Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.2 Alternative A - Limited Treatment Configuration

This section describes the effects alternative A (described in Section 2.4) would have on the existing environment (described in Chapter 3).

4.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative A (limited treatment practices for waste at SRS) includes the continuation of ongoing activities listed under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.1). In addition DOE would:

Construct and operate a containment building to process mixed wastes.

Operate a mobile soil sort facility.

Treat small quantities of mixed and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes offsite.

Burn mixed and hazardous wastes in the Consolidated Incineration Facility.

Construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility.

Store transuranic wastes until they can be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Storage facilities would be constructed on previously cleared land in E-Area. The new waste treatment facilities for characterization/certification of transuranic and alpha wastes and for decontamination/macroencapsulation (containment) of mixed waste would be built on undeveloped land northwest of F-Area.

Construction related to this alternative would require 0.22 square kilometer (55 acres) of undeveloped land northwest of F-Area and 0.04 square kilometer (9 acres) of undeveloped land northeast of F-Area

by 2006 (Figure 4-13). An additional 0.13 square kilometer (32 acres) of undeveloped land would be required by 2024 for construction of disposal vaults northeast of FArea (Figure 4-14). Other construction would be on previously cleared and developed land in the eastern portion of E-Area. The minimum waste forecast for this alternative would require 0.29 square kilometer (73 acres) of undeveloped land, and the maximum waste forecast would require 4.0 square kilometers (986 acres). Additional site-selection studies would be required to locate suitable land if the maximum waste forecast is realized.

4.2.2 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

4.2.2.1 Geologic Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Effects on geologic resources from alternative A - expected waste forecast would result primarily from the construction of new facilities. The effects discussed under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.2) form the basis for comparison and are referenced in this section.

Although the number of facilities required for this case would be substantially fewer than for the noaction alternative because more waste would be treated and less would be stored, waste management activities associated with alternative A expected waste forecast would affect soils in EArea. The fewer number of facilities and the corresponding decrease in the amount of land needed would result in smaller effects on soils under this alternative. Cleared and graded land required for this alternative totals approximately 0.26 square kilometer (65 acres) (by 2006). Approximately 0.26 square kilometer (65 acres) of undeveloped land in EArea would be cleared and graded for the construction of new facilities through 2006. Later, an additional 0.13 square kilometer (32 acres) would be cleared for construction of additional RCRApermitted disposal vaults. This total of 0.39 square kilometer (96 acres) is approximately 60 percent of the 0.65 square kilometer (160 acres) of undisturbed land that would be required for the noaction alternative.

The potential for accidental oil, fuel, and chemical spills would be lower under this alternative than under the noaction alternative because of reduced construction and operation activities. Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures for this scenario would be the same as for the noaction alternative discussed in Section 4.1.2, and impacts to soils would be very small.

4.2.2.2 Geologic Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Effects from alternative A - minimum waste forecast would be slightly less than those for the expected waste forecast because less land would be disturbed during construction activities. Approximately 0.17 square kilometer (41 acres) of cleared land (by 2008) and 0.29 square kilometer (73 acres) of uncleared land (by 2024) would be used for construction of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

For operations activities, spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plans for this case would be the same as for the no-action alternative.

4.2.2.3 Geologic Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Effects from alternative A - maximum waste forecast would be greater than from the minimum or expected forecasts previously discussed, because more land would be disturbed during construction activities. Approximately 0.283 square kilometer (70 acres) of cleared land, 0.745 square kilometer (184 acres) of uncleared land in E-Area, and 3.25 square kilometers (802 acres) of land outside EArea, approximately 7 times as much land as would be required for the expected waste forecast, would be used for construction of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

For operations activities, spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plans for this alternative would be the same as for the no-action alternative; the potential for spills would be greater because there would be more facilities, and larger amounts of wastes would be managed.

Figure 4-13.

Figure 4-14.

4.2.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

4.2.3.1 Groundwater Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

This section discusses the effects of alternative A - expected waste forecast on groundwater resources at SRS. Effects can be evaluated by comparing the concentrations of contaminants predicted to enter the groundwater for each alternative and waste forecast. Effects on groundwater resources under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) form the basis for comparison among the alternatives and are referenced in this section.

Operation and impacts of the M-Area Air Stripper and the F- and H-Area tank farms would be the same as under the no-action alternative.

For the expected forecast and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to groundwater from RCRApermitted disposal vaults would be improbable during active maintenance; however, releases could eventually occur after loss of institutional control and degradation of the vaults. Impacts from the RCRApermitted disposal vaults would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

There would be two more additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (17) than under the no-action alternative (15). Modeling has shown that releases from these vaults would not cause groundwater standards to be exceeded during the 30-year planning period or the 100year institutional control period. As in the no-action alternative, no radionuclide exceeded the 4 millirem per year standard for a user of shallow groundwater from the hypothetical well 100 meters (328 feet) from the waste disposal facility at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995). Also as in the noaction alternative, the predicted concentrations of tritium would be a very small fraction of the drinking water standard. The discussion in Section 4.1.3 on the basis for the 4 millirem standard also applies to this case. Impacts under this forecast would be similar to the effects under the noaction alternative.

Under this waste forecast, 73 additional slit trenches would be constructed. Twenty-seven (27) of these slit trenches would be used for disposal of suspect soil and have been evaluated using results from the previous Radiological Performance Assessment (Martin Marietta, EG&G, and WSRC 1994). Under this waste forecast, modeling results indicate that none of the radionuclides analyzed would at any time exceed DOE's performance objective of 4 millirem per year for drinking water (Toblin 1995). The remaining trenches would be filled with stabilized waste forms (e.g., ashcrete) subject to completion of performance assessments and demonstration of compliance with the performance objectives required by DOE Order 5820.2A. Therefore, DOE has conservatively assumed that groundwater concentrations as a result of radioactive releases from the RCRA-permitted vaults and all other low-level waste disposal facilities (vaults and slit trenches) would remain within the DOE performance objective of 4 millirem per year adopted by DOE in Order 5400.5.

