| Additional treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for each alternativea | |||
| Alternative | Waste forecast | ||
| Minimum | Expected | Maximum | |
| No action | STORAGE:
Buildings
24 long-lived low-level waste 291 mixed waste Pads 19 transuranic and alpha waste Tanks 4 organic waste in S-Area 26 organic waste in E-Area 43 aqueous waste in E-Area TREATMENT: Continue ongoing and planned waste treatment activities DISPOSAL: 29 shallow land disposal trenches 10 low-activity waste vaults 5 intermediate-level waste vaults 1 RCRAb disposal facility COSTc: $6.9x109d |
||
| A |
STORAGE: Buildings 7 long-lived low-level waste 45 mixed waste Pads 3 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast DISPOSAL: 25 shallow land disposal trenches 9 low-activity waste vaults 2 intermediate-level waste vaults 21 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $4.2x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 24 long-lived low-level waste 79 mixed waste Pads 12 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Continue ongoing and planned waste treatment activities; treat limited quantities of mixed and PCB waste offsite; operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for hazardous and mixed waste, modify the facility to accept mixed waste soils and sludges; construct and operate a mixed waste containment building; construct and operate a mixed waste soil sort facility; construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility DISPOSAL: 73 shallow land disposal trenches 12 low-activity waste vaults 5 intermediate-level waste vaults 61 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $6.9x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 34 long-lived low-level waste 757 mixed waste Pads 1,168 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast except containment building modified to include wastewater treatment capability to treat spent decontamination solutions; treat its secondary waste at the Consolidated Incineration Facility DISPOSAL: 644 shallow land disposal trenches 31 low-activity waste vaults 31 intermediate-level waste vaults 347 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $24x109 |
| B |
STORAGE: Buildings 7 long-lived low-level waste 39 mixed waste Pads 2 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast, except no non-alpha waste vitrification facility; modify Consolidated Incineration Facility to accept mixed waste soils and sludges DISPOSAL: 37 shallow land disposal trenches 1 low-activity waste vault 2 intermediate-level waste vault 20 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $4.2x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 24 long-lived low-level waste 79 mixed waste Pads 10 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Continue ongoing and planned waste treatment activities; treat limited quantities of mixed and PCB wastes offsite; begin volume reduction of low-activity job-control and equipment waste offsite; begin smelting low-activity equipment waste offsite; operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for low-level, hazardous, and mixed wastes; construct and operate a low-level waste soil sort facility; construct and operate a mixed waste containment building; construct and operate a non-alpha vitrification facility for mixed waste soils and sludges; construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; construct and operate an alpha vitrification facility DISPOSAL: 58 shallow land disposal trenches 1 low-activity waste vaults 5 intermediate-level waste vault 21 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $6.9x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 34 long-lived low-level waste 652 mixed waste Pads 1,168 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast, except containment building modified to include wastewater treatment capability to treat spent decontamination solutions; treat its secondary waste at the Consolidated Incineration Facility DISPOSAL: 371 shallow land disposal trenches 8 low-activity waste vaults 9 intermediate-level waste vaults 96 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $20x109 |
| C |
STORAGE: Buildings 7 long-lived low-level waste 39 mixed waste Pads 2 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast DISPOSAL: 45 shallow land disposal trenches 2 low-activity waste vaults 1 intermediate-level waste vault 10 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $3.8x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 24 long-lived low-level waste 79 mixed waste Pads 11 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Continue ongoing and planned waste treatment activities; treat limited quantities of mixed and PCB wastes offsite; begin smelting low-activity equipment waste offsite; operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for low-level, hazardous, and mixed waste until vitrification facility is available; construct and operate a hazardous and mixed waste containment building; construct and operate a non-alpha vitrification facility for low-level, hazardous, and mixed waste; construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; construct and operate an alpha vitrification facility DISPOSAL: 123 shallow land disposal trenches 2 low-activity waste vaults 2 intermediate-level waste vaults 40 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $5.6x109 |
STORAGE: Buildings 34 long-lived low-level waste 652 mixed waste Pads 1,166 transuranic and alpha waste TREATMENT: Same as expected waste forecast DISPOSAL: 576 shallow land disposal trenches 5 low-activity waste vaults 3 intermediate-level waste vaults 111 RCRA disposal facilities COST: $18x109 |
|
a. Facilities identified are in addition to those currently constructed;
activities are in addition to ongoing or planned activities. b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. c. Life-cycle costs are expressed as present worth in 1994 dollars with 3 percent escalation and 6 percent discount rate (refer to Appendix C for details). d. Source: Cost for no-action (Hess 1995e); cost for other alternatives (Hess 1995f). | |||
| | |||
|
Geologic Resources |
|||
|
The impacts to the geologic resources of SRS can be evaluated by examining
the amount of land that would be cleared to build facilities. The following
amounts of developed and undeveloped land areas could experience erosion.
