders. Exposure limits to
the general population would be similar to exposure limits for facility operations.

4.16 Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
DOE is committed, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to achieving
environmental justice as part of its tritium supply and recycling mission. Previous
section of chapter 4 describes the employment, population, income, housing, public
finance, and regional economics surrounding each candidate site. Impacts to these
socioeconomic issue areas due to the implementation of the proposed action at these sites
are also discussed. Selected demographic characteristics of the region-of-influence (ROI)
for each of the five candidate sites is presented in tables 4.16-1 through 4.16-5 and
figures 4.16-1 through 4.16-10. DOE has attempted in this PEIS, and will continue in
subsequent tiered NEPA documents, to identify and to mitigate when so identified, any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations resulting from decisions based on this PEIS for Tritium Supply and
Recycling.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations, directs Federal agencies to identify and address,
as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income
populations. Executive Order 12898 also directs the Administrator of EPA to convene an
interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice. The Working Group is directed
to provide guidance to federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations. The Working Group has not yet issued the guidance directed by Executive Order
12898. In coordination with the Working Group, the Department is in the process of
developing internal guidance on implementing the Executive order. Because both the Working
Group and the Department are still in the process of developing guidance, the approach
taken in this analysis may depart somewhat from whatever guidance is eventually issued.
This PEIS analyzes the demographic information presented in the tables and figures
contained in this section. For analysis, the shaded areas in figures 4.16-1, 4.16-3,
4.16-5, 4.16-7, and 4.16-9 show census tracts where people of color comprise 50 percent or
(simple majority) of the total population in the census tract, or where people of color
comprise less than 50 percent but greater than 25 percent of the total population in the
census tract. Figures 4.16-3, 4.16-3, 4.16-6, 4.16-8, and 4.16-10 show low-income
communities generally defined as those where 25 percent or more of the population is
characterized as living in poverty (income of less than $8,076 for a family of two). No
minority or low-income populations live within a 50-mile radius of NTS. This analysis
considers any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income populations which could result from the alternatives
being considered.
As shown in section 4.12, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, impacts, if any, to
surrounding communities would most likely result from toxic/hazardous air pollutants and
radiological emissions. As further shown in sections 4.2.3.9, 4.3.3.9, 4.4.3.9, 4.5.3.9,
and 4.6.3.9 on radiological and hazardous chemical impacts during normal operation and
accidents, these emissions are expected to be lower than regulatory limits. While these
releases and emissions are within regulatory limits, the cumulative effect of continuous
(or intermittent over time) very low level exposures could have some impact on human
health or the environment. Therefore, whatever adverse human health or environmental
impacts to any offsite populations, would most likely occur to people living within
communities located near the five candidate sites. The analysis of the demographics data
presented in figures 4.16-1 through 4.16-10, tables 4.16-1 through 4.16-5 and for the
communities surrounding the five candidate sites indicates that even if there were any
health impacts to these communities, these impacts would not appear to disproportionately
affect minority or low-income populations.
A review of the impact analysis presented in the Site-Wide EIS for NTS was also performed
to identify any potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects even though no minority or low income populations live within a
50-mile radius of the proposed project site at NTS. The analysis indicates that offsite
impacts from normal operation air pollutants and radiological emissions would be
negligible and below regulatory limits. The radiological release from a design-basis
reactor accident would not go beyond the NTS boundary (appendix figure F.3.2-1).
Therefore, no disproportionate health effects to the offsite public would be expected.
Groundwater withdrawals to support the reactor and APT technologies at NTS would not
affect aquifer levels beyond the site boundary (section 4.3.3.4). Therefore, no
disproportionately adverse effects to public wells near NTS would be expected.
Figure (Page 4-534)
Figure 4.16-1.-Minority Population Distribution for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
and Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-535)
Figure 4.16-2.-Low-Income Distribution by Poverty Status for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory and Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-536)
Figure 4.16-3.-Minority Population Distribution for Nevada Test Site and Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-537)
Figure 4.16-4.-Low-Income Distribution by Poverty Status for Nevada Test Site and
Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-538)
Figure 4.16-5.-Minority Population Distribution for Oak Ridge Reservation and Surrounding
Area.
Figure (Page 4-539)
Figure 4.16-6.-Low-Income Distribution by Poverty Status for Oak Ridge Reservation and
Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-540)
Figure 4.16-7.-Minority Population Distribution for Pantex Plant and Surrounding Area.
Figure (Page 4-541)
Figure 4.16-8.-Low-Income Distribution by Poverty Status for Pantex Plant and Surrounding
Area.
Figure (Page 4-542)
Figure 4.16-9.-Minority Population Distribution for Savannah River Site and Surrounding
Area.
Figure (Page 4-543)
Figure 4.16-10.-Low-Income Distribution by Poverty Status for Savannah River Site and
Surrounding Area.