In summary, effects on groundwater for alternative A - expected waste forecast would be very small and similar to the effects discussed under the no-action alternative.

4.2.3.2 Groundwater Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

For the minimum forecast, and as discussed in Section 4.1.3, releases to groundwater from the disposal vaults would be improbable during active maintenance; however, releases could eventually occur after the loss of institutional control and degradation of the vaults. Impacts from the disposal vaults would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

There would be four fewer additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (11) than under the no-action alternative (15). Impacts of disposal in these vaults are similar to the impacts discussed in Section 4.1.3. Exceedance of the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard does not occur for any radionuclide in shallow groundwater at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995).

For this forecast there would be limited direct disposal of radioactive waste by shallow land disposal (25 additional slit trenches). Eleven (11) of these slit trenches would be used for disposal of suspect soil and have been evaluated using results from the previous Radiological Performance Assessment (Martin Marietta, EG&G, and WSRC 1994). Under this waste forecast, modeling results indicate that none of

the radionuclides analyzed would at any time exceed DOE's performance objective of 4 millirem per year for drinking water. The remaining trenches would be filled with stabilized waste forms (e.g., ashcrete) subject to completion of performance assessments and demonstration of compliance with the performance objectives required by DOE Order 5820.2A. Therefore, DOE has conservatively assumed that groundwater concentrations as a result of radioactive releases from the RCRA-permitted vaults and all other low-level waste disposal facilities (vaults and slit trenches) would remain within the DOE performance objective of 4 millirem per year adopted by DOE in Order 5400.5.

In summary, effects on groundwater for alternative A - minimum waste forecast would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) and the effects for alternative A - expected waste forecast.

4.2.3.3 Groundwater Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

For the maximum forecast under alternative A, a total of 347 disposal vaults would have been constructed by 2024. However, these vaults would have double liners and leak-detection and leachatecollection systems, as required by RCRA (see Section 4.1.3). Therefore, despite the large number of vaults required, releases to groundwater would be improbable during active maintenance; however, releases could eventually occur after loss of institutional control and degradation of the vaults. Impacts from the RCRA-permitted disposal vaults would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3). Potential effects on groundwater resources due to the construction of RCRA-permitted disposal vaults would be similar to the potential effects due to the construction of mixed-waste storage buildings under the no-action alternative discussed in Section 4.1.3.

There would be more than four times the number of low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (62) than under the no-action alternative (15). Predicted effects on groundwater resources from low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults would be similar to those effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3); no radionuclide would exceed the 4 millirem drinking water standard at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995).

For the maximum forecast, 644 additional slit trenches would be needed to support shallow land disposal. Four hundred twenty six (426) of these slit would be used for disposal of suspect soil and have been evaluated using results from the previous Radiological Performance Assessment (Martin Marietta,

EG&G, and WSRC 1994). Under this waste forecast, modeling results indicate that none of the radionuclides analyzed would at any time exceed DOE's performance objective of 4 millirem per year from drinking water (Toblin 1995). The remaining trenches would be filled with stabilized waste forms (e.g., ashcrete) subject to completion of performance assessments and demonstration of compliance with the performance objectives required by DOE Order 5820.2A. Therefore, DOE has conservatively assumed that groundwater concentrations as a result of radioactive releases from the RCRApermitted vaults and all other low-level waste disposal facilities (vaults and slit trenches) would remain with the DOE performance objective of 4 millirem per year adopted by DOE in Order 5400.5.

In summary, predicted impacts to groundwater for alternative A - maximum waste forecast would be similar to those under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) and alternative A - expected waste forecast (Section 4.2.3.1).

4.2.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

4.2.4.1 Surface Water Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

The impacts of the alternatives can be compared by examining the pollutants that would be introduced to the surface waters. The effect of alternative A - expected waste forecast on SRS streams would not differ from present effects, except that flow rates of the discharged treated wastewater would increase slightly.

As discussed in Section 4.1.4, construction of facilities would require sedimentation and erosion control plans to prevent adverse effects to streams by silt, oil/grease, or other pollutants that could occur in runoff. Regular inspection of the implementation of these plans would be performed as outlined in Section 4.1.4. After facilities were operating, they would be included in the SRS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and erosion and pollution control measures would be implemented as indicated in this plan.

For alternative A - expected waste forecast, the M-Area Air Stripper, the M-Area Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility, and the F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility would receive the same additional wastewater flows for treatment as those received in the no-action alternative . Each of these facilities has the design capacity to treat the additional flows and maintain discharge levels in compliance with

established permit conditions. The treated effluent from these facilities would, as explained in Section 4.1.4, continue to have little, if any, impact to receiving streams. Radionuclide concentrations would be the same as those reported for the no-action alternative. Drinking water doses due to stormwater infiltrating the vaults and trenches and draining to surface water would be many times lower than regulatory standards (Toblin 1995).

The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator (as noted under the no-action alternative) would evaporate the liquid waste from the high-level waste tanks in the F- and H-Area tank farms. It would be used in the same manner as the present F and H-Area evaporators, with the distillate being sent to the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility for treatment prior to being discharged to Upper Three Runs. The concentrate from the evaporator would be sent to the Defense Waste Processing Facility for vitrification. Since the Replacement High Level Waste Evaporator would be used in the same manner as the existing evaporators and would produce a distillate similar in composition to the present distillate, the effect of the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility effluent on Upper Three Runs would be the same as it is now.