Except for the maximum waste forecast, all clearing would take place in E-Area.
Under the maximum waste forecast, the need for land exceeds that available in
E-Area. The potential for erosion and sedimentation increases as the amount of
land needed for construction increases, especially for previously uncleared
land. Acreage shown is the largest cumulative amount of land needed for
construction activities at any time during the 30-year period. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Developed: 81 acres Undeveloped: 160 acres |
||
| A |
Developed: 41 acres Undeveloped: 73 acres |
Developed: 65 acres Undeveloped: 96 acres |
Developed: 70 acres Undeveloped: 184 acres (within E-Area) 802 acres (developed/undeveloped outside E-Area) |
| B |
Developed: 25 acres Undeveloped: 90 acres |
Developed: 51 acres Undeveloped: 117 acres |
Developed: 70 acres Undeveloped: 184 acres (within E-Area) 756 acres (developed/undeveloped outside E-Area) |
| C |
Developed: 32 acres Undeveloped: 111 acres |
Developed: 59 acres Undeveloped: 128 acres |
Developed: 70 acres Undeveloped: 184 acres (within E-Area) 775 acres (developed/undeveloped outside E-Area) |
| | |||
|
Groundwater Resources |
|||
|
The impacts to the groundwater resources at SRS from implementing the
alternative waste management scenarios were evaluated by examining the drinking
water doses from a hypothetical well 100 meters away. Under all alternatives
the total impact to groundwater resources would result in a dose not greater
than 4 millirem per year. The values below represent the impacts resulting from
low-level waste vaults (both low-activity and intermediate-level vaults) and
from suspect soil disposal in slit trenches. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
| Minimum | Expected | Maximum | |
| No action |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.33 millirem per year. Less than one-tenth the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
||
| A |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.24 millirem per year. Six hundredth (0.06) of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
Same as no action. |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.79 millirem per year. Less than one-fifth the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
| B |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.23 millirem per year. Less than six hundredth (0.06) of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
Same as no action. |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.43 millirem per year. Slightly over one-tenth the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
| C |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.15 millirem per year. Less than four hundredth (0.04) of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.21 millirem per year. Less than six hundredth (0.06) of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
Plutonium-239 peak dose 0.25 millirem per year. Six hundredth (0.06) of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard. No impact. |
| | |||
|
Surface Water |
|||
|
The impacts to surface water resources can be evaluated by examining the
potential effects on people and the environment from both radiological and
nonradiological constituents present in treated wastewater. |
|||
| Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
| Minimum | Expected | Maximum | |
| No action |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts to SRS streams would be very small. Operations: Tritium would peak in Savannah River in 70 to 237 years. Other radionuclides would peak in more than 1,000 years. Radionuclide concentrations are very small. |
A |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts less than alternative A expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative A expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Same as no-action alternative. Operations: Same as no-action alternative. |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts greater than alternative A expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative A expected waste forecast. |
| B |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts less than alternative B expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative B expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Same as no-action alternative. Operations: Same as no-action alternative. |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts greater than alternative B expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative B expected waste forecast. |
| C |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts less than alternative C expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative C expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Same as no-action alternative Operations: Same as no-action alternative. |
Construction: Potential erosion impacts greater than alternative C expected
waste forecast. Operations: Same as alternative C expected waste forecast. |
| | |||
|
Air Resources |
|||
|
The impacts to the air in the vicinity of SRS can be evaluated by examining