Table 4.16-1.-Selected Demographic Characteristics for Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Region-of-Influence
- Bannock Bingham Bonneville Butte Jefferson Total Region-of-Influence
County County County County County
Characteristic/Area (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (percent)
Persons by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic, White 60,626 31,432 67,879 2,791 15,219 - -
Hispanic 2,740 3,614 3,010 101 1,155 - -
Non-Hispanic, American Indian 1,509 2,209 343 21 109 - -
Non-Hispanic, Black 415 31 286 0 3 - -
Non-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander 697 284 663 5 40 - -
Non-Hispanic, Other 39 33 26 0 17 - -
Total 1990 Population 66,026 37,583 72,207 2,918 16,543 - -
Total Number of Households 23,412 11,513 24,289 997 4,871 - -
1989 Low Income
Persons Below Poverty
Number 8,944 5,804 7,056 392 2,353 - -
Percent 13.8 15.6 9.9 13.5 14.3 - -
Source: Census 1990a.
Table 4.16-2.-Selected Demographic Characteristics for Nevada Test Site
Region-of-Influence
- Clark County Nye County Total Region-of-Influence
Characteristic/Area (number) (number) (number) (percent)
Persons by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic, White 558,875 15,635 574,510 75.7
Hispanic 82,904 1,237 84,141 11.1
Non-Hispanic, American Indian 5,514 475 5,989 0.8
Non-Hispanic, Black 68,858 274 69,132 9.1
Non-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander 24,483 148 24,631 3.2
Non-Hispanic, Other 825 12 837 0.1
Total 1990 Population 741,459 17,781 759,240 100.0
Total Number of Households 287,025 6,664 293,689 -
1989 Low Income
Persons Below Poverty
Number 76,737 1,840 78,577 -
Percent 10.3 10.3 10.3 -
Source: Census 1990a.
Table 4.16-3.-Selected Demographic Characteristics for Oak Ridge Reservation
Region-of-Influence
- Anderson County Knox County Loudon County Roane County Total Region-of-Influence
Characteristic/Area (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (percent)
Persons by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic, White 64,320 300,040 30,668 45,274 440,302 91.2
Hispanic 381 2,067 83 212 2,743 0.6
Non-Hispanic, American Indian 236 775 52 95 1,158 0.2
Non-Hispanic, Black 2,753 29,483 400 1,456 34,092 7.1
Non-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander 537 3,263 49 186 4,035 0.8
Non-Hispanic, Other 23 121 3 4 151 0.0
Total 1990 Population 68,250 335,749 31,255 47,227 482,481 99.9
Total Number of Households 27,384 133,639 12,155 18,453 191,631 -
1989 Low Income
Persons Below Poverty
Number 9,664 45,608 4,192 7,467 66,931 -
Percent 14.2 13.6 13.4 15.8 13.9 -
Source: Census 1990a.
Table 4.16-4.-Selected Demographic Characteristics for Pantex Plant Region-of-Influence
- Armstrong County Carson County Potter County Randall County Total Region-of-Influence
Characteristic/Area (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (percent)
Persons by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic, White 1,951 6,158 66,877 81,364 156,350 79.7
Hispanic 55 354 19,246 6,144 25,799 13.1
Non-Hispanic, American Indian 9 41 709 414 1,173 0.6
Non-Hispanic, Black 0 11 8,460 1,082 9,553 4.9
Non-Hispanic, Asian/ Pacific 5 9 2,431 626 3,071 1.6
Islander
Non-Hispanic, Other 1 3 151 43 198 0.1
Total 1990 Population 2.021 6,576 97,874 89,673 196,144 100.0
Total Number of Households 768 2,402 37,344 34,553 75,067 -
1989 Low Income
Persons Below Poverty
Number 232 583 21,619 7,819 30,253 -
Percent 11.5 8.9 22.1 8.7 15.4 -
Source: Census 1990a.
Table 4.16-5.-Selected Demographic Characteristics for Savannah River Site
Region-of-Influence
- South Carolina Georgia - -
- Aiken Allendale Bamberg Barnwell Columbia Richmond Total Region-of-Influence
County County County County County County
Characteristic/Area (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (number) (percent)
Persons by
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic, White 90,130 3,598 6,428 11,421 56,141 103,009 270,727 63.6
Hispanic 867 161 75 146 962 3,707 5,918 1.4
Non-Hispanic, 213 11 22 31 150 491 918 0.2
American Indian
Non-Hispanic, Black 29,176 7,939 10,356 8,677 7,239 79,221 142,608 33.5
Non-Hispanic, 528 7 20 17 1,518 3,186 5,276 1.2
Asian/Pacific Islander
Non-Hispanic, Other 26 6 1 1 21 105 160 0.0
Total 1990 Population 120,940 11,722 16,902 20,293 66,031 189,719 425,607 99.9
Total Number of 44,883 3,791 5,587 7,100 21,841 68,675 151,877 -
Households
1989 Low Income
Persons Below Poverty
Number 16,671 3,837 4,547 4,367 4,255 32,590 66,267 -
Percent 13.8 32.7 26.9 21.5 6.4 17.2 15.6 -
Source: Census 1990a.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)