Wastewater from the containment building would be transferred to the Consolidated Incineration Facility for treatment. The containment building would not discharge to a stream.

Wastewater discharges would not occur from the mobile soil sort facility under this alternative.

4.2.4.2 Surface Water Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

The M-Area Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility would receive the same additional wastewater flow for treatment as under the no-action alternative. The M-Area Air Stripper and the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility would each receive approximately 0.4 gallon (1.5 liters) per minute less than that sent to each facility under the no-action alternative. As explained in Section 4.1.4, the treated effluent from these facilities would continue to have little, if any, impact on receiving streams. Each facility has the necessary capacity to treat the additional wastewater and maintain discharges in compliance with established permit conditions. Also, because of less waste disposal, groundwater discharging to surface water would have a very small impact (Toblin 1995). Drinking water doses due to stormwater infiltrating waste disposal vaults and trenches and draining to surface waters would be many times lower than regulatory standards.

As discussed in Section 4.1.4, erosion and sedimentation control plans would be prepared and implemented for the construction projects, and the operators of the facilities would be required to abide by the SRS Pollution Prevention Plan.

4.2.4.3 Surface Water Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Storage and disposal facilities would be as described in Section 4.2.4.1. Surface waters would not be affected by operation of these facilities.

For the maximum waste forecast, wastewater from the containment building would not be transferred to the Consolidated Incineration Facility because that facility could not handle the increased volume. A new wastewater treatment facility would be installed to treat this wastewater to meet outfall discharge limits established by SCDHEC. The average flow rate for this discharge would be approximately 11 liters (2.9 gallons) per minute. The dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual would be 2.1 ´ 10-5 millirem (Appendix E). The flow of properly treated water would not affect the water quality of the receiving stream.

The M-Area Air Stripper and the M-Area Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility would receive approximately the same additional wastewater flows as under the no-action alternative. The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility would receive additional wastewater flow of 0.28 gallon (1.1 liter) per minute above that for the no-action alternative. The facilities have the capacity to treat the additional flow.

Stormwater infiltrating the disposal vaults and trenches would drain to surface water at concentrations many times less than regulatory standards (Toblin 1995).

Erosion and sediment control during construction projects and pollution prevention plans after operations begin would be required, as discussed in Section 4.1.4.

4.2.5 AIR RESOURCES

4.2.5.1 Air Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Impacts to air can be compared among the alternatives by evaluating the pollutants introduced to the air. Under alternative A expected waste forecast, DOE would continue ongoing and planned waste treatment activities and construct and operate the additional facilities identified in Section 4.2.1. Additional nonradiological and radiological emissions would come from these facilities. The resulting increases of pollutant concentrations at and beyond the SRS boundary would be very small compared to existing concentrations. Operations for alternative A - expected waste forecast would not exceed state or Federal air quality standards.

4.2.5.1.1 Construction

Potential impacts to air quality from construction activities would include fugitive dust (particulate matter) and exhaust from earth-moving equipment. For this case, approximately 5.73´105cubic meters (7.50´105 cubic yards) of soil in E-Area would be moved. Fugitive dust emissions for alternative A - expected waste forecast were estimated using the calculations described in Section 4.1.5.1.

Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations of air pollutants from a year of average construction activity are shown in Table 4-16. The sum of the incremental increases of pollutant concentrations due to construction and the existing baseline concentrations would be within both state and Federal air quality standards.

4.2.5.1.2 Operations

In addition to the current emissions from SRS, nonradiological and radiological emissions would occur due to the operation of new facilities such as the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank Precipitation; the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility; the Consolidated Incineration Facility; the mixed waste containment building; mixed waste soil sort facility; and the transuranic waste characterization/
certification facility. Air emissions from facilities such as disposal vaults and mixed waste storage buildings would be very small.

According to the rationale provided about similar facilities contained in Section 4.1.5.2, increases in maximum boundary-line concentrations of pollutants would not result from the continued operation of the F and H-Area tank farm evaporators, the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility, the scrap-lead melter, solvent distillation units, the silver recovery unit, the Organic Waste Storage Tank, Savannah River Technology Center ion exchange process, low-level waste compactors, or the M-Area Air Stripper. Additional emissions from the M-Area Air Stripper and the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility would be very small, as addressed in Section 4.1.5.2.

Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts

Maximum ground-level concentrations for nonradiological air pollutants were determined from the Industrial Source Complex Version 2 Dispersion Model using maximum potential emissions from all the facilities included in alternative A (Stewart 1994). The bases for calculating the dispersion of toxic substances that are carcinogenic are presented in Section 4.1.5.2. Modeled air toxic concentrations for carcinogens are based on an annual averaging period and are presented in Section 4.2.12.2.2.

The methodology for calculating an annual averaging period is presented in Section 4.1.5.2.1. Air dispersion modeling was performed using calculated emission rates for facilities not yet operating and actual 1990 emission levels for facilities currently operating (Stewart 1994).

The following facilities were incorporated in the modeling analysis for alternative A air dispersion: the Consolidated Incineration Facility, including the ashcrete storage silo, the ashcrete hopper duct, and the ashcrete mixer; four new solvent tanks at the Consolidated Incineration Facility; the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank Precipitation; the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility; the mixed waste containment building; the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; hazardous waste storage facilities; and mixed waste storage facilities.

Emissions of air toxics would be very small. Maximum boundary-line concentrations for air toxics emanating from SRS sources, including the Consolidated Incineration Facility and the Defense Waste Processing Facility, would be well below regulatory standards and are presented in the SCDHEC Regulation No. 62.5 Standard No. 2 and Standard No. 8 Compliance Modeling Input/Output Data.