the emissions from construction activities and operating facilities. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 1,919 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEIa dose would be 1.2x10-4 millirem/year and population dose would be 2.9x10-4 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Criteria increments are very small. Largest increase would be carbon monoxide (1-hour standard) at 24 micrograms per cubic meter. |
||
| A |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 394 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.0057 millirem/year and population dose would be 0.27 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative A expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 769 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.011 millirem/year and population dose would be 0.56 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as no-action alternative. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 7,751 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.080 millirem/year and population dose would be 3.4 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative A expected waste forecast. |
| B |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 323 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.02 millirem/year and population dose would be 0.98 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative B expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 673 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.032 millirem/year and population dose would be 1.5 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Criteria increments would be very small. Largest incremental increase would be carbon monoxide (1-hour standard) at 31 micrograms per cubic meter. Air toxic increments would be very small. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 6,645 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.33 millirem/year and population dose would be 14 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative B expected waste forecast. |
| | |||
| Air Resources (continued) | |||
|
The impacts to the air in the vicinity of SRS can be evaluated by examining
the emissions from construction activities and operating facilities. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| C |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 330 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.09 millirem/year and population dose would be 4.9 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative C expected waste forecast. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 737 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 0.18 millirem/year and population dose would be 10 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as no-action alternative. |
Construction: Largest increase over baseline would be carbon monoxide
(1-hour standard) at 6,793 micrograms per cubic meter. Operations: Radiological: MEI dose would be 4.0 millirem/year and population dose would be 229 person-rem/year. Nonradiological: Same as alternative C expected waste forecast. |
|
a. MEI = offsite maximally exposed individual. | |||
| | |||
|
Ecological Resources |
|||
|
The impact to the ecological resources of SRS can be evaluated by examining
the amount of land that would be cleared. The more land required for the
facilities, the more wildlife habitat destroyed. Indirect impacts to nearby
streams (such as siltation and increased water temperatures) also increase with
increasing acreage. The following amounts of undeveloped woodland would be
cleared for each alternative. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
160 acres |
||
| A |
73 acres |
96 acres |
986 acres |
| B |
90 acres |
117 acres |
940 acres |
| C |
111 acres |
128 acres |
959 acres |
| | |||
|
Land Use |
|||
|
Land-use impacts were evaluated on the basis of the amount of land that
would be cleared to build facilities, that would otherwise be available for
nonindustrial uses such as natural resource conservation, research, or other as
yet undetermined uses. For the minimum and expected waste forecasts in all
alternatives, using cleared acreage would not impact current land-use plans.
For the maximum waste forecasts in all alternatives, land-use plans for areas
outside of E-Area would potentially be impacted because uncleared land would be
required. Acreage shown is the largest amount of land needed (developed and
undeveloped) for waste management facilities at any one time. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
241 acres in E-Area; no impact to current land-use plans. |
||
| A |
108 acres in E-Area |
152 acres in E-Area |
254 acres in E-Area and 802 acres elsewhere on SRS. Potential impacts to
land-use plans outside of E-Area. |
| B |
107 acres in E-Area |
158 acres in E-Area |
254 acres in E-Area and 756 acres elsewhere on SRS. Potential impacts to
land-use plans outside of E-Area. |
| C |
141 acres in E-Area |
167 acres in E-Area |
254 acres in E-Area and 775 acres elsewhere on SRS. Potential impacts to
land-use plans outside of E-Area. |
| | |||
|
Cultural Resources |
|||
|
Potential impacts to cultural resources can be evaluated by identifying the
known or expected significant resources in the areas of potential impact and
activities that could directly or indirectly affect those significant resources.