The Savannah River Technology Center laboratory's liquid waste and the E-Area vaults would have very small air emissions, as described in Section 4.1.5.2.

Table 4-17 shows the increase in maximum ground-level concentrations at the SRS boundary for nonradiological air pollutants due to treating the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts under alternative A.

Concentrations at the SRS boundary would be within both state and Federal ambient air quality regulations. Minimal health effects would occur to the public due to routine emissions.

Offsite lead decontamination operations (described in Appendix B.21) would result in a maximum ground-level 3-month concentration of 0.008 micrograms per cubic meter for all alternatives and forecasts, less than the 0.011 micrograms per cubic meter background concentrations of lead in the SRS area (EPA 1990). Both the concentrations at the offsite facility and at SRS are less than 1 percent of the SCDHEC regulatory standard (SCDHEC 1976). Impacts would be very small.

Radiological Air Emissions Impacts

Offsite maximally exposed individual and population doses were determined for atmospheric releases resulting from routine operations under alternative A. The major sources of radionuclides would be the Consolidated Incineration Facility (mixed waste only), the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility, and the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility. Other facilities with radiological releases would be the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility, the mixed waste containment building, and the soil sort facility.

SRS-specific computer codes MAXIGASP and POPGASP were used to determine the maximum individual dose and the dose to the population within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of SRS respectively, from routine atmospheric releases. See Appendix E for detailed facility-specific isotopic and dose data.

Table 4-18 shows the dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and the population from atmospheric pathways. The calculated maximum committed effective annual dose equivalent (see glossary for definitions of dose, dose equivalent, effective dose, and committed effective dose equivalent) to a hypothetical individual would be 0.011 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is 1,000 times less than the annual dose limit of 10 millirem from SRS atmospheric releases. In comparison, an individual living near SRS receives a dose of 0.25 millirem from all current SRS releases of radioactivity (Arnett 1994). The 0.011 millirem annual dose is greater than the 1.3´10-4millirem dose shown for the no-action alternative.

The annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS from treatment of the expected amount of waste would be 0.56 person-rem. This dose is greater than the population dose of 2.9×10-4for the no-action alternative. In comparison, the collective dose received by the same population from natural sources of radiation is approximately 195,000 person-rem (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). Section 4.2.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases.

Table 4-18. Annual radiological doses to individuals and the population within 80 kilometers (50miles) of SRS from atmospheric pathways under alternative A.a

Waste forecast	Offsite maximally exposed individual dose (millirem)	Population^b dose (person-rem)
Expected waste forecast	0.011	0.56
Minimum waste forecast	0.0057	0.27
Maximum waste forecast	0.080	3.4

a. Source: Chesney (1995).

b. For atmospheric releases, the dose is to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS.

4.2.5.2 Air Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

4.2.5.2.1 Construction

Impacts were evaluated for the construction of storage, treatment, and disposal facilities listed in
Section 2.4.7. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary resulting from a year of average construction activity are shown in Table 4-16 for alternative A - minimum waste forecast. Constructionrelated emissions would yield SRS boundary-line concentrations less than both state and Federal air quality standards.

4.2.5.2.2 Operations

Both radiological and nonradiological emission changes were determined for the same facilities listed in Section 4.2.5.1.2. Air emissions would be less than those for the expected waste forecast.

Nonradiological Air Emission Impacts

Nonradiological air emissions would be only slightly less than those for the expected waste forecast. Maximum SRS boundaryline concentrations are presented in Table 4-17. Modeled concentrations are similar to those shown for the expected waste forecast and under the no-action alternative (Table 4-17). Total concentrations would be less than applicable state and Federal ambient air quality standards.

Radiological Air Emission Impacts

Table 4-18 presents the dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and the population due to atmospheric releases. The calculated maximum committed annual dose equivalent to a hypothetical individual is 0.0057 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is less than the dose for the expected waste forecast and well below the annual dose limit of 10 millirem from SRS atmospheric releases.

The annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS would be 0.27 person-rem, which is less than the population dose calculated for the expected waste forecast.

4.2.5.3 Air Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Alternative A - maximum waste forecast would have greater air quality impacts than the expected waste forecast.

4.2.5.3.1 Construction

Impacts were evaluated for the construction of storage, treatment, and disposal facilities listed in Section 2.4.7. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary resulting from a year of average construction activity are presented in Table 4-16 for the maximum waste forecast. Constructionrelated concentrations would yield SRS boundary concentrations less than both state and Federal air quality standards.

4.2.5.3.2 Operations

Both radiological and nonradiological emissions increases were determined for the same facilities listed in Section 4.2.5.1.2. Air emissions would be greater than in the expected waste forecast; therefore, impacts to air quality would be greater. However, they would remain within state and Federal ambient air quality standards.

Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts

Nonradiological air emissions would be slightly higher than those associated with the expected waste forecast. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary are presented in Table 4-17. Modeled concentrations are similar to those for the expected waste forecast. Cumulative concentrations would be below applicable state and Federal ambient air quality standards.

Radiological Air Emission Impacts

Offsite maximally exposed individual and population doses were determined for atmospheric releases resulting from routine operations at the facilities identified in Section 4.2.5.1.2.

Table 4-18 shows the dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and to the population due to atmospheric releases. The calculated maximum committed annual dose equivalent to a hypothetical individual is 0.080 millirem (Chesney 1995), which would be greater than the dose from the expected waste forecast but well below the annual dose limit of 10 millirem from SRS atmospheric releases.

The annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS would be 3.4 person-rem, which would be greater than the population dose calculated for the expected waste forecast. Section 4.2.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases.

4.2.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.2.6.1 Ecological Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Construction of new waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for alternative A - expected waste forecast would result in the clearing and grading of undisturbed areas. (These areas are given in acres; to convert to square kilometers, multiply by 0.004047.) Sixty-four acres of woodland would be cleared and graded by 2006 and an additional 32 acres would be needed by 2024, as follows:

27 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1987

15 acres of white oak, red oak, and hickory regenerated in 1922

18 acres of longleaf pine regenerated in 1922, 1931, or 1936

4 acres from which mixed pine/hardwood was recently harvested

20 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1987 would be cleared between 2007 and 2024

3 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1946 would be cleared between 2007 and 2024

9 acres of longleaf pine planted in 1988 would be cleared between 2007 and 2024

Effects on the ecological resources are described in Section 4.1.6; however, because less land would be required for this case (96 acres versus 160 under the no-action alternative), the overall impact due to loss of habitat would be less. For example, fewer animals would be displaced or destroyed.

4.2.6.2 Ecological Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Approximately 73 acres of undeveloped land located between the M-Line railroad and the E-Area expansion and extending northwest of F-Area would be required. Because less undeveloped land would be required under this waste forecast, impacts to the ecological resources of the area would be slightly less than for the expected waste forecast.

4.2.6.3 Ecological Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Approximately 184 acres of undeveloped land located between the M-Line railroad and the developed portion of E-Area and extending northwest of F-Area would be required for the maximum waste forecast. By 2006, an additional 802 acres of undeveloped land in an undetermined location would also be required. Impacts to the ecological resources of SRS under this forecast would be approximately 7 times greater than the impacts described in Section 4.1.6 due to the greater acreage required. For example, many more animals would be destroyed or displaced during clearing of this much land. Loss of cover from several hundred acres in a watershed can alter the water chemistry of the creeks in the drainage, which in turn could influence the kinds of organisms that live in the streams.

Wetlands constitute nearly 21 percent of SRS (DOE 1991). Should the maximum amount of waste be treated, and 802 acres of additional land be required, it is probable that some sites needed for the expansion could contain wetlands. Additionally, a large portion of SRS soils are on steep slopes and

highly erodible, with conditions so difficult to overcome that special facility designs, substantial increases in construction costs, and increased maintenance costs would be required (WSRC 1994c). Soils on the steep slopes adjacent to E-Area would be avoided under all alternatives due to these construction and maintenance problems. It is likely that a portion of a site selected for additional waste management construction would contain some unsuitable soils. Threatened and endangered species and significant historic and pre-historic cultural resources are also found throughout SRS and could occur on portions of any site selected for additional waste management facilities. Because of these considerations, it is likely that a tract of land substantially larger than 802 acres would be needed to provide the required acreage. Threatened and endangered species surveys and floodplains and wetland assessments would be required before final site selection.

4.2.7 LAND USE

4.2.7.1 Land Use - Expected Waste Forecast

DOE would use approximately 0.52 square kilometer (64 acres of undeveloped; 65 acres of developed) land in E-Area through 2006 for activities associated with alternative A - expected waste forecast. By 2024, 0.61 square kilometer (152 acres) would be required, about 89 acres less than under the no-action alternative. SRS has about 181,000 acres of undeveloped land, which includes wetlands and other areas that cannot be developed, and 17,000 acres of developed land.

Activities associated with alternative A would not affect current SRS land-use plans; E-Area was designated as an area for nuclear facilities in the draft 1994 Land-Use Baseline Report. Furthermore, no part of E-Area has been identified as a potential site for future new missions. According to the FY 1994 Draft Site Development Plan, proposed future land management plans specify that E-Area should be characterized and remediated for environmental contamination in its entirety, if necessary. Decisions on future SRS land uses will be made by DOE through the site development, land-use, and future-use planning processes, including public input through avenues such as the Citizens Advisory Board.

4.2.7.2 Land Use - Minimum Waste Forecast

Activities associated with alternative A - minimum waste forecast would not affect current SRS land uses. By 2024, approximately 0.44 square kilometer (108 acres; slightly less acreage than would be required in the expected waste forecast) in E-Area would be used for the facilities described in
Section 4.2.1.

4.2.7.3 Land Use - Maximum Waste Forecast

Activities associated with alternative A - maximum waste forecast would not affect current SRS land uses. By 2006, DOE would need a total of 1.03 square kilometers (254 acres) in E-Area and 3.24 square kilometers (802 acres) elsewhere for the facilities described in Section 4.2.1. This acreage is nearly 10 times the land that would be required for the expected or minimum waste forecast, but less than 1 percent of the total undeveloped land on SRS (DOE 1993d). However, considerably more acreage than this may be affected (see Section 4.2.6.3). Current land uses in EArea would not be impacted. The location of the 3.24 square kilometers (802 acres) outside of EArea has not been identified and the site selection would involve further impact analyses. However, DOE would minimize the impact of clearing 3.24 square kilometers (802 acres) by locating these facilities within the central industrialized portion of SRS, as described in Section 2.1.2 and shown in Figure 21.

4.2.8 SOCIOECONOMICS

This section describes the potential effects of implementing alternative A on the socioeconomic resources in the region of influence discussed in Section 3.8. This assessment is based on the estimated construction and operations employment required to implement this alternative.

4.2.8.1 Socioeconomics- Expected Waste Forecast

4.2.8.1.1 Construction

Table 4-19 shows the estimated construction employment associated with the expected waste forecast for this alternative. DOE anticipates that construction employment would peak during 2003 through 2005 with approximately 80 jobs, 30 more jobs than during peak employment under the no-action alternative. This employment demand represents much less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2005. Given the normal fluctuation of employment in the construction industry, DOE does not expect a net change in regional construction employment from implementation of this forecast. Given no net change in employment, neither the population nor personal income in the region would change. As a result, socioeconomic resources would not be affected.