Potential impacts would vary by alternative relative to the amount of land that
would be disturbed for construction and operation of waste management
facilities. Acreage shown is the amount of land needed for construction
activities over the 30-year period. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Disturbance of approximately 241 acresa |
||
| A |
Disturbance of approximately 114 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 161 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 1,056 acres |
| B |
Disturbance of approximately 115 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 168 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 1,010 acres |
| C |
Disturbance of approximately 143 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 187 acres |
Disturbance of approximately 1,029 acres |
|
a. In all forecasts, some additional surveying would be required. Potential
indirect impacts to significant archaeological resources northwest of F-Area
would vary by alternative relative to the amount of land to be disturbed.
Potential impacts would be mitigated as appropriate. | |||
| | |||
|
Socioeconomics |
|||
|
Impacts to socioeconomic resources can be evaluated by examining the
potential effects from the construction and operation of waste management
facilities on factors such as employment, income, population, and community
resources. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast | ||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Construction: Peak of 50 jobs; no net change in regional construction employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 2,450 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
||
| A |
Construction: Peak of 70 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 1,680 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 80 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 2,560 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 260 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 11,200 jobs; 3,300 new jobs; 3% increase in regional employment; less than 3% increase in regional population; 4% increase in regional income. |
| B |
Construction: Peak of 120 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 1,600 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 170 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 2,550 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 330 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 10,010 jobs; 2,110 new jobs; 2% increase in regional employment; less than 2% increase in population; less than 3% increase in regional income. |
| C |
Construction: Peak of 130 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 1,470 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 160 jobs; no net change in regional construction
employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 1,940 jobs; filled through the reassignment of existing workers; no impact. |
Construction: Peak of 350 jobs; no net change in regional construction employment; no impact. Operations: Peak of 10,060 jobs; 2,160 new jobs; 2% increase in regional employment; less than 2% increase in regional population; less than 3% increase in regional income. |
| | |||
|
Traffic |
|||
|
Traffic impacts are expressed as the increase in vehicles per hour and
hazardous and radioactive waste shipments (by truck) per day. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Construction: 788 vehiclesa per hour, an increase of 47 per day from
baseline estimates. Trucks: 815 shipmentsb per day (no change from baseline). |
||
| A |
Construction: 809 vehicles per hour Trucks: 802 shipments per day |
Construction: 824 vehicles per hour Trucks: 817 shipments per day |
Construction: 999 vehicles per hour Trucks: 873 shipments per day |
| B |
Construction: 856 vehicles per hour Trucks: 804 shipments per day |
Construction: 907 vehicles per hour Trucks: 819 shipments per day |
Construction: 1,068 vehicles per hour Trucks: 872 shipments per day |
| C |
Construction: 873 vehicles per hour Trucks: 801 shipments per day |
Construction: 896 vehicles per hour Trucks: 814 shipments per day |
Construction: 1,089 vehicles per hour Trucks: 858 shipments per day |
|
a. Vehicles are presented as vehicles arriving at E-Area during the peak
traffic hour. Additional construction worker vehicles are assumed to all arrive
during the peak hour. b. Truck traffic for this table includes trucks not involved in waste management activities (785 per day) (Swygert 1994) and radioactive and hazardous waste shipments. Details on truck traffic are provided in Section 3.11.2.1 of this EIS. | |||
|
Transportation - Incident-free |
|||
|
Transportation impacts can be evaluated by comparing additional latent
cancer fatalities that might result from transport of waste. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Involved workers: 0.06 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 8.4x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop.a |
||
| A |
Involved workers: 0.057 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 4.2x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 5.4x10-7 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop.b |
Involved workers: 0.12 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 8.8x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 1.2x10-6 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
Involved workers: 0.3 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 0.0014 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 3.2x10-6 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
| B |
Involved workers: 0.05 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 4.4x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 0.0026 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
Involved workers: 0.098 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 8.9x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 0.0032 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
Involved workers: 0.22 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 0.0013 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 0.0038 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
| C |
Involved workers: 0.041 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 4.1x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 1.5x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
Involved workers: 0. 079 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 8.6x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 2.7x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
Involved workers: 0.15 additional excess fatal cancer per year could
develop. Uninvolved workers: 0.0013 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. Remote population: 7.2x10-4 additional excess fatal cancer per year could develop. |
|
a. Remote population would not be affected because there are very few
offsite shipments under the no-action alternative. b. Remote population = members of the public along transportation routes that would be exposed to normal shipments and accidents. | |||
| | |||
|
Transportation - Accidents |
|||
|
Dose (person-rem), probability, and risk determine additional latent cancer
fatalities from transportation accidents. Transportation impacts can be
compared by evaluating additional latent cancer fatalities that might result
from transport of waste. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No actiond |
Receptor LCFa Probabilityb Riskc Uninvolved workerse 124 2.6x10-6 3.2x10-4 Offsite Pope 14 2.6x10-6 3.5x10-5 |
||
| A |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 1.8x10-6 2.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 1.8x10-6 2.4x10-5 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 4.6x10-4 1.1x10-9 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 2.6x10-6 3.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 2.6x10-6 3.5x10-5 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 0.0011 2.5x10-9 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 4.2x10-5 0.0052 Offsite Pop 14 4.2x10-5 5.8x10-4 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 0.0027 6.5x10-9 |
| B |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 1.8x10-6 2.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 1.8x10-6 2.4x10-5 Remote Pop 0.18 1.2x10-6 2.2x10-7 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 2.6x10-6 3.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 2.6x10-6 3.5x10-5 Remote Pop 0.18 1.6x10-6 2.9x10-7 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 4.2x10-5 0.0052 Offsite Pop 14 4.2x10-5 5.8x10-4 Remote Pop 0.18 1.6x10-6 2.9x10-7 |
| C |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 1.8x10-6 2.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 1.8x10-6 2.4x10-5 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 4.6x10-4 1.1x10-9 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 2.6x10-6 3.2x10-4 Offsite Pop 14 2.6x10-6 3.5x10-5 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 0.0011 2.5x10-9 |
Receptor LCF Probability Risk Uninvolved workers 124 4.2x10-5 0.0052 Offsite Pop 14 4.2x10-5 5.8x10-4 Remote Pop 2.4x10-6 0.0027 6.5x10-9 |
|
a. Latent cancer fatalities per accident. b. Annual over 30-year period. c. Annual risk of latent cancer fatalities. d. There are very few offsite radioactive waste shipments under the no-action alternative. e. DOE has adopted a dose-to-risk conversion factor of 0.0004 latent cancer fatalities per person-rem for uninvolved workers and 0.0005 latent cancer fatalities person-rem for the offsite population. The latter factor is slightly higher because of the presence of groups of people like infants or children who may be more susceptible to radiation than workers. | |||
| | |||
|
Occupational Health |
|||
|
The principal potential human health effect from exposure to low doses of
radiation is cancer. Human health effects from exposure to chemicals may be
both toxic effects (e.g., nervous system disorders) and cancer. For the purpose
of the analysis, radiological carcinogenic effects are expressed as the annual
number of fatal cancers for population estimates and probability of death of the
maximally exposed individual. Nonradiological carcinogenic effects are
expressed as the number of nonfatal cancers. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.0x10-5 (Involved
worker in 1993 baselineb was 2.0x10-5) All involved workersc (probability of fatal cancer): 0.021 (Value for all involved workers in 1993 baseline was 3.3) Nonradiological: Very small impactsd |
||
| A |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.3x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.027 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.3x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.028 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.9x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.046 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
|