4.2.8.1.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with implementation of the expected waste forecast under this alternative is expected to peak from 2008 through 2018 with an estimated 2,560 jobs, 110 more jobs than during peak employment under the no-action alternative. This employment demand represents less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2015 (see Chapter 3) and approximately 12 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE believes these jobs would be filled from the existing SRS workforce. Thus, DOE anticipates that socioeconomic resources would not be affected by changes in operations employment.

4.2.8.2 Socioeconomics-- Minimum Waste Forecast

4.2.8.2.1 Construction

Construction employment associated with the minimum waste forecast under this alternative would be slightly less than that for the expected waste forecast and would peak during 2003 through 2005 with approximately 70 jobs, which represents much less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2005. Socioeconomic resources in the region would not be affected.

Table 4-19. Estimated construction and operations employment for alternative A - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts. a

	Waste Forecast
	Minimum		Expected		Maximum^b
Year	Construction	Operations	Construction	Operations	Construction
1995	20	920	50	1,650	290
1996	20	1,150	30	1,920	80
1997	20	1,150	30	1,920	80
1998	20	1,150	40	2,060	190
1999	20	1,150	40	2,170	190
2000	20	1,230	40	2,280	190
2001	20	1,230	40	2,280	190
2002	30	1,310	60	2,330	230
2003	70	1,350	80	2,330	260
2004	70	1,350	80	2,330	260
2005	70	1,350	80	2,330	260
2006	40	1,430	60	2,270	210
2007	20	1,390	40	2,190	80
2008	20	1,680	40	2,560	160
2009	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2010	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2011	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2012	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2013	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2014	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2015	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2016	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2017	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2018	20	1,610	40	2,560	160
2019	20	1,310	40	2,190	80
2020	20	1,310	40	2,190	80
2021	20	1,310	40	2,190	80
2022	20	1,310	40	2,190	80
2023	20	1,310	40	2,190	80
2024	20	1,310	40	2,190	80

a. Source: Hess (1995a, b).

b. Operations employment for the maximum waste forecast is provided in Table 4-20.

4.2.8.2.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with implementation of the minimum waste forecastis expected to peak in the year 2008 with an estimated 1,680 jobs, 880 fewer jobs than for the expected waste forecast. This employment demand represents less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2008 and approximately 8 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE believes these jobs would be filled from the existing SRS workforce and anticipates that socioeconomic resources from changes in operations employment would not be affected.

4.2.8.3 Socioeconomics- Maximum Waste Forecast

4.2.8.3.1 Construction

Construction employment associated with alternative A - maximum waste forecastwould be greater than that for the expected waste forecastand would peak during 2003 through 2005 with approximately 260 jobs, which represents much less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2005. DOE does not expect a net change in regional construction employment from implementation of this case. As a result, socioeconomic resources in the region would not be affected.

4.2.8.3.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with implementation of alternative A - maximum waste forecast is expected to peak during 2002 through 2005 with an estimated 11,200 jobs (Table 420), which represents 4 percent of the forecast employment in 2005 and approximately 56 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE assumes that approximately 50 percent of the total SRS workforce would be available to support the implementation of this case. If DOE transfers 50 percent of the SRS workforce, an additional 3,300 new employees would still be required during the peak years. Based on the number of new jobs predicted, DOE calculated changes in regional employment, population, and personal income using the Economic-Demographic Forecasting and Simulation Model developed for the six-county region of influence (Treyz, Rickman, and Shao 1992).

Results of the modeling indicate that the peak regional employment change would occur in 2002 with a total of approximately 7,540 new jobs (Table 4-21) (HNUS 1995b). This would represent a 3 percent increase in baseline regional employment and would have a substantial positive impact on the regional economy.

Potential changes in regional population would lag behind the peak change in employment because of migration lags and also because in-migrants may have children after they move into the area. As a result, the maximum change in population would occur in 2005 with an estimated 12,900 additional people in the six-county region (HNUS 1995b). This increase is approximately 2.7 percent above the baseline regional population forecast (Table 4-21) and could affect the demand for community resources and services such as housing, schools, police, health care, and fire protection.

Potential changes in total personal income would peak in 2005 with a $610 million increase over forecast income levels for that year (HNUS 1995b). This would be a 4 percent increase over baseline income levels (Table 4-21) and would have a substantial, positive effect on the regional economy.

Table 4-20. Estimated new operations jobs required to support the alternative A - maximum waste forecast.a

Year		Projected total SRS employment	SRS employment available for waste management activities^b	Total operations employment for the alternative A- maximum waste forecast	New hires^c
1995	20,000		10,000	2,620	0
1996	15,800		7,900	4,420	0
1997	15,800		7,900	4,730	0
1998	15,800		7,900	10,200	2,300
1999	15,800		7,900	10,490	2,590
2000	15,800		7,900	10,510	2,610
2001	15,800		7,900	10,510	2,610
2002	15,800		7,900	11,200	3,300
2003	15,800		7,900	11,200	3,300
2004	15,800		7,900	11,200	3,300
2005	15,800		7,900	11,200	3,300
2006	15,800		7,900	10,040	2,140
2007	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2008	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2009	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2010	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2011	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2012	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2013	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2014	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2015	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2016	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2017	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2018	15,800		7,900	9,060	1,160
2019	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2020	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2021	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2022	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2023	15,800		7,900	4,600	0
2024	15,800		7,900	4,600	0

a. Source: Hess (1995a, b).

b. DOE assumed that approximately 50 percent of the total SRS workforce would be available to support waste management activities.

c. New hires are calculated by comparing the required employment (column 4) to available employment (column 3); new hires would be needed only in those years when required employment exceeds available employees.