B |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.4x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancars): 0.030 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.5x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.032 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 2.3x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.058 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
| C |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.5x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.033 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 1.6x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.034 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
Radiological
Involved workera (probability of fatal cancer): 2.4x10-5 All involved workersc (number of lifetime cancers): 0.060 Nonradiological: Very small impacts |
|
a.Value for the involved worker represents the annual probability of the
maximally exposed worker contracting a fatal cancer in his or her lifetime due
to 30 years of radiation exposure from waste management activities. b.Baseline values include all workers at SRS (for 30 years of exposure). c.Value for all involved workers represents the annual number of lifetime fatal cancers expected in the waste management worker population due to 30 years of radiation exposure from waste management activities. d.Employee exposure would be below Occupational Safety and Health Administration - permissible exposure limits and health impacts would be expected to be very small. | |||
| | |||
|
Public Health |
|||
|
The principal potential human health effect from exposure to low doses of
radiation is cancer. Human health effects from exposure to chemicals may be
both toxic effects (e.g., nervous system disorders) and cancer. For the purpose
of the analysis, radiological carcinogenic effects are expressed as the annual
number of fatal cancers for population estimates and probability of death of the
maximally exposed individual. Nonradiological carcinogenic effects are
expressed as the probability of excess latent cancers over a 70-year lifetime. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
|
Radiological
Offsite MEIa,b (probability of fatal cancer): 4.1x10-10 (Offsite MEI in 1993 baselinec was 3.9x10-7) Offsite Populationd (number of fatal cancers): 3.5x10-6 (Offsite population in 1993 baseline was 0.11) Nonradiologicale Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.0x10-7 |
|||
| A |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 3.2x10-9 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 1.4x10-4 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 1.9x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 5.8x10-9 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 2.8x10-4 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.0x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 4.1x10-8 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 0.0017 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.0x10-7 |
| B |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 1.2x10-8 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 5.2x10-4 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 1.9x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 1.8x10-8 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 8.0x10-4 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.0x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 1.8x10-7 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 0.008 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.0x10-7 |
| | <\tr>
|||
|
Public Health (continued) |
|||
|
The principal potential human health effect from exposure to low doses of
radiation is cancer. Human health effects from exposure to chemicals may be
both toxic effects (e.g., nervous system disorders) and cancer. For the purpose
of the analysis, radiological carcinogenic effects are expressed as the annual
number of fatal cancers for population estimates and probability of death of the
maximally exposed individual. Nonradiological carcinogenic effects are
expressed as the probability of excess latent cancers over a 70-year lifetime. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| C |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 4.6x10-8 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 0.0025 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.1x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 9.0x10-8 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 0.0050 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.2x10-7 |
Radiological
Offsite MEI (probability of fatal cancer): 2.0x10-6 Offsite Population (number of fatal cancers): 0.11 Nonradiological Probability of latent fatal cancers: 2.7x10-7 |
|
a.MEI = maximally exposed individual. b.Value for the MEI represents the annual probability of the offsite maximally exposed individual contracting a fatal cancer in his or her lifetime due to 30 years of radiation exposure from waste management activities. c.Baseline values include impacts from all activities at SRS. d.Value for offsite population represents the annual number of lifetime fatal cancers expected in the exposed population due to 30 years of radiation exposure from waste management activities. e.Annual latent cancer probability adjusted for 30 years of waste management activities. | |||
|
Accidents |
|||
|
The impacts to workers and the public from postulated radioactive accidents
at SRS considered in the alternatives can be evaluated and compared by the
increase in potential latent fatal cancers per year. The estimated latent fatal
cancers per year are based on dose, dose-to-health effects conversion factor,
and probability of an accident occurring. For hazardous chemical releases,
impacts are assumed when threshold values of concentrations in air that could
cause short-term effects to workers or the public are exceeded. The long-term
health consequences of human exposure to hazardous chemicals are not as well
understood, and thus more subjective, than those for radiation. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| No action |
LCFa Frequency Riskb CW100c 0.052 0.02 0.001 CW640c 9.2x10-4 0.02 1.8x10-5 MEIc 1.7x10-5 0.02 3.3x10-7 OFFPc 0.84 0.02 0.017 No chemical accidents exceed threshold for life-threatening health effects for maximally exposed individual; 7 release scenarios exceed this threshold for CW100; 1 release scenario exceeds this threshold for CW640. |
||
| A |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, the maximally exposed offsite individual, and the
population within 80 kilometers would require three fewer intermediate-level
waste vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the
probability of this accident would be less than for the expected waste forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
LCF Frequency Risk CW100c 0.052 0.02 0.001 CW640c 9.2x10-4 0.02 1.8x10-5 MEIc 1.7x10-5 0.02 3.3x10-7 OFFPc 0.84 0.02 0.017 Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the no-action alternative. |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, the maximally exposed offsite individual, and the
population within 80 kilometers would require 26 more intermediate-level waste
vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the probability of
this accident would be higher than for the expected waste forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
| B |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, the maximally exposed offsite individual, and the
population within 80 kilometers would require three fewer intermediate-level
waste vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the
probability of this accident would be less than for the expected waste forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
LCF Frequency Risk CW100c 0.052 0.02 0.001 CW640c 9.2x10-4 0.02 1.8x10-5 MEIc 1.7x10-5 0.02 3.3x10-7 OFFPc 0.84 0.02 0.017 Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the no-action alternative. |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, the maximally exposed offsite individual, and the
population within 80 kilometers would require four more intermediate-level waste
vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the probability of
this accident would be higher than for the expected waste forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
| | |||
|
Accidents (continued) |
|||
|
The impacts to workers and the public from postulated radioactive accidents
at SRS considered in the alternatives can be evaluated and compared by the
increase in potential latent fatal cancers per year. The estimated latent fatal
cancers per year are based on dose, dose-to-health effects conversion factor,
and probability of an accident occurring. For hazardous chemical releases,
impacts are assumed when threshold values of concentrations in air that could
cause short-term effects to workers or the public are exceeded. The long-term
health consequences of human exposure to hazardous chemicals are not as well
understood, thus more subjective, than those for radiation. |
|||
|
Alternative |
Waste forecast |
||
|
Minimum |
Expected |
Maximum | |
| C |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, the maximally exposed offsite individual, and the
population within 80 kilometers would require one fewer intermediate-level waste
vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the probability of
this accident would be less than for the expected waste forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
LCF Frequency Riska CW100c 0.052 0.02 0.001 CW640c 9.2x10-4 0.02 1.8x10-5 MEIc 1.7x10-5 0.02 3.3x10-7 OFFPc 0.84 0.02 0.017 Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the no-action alternative. |
The accident scenariod providing the greatest impacts to the uninvolved
workers at 100 and 640 meters, and the maximally exposed offsite individual, and
the population within 80 kilometers would require one more intermediate-level
waste vaults than the expected waste forecast. DOE believes that the
probability of this accident would be higher than for the expected waste
forecast. Chemical accident impacts would be the same as for the expected waste forecast. |
|
a. Latent cancer fatalities per accident. b. Point estimates of increased risk of latent cancer fatalities per year. c. The impact for each receptor group is from the representative bounding accident with the greatest overall estimated risk of increased fatal cancers per year for all waste types considered. d. This accident scenario is a container breach at the Intermediate-Level Non-Tritium Vault (see Appendix F, Section F.5.2.2.1). CW100 = Uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) (in millirem). CW640 = Uninvolved worker at 640 meters (2,100 feet) (in millirem). MEI = Offsite maximally exposed individual (in millirem). OFFP = Offsite population to 80 kilometers (50 miles) (in person-rem). | |||
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