Table 4-21. Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternativeA maximum waste forecast.a

Table 4-21. Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative A - maximum waste forecast.^a

Year	New hires^b	Change in indirect regional employment^c	Net change in total regional employment	Percent change in regional employment	Change in regional population	Percent change in regional population	Change in regional personal income (millions)	Percent change in regional personal income
1998	2,300	3,300	5,600	2.26	1,960	0.42	270	2.60
1999	2,590	3,640	6,230	2.49	4,600	0.97	340	3.09
2000	2,610	3,490	6,100	2.41	6,380	1.34	370	3.18
2001	2,610	3,330	5,940	2.32	7,770	1.63	390	3.16
2002	3,300	4,240	7,540	2.92	9,460	1.98	520	3.98
2003	3,300	4,100	7,400	2.83	11,020	2.30	550	3.96
2004	3,300	3,990	7,290	2.76	12,080	2.52	580	3.94
2005	3,300	3,920	7,220	2.70	12,900	2.69	610	3.91
2006	2,140	2,170	4,310	1.60	12,490	2.60	430	2.59
2007	0	3,060	3,060	1.13	11,270	2.34	340	1.92
2008	1,160	760	1,920	0.71	9,880	2.04	240	1.27
2009	1,160	910	2,070	0.76	8,690	1.79	240	1.20
2010	1,160	1,070	2,230	0.82	7,850	1.61	250	1.17
2011	1,160	1,220	2,380	0.87	7,170	1.47	260	1.15
2012	1,160	1,340	2,500	0.91	6,630	1.35	280	1.17
2013	1,160	1,450	2,610	0.95	6,200	1.26	310	1.22
2014	1,160	1,530	2,690	0.98	5,850	1.18	330	1.22
2015	1,160	1,600	2,760	1.01	5,560	1.12	360	1.25
2016	1,160	1,650	2,810	1.03	5,310	1.06	380	1.25
2017	1,160	1,680	2,840	1.04	5,100	1.02	410	1.27
2018	1,160	1,710	2,870	1.05	4,920	0.98	440	1.29

a. Source: Hess (1995a, b); HNUS (1995b).

b. From Table 4-20.

c. Change in employment related to changes in population.

4.2.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section discusses the effect of alternative A on cultural resources.

4.2.9.1 Cultural Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities would be constructed within the currently developed portion of E-Area, to the north and northwest of this area, and to the northwest of F-Area (see Figures 413 and 4-14).

Construction within the developed and fenced portion of E-Area would not affect cultural or archaeological resources because this area has been previously disturbed.

Two small areas of unsurveyed land to the east and northeast of the currently developed portion of EArea that would be used for the construction of sediment ponds (see Figure 4-5) would be surveyed before beginning construction. If important resources were discovered, DOE would avoid them or remove them.

Construction of the RCRA-permitted disposal vaults to the northwest of the currently developed portion of E-Area (see Figure 4-13) would not affect archaeological resources because when this area was surveyed important sites were not discovered.

Archaeological sites in the area of expansion could be impacted as described in Section 4.1.9. If this occurred, DOE would protect these resources as described in Section 4.1.9.

4.2.9.2 Cultural Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Construction of new waste management storage facilities for this forecast would require approximately 0.18 fewer square kilometer (44 fewer acres) than that for the expected waste forecast. Although the precise configuration of facilities is currently undetermined, construction would take place within previously disturbed parts of E-Area.

As discussed in Section 4.2.9.1, construction within the developed and fenced portion of E-Area or to the northwest of this area would not have an effect on archaeological resources. Before construction would begin in the undeveloped area northwest of F-Area, the Savannah River Archaeology Research Program and DOE would complete the consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and develop mitigation action plans to ensure that important archaeological resources would be protected and preserved (Sassaman 1994).

4.2.9.3 Cultural Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Construction of new waste management storage, treatment, and disposal facilities for this forecast would require approximately 4.27 square kilometers (1,056 acres), 3.66 kilometers (904 acres) more than for the expected waste forecast. Some of the new facilities would be sited within EArea; however, DOE would need an estimated additional 3.24 square kilometers (802 acres) outside of EArea.

Construction within the developed and fenced portion of E-Area or to the northwest of this area would be preceded by consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the development of a mitigation plan to ensure that archaeological resources would be protected.

Until DOE determines the precise location of the additional 3.24 square kilometers (802 acres) that would be used outside of E-Area, effects on cultural resources cannot be predicted. The potential disturbance of important cultural resources would be proportional to the amount of land disturbed. However, in compliance with the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement, DOE would survey areas proposed for new facilities prior to disturbance. If important resources were discovered, DOE would avoid or remove them.

4.2.10 AESTHETICS AND SCENIC RESOURCES - EXPECTED, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM WASTE FORECASTS

Activities associated with alternative A - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts would not adversely affect scenic resources or aesthetics. E-Area is already dedicated to industrial use. In all cases, new construction would not be visible from off SRS or from public access roads on SRS. The new facilities would not produce emissions that would be visible or that would indirectly reduce visibility.

4.2.11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.2.11.1 Traffic

4.2.11.1.1 Traffic - Expected Waste Forecast

The additional traffic under alternative A - expected waste forecast (Table 4-22) would result from construction activities. The increase would be greatest in 2003, when the greatest number of people would be employed. In the table, the additional traffic is distributed among offsite roads based on the percentage of baseline traffic each road carries. Traffic on all roads would remain within design capacity, and the effects of increased traffic would be very small.

Additional truck traffic due to increased construction activities was estimated to be fewer than 10 trucks per day for all alternatives (Hess 1994d). DOE would not expect this increase in constructionrelated truck traffic during normal working hours to adversely affect traffic; therefore, it will not be discussed in subsequent sections.

For the expected waste forecast, there would be two additional waste shipments per day over the noaction estimates (Table 4-23). This would be due to shipments of stabilized ash and blowdown from

the Consolidated Incineration Facility to disposal facilities. DOE would not expect the additional truck traffic during normal working hours to adversely affect traffic. Numbers of shipments assumed under each alternative are given in Tables E.3-1 through E.3-3.

Table 4-22. Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative A.

Table 4-23. SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck under alternative A.a

4.2.11.1.2 Traffic - Minimum Waste Forecast

For the minimum waste forecast, there would be 21 more vehicles than in the no-action alternative during peak commuter hours (Table 4-22). Traffic on all roads would remain within design capacity. The effects of traffic under this case would be very small. There would be 13 fewer waste shipments per day compared to noaction estimates (Table 4-23). This decrease is due to smaller volumes of all types of waste. The lower volume of truck traffic would result in a slightly positive effect on traffic.

4.2.11.1.3 Traffic - Maximum Waste Forecast

As discussed in Section 4.1.11.1, the 1992 highway fatality rate of 2.3 per 100 million miles driven in South Carolina provides a baseline estimate of 5.5 traffic fatalities annually. Under alternative A, the largest increase in construction workers would occur for the maximum waste forecast (211 more workers than under the no-action alternative). These workers would be expected to drive 2.6 million miles annually (2.1 million miles more than under the no-action alternative), which would result in less than one additional traffic fatality per year.

Even with the addition of 211 vehicles above the estimates under the no-action alternative, traffic on all roads would remain within design carrying capacity; therefore, effects on traffic would be very small. Depending on the areas to which these employees were assigned and the shifts they worked, DOE would need to examine the design capacity of the affected roads.

Daily waste shipments would increase by 58 (Table 4-23), primarily due to overall increases in waste volumes and shipment of stabilized ash and blowdown to disposal facilities. The shipments would originate at various SRS locations (primarily F- and H-Areas) and terminate at the E-Area treatment and disposal facilities. Shipments from the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility and containment building would not affect traffic because these shipments would occur on a dedicated road that would be upgraded to accommodate expected traffic flows. The addition of 58 trucks during normal working hours is expected to have very small adverse effects on traffic.

4.2.11.2 Transportation

4.2.11.2.1 Transportation - Expected Waste Forecast

Consequences from incident-free onsite transportation over 30 years under alternative A were based on those under the no-action alternative, adjusted by the changes in the number of waste shipments (as a result of changes in volumes of waste shipped). The percent change in dose from the no-action alternative and corresponding health effects are shown in Table 4-24 for incident-free transportation. Consequences of onsite transportation accidents for any given shipment are independent of the number of shipments and are, therefore, the same as for the no-action alternative (Table 4-8).

Table 4-24. Annual dose (percent change from the no-action alternative) and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative A - expected waste forecast.

Doses from incident-free offsite shipments of mixed wastes were calculated as in Section 4.1.11.2 using calculated external dose rates 1 meter (3.3 feet) from the transport vehicle for each waste and package type (HNUS 1995a). Additionally, occupational exposure time depends on the number of shipments and how long it takes to load each transport vehicle. The results are shown in Table 4-25.

Table 4-25. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of mixed waste under alternative A - expected waste forecast.

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

For the expected waste forecast, there would be increases in dose to all onsite receptors and in the associated number of excess fatal cancers compared to the no-action alternative (Table 4-24) due to the increased volume of mixed waste. Additionally, involved workers' exposures would increase due to their exposure to the increased volume of low-level equipment shipped.

Transportation Accident Impacts

Refer to Sections 4.1.11.2.2 and 4.1.11.2.3 for radiological and nonradiological accident impacts, respectively. The probability of an onsite accident involving low-level or mixed wastes would increase or decrease compared to the no-action alternative depending on the volumes of wastes being shipped; however, the consequences due to a particular accident would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.2.2. Accident probabilities for onsite shipments remain the same under all alternatives and are summarized in Table 4-26. Impacts of accidents involving offsite shipments were calculated as described in Section 4.1.11.2.2. The results are summarized in Table 4-27.

Table 4-26. Annual accident probabilities for onsite shipments for all alternatives and waste forecasts.a

Table 4-27. Annual accident probability, doses associated with an accident, and excess latent cancer fatalities from an accident during offsite transport of mixed waste under alternative A.

The consequences and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from offsite shipments of mixed waste under this alternative (Table 4-27) would be similar to the consequences to uninvolved workers under the no-action alternative (Table 4-8). However, because of the small volume of waste shipped offsite, a high consequence offsite accident would have less severe impacts than an onsite shipment.

4.2.11.2.2 Transportation - Minimum Waste Forecast

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

For the minimum waste forecast, there would be decreases in dose (Table 4-28) to all onsite receptors compared to those from the expected waste forecast due to the smaller volumes of all wastes shipped onsite.

Table 4-28. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative A -minimum waste forecast.

For the minimum waste forecast, impacts from incident-free offsite transportation of radioactive materials (Table 4-29) would be very small.

Table 4-29. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of mixed waste for alternative A - minimum waste forecast.

Transportation Accident Impacts

The probability of an onsite accident involving radioactive wastes would decrease slightly for the minimum waste forecast(Table 4-26) because less waste would be shipped compared to the expected wasteforecast; however, the consequences due to an accident would be the same as described in
Section 4.1.11.2.2.

Effects of offsite accidents would be the same as for the expected waste forecast; however, the probability of an offsite accident would decrease by about one-third compared to the expected waste forecast because of the smaller volumes of wastes shipped (Table 4-27).

4.2.11.2.3 Transportation - Maximum Waste Forecast

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

For the maximum waste forecast, there would be large increases in dose to all receptors (Table 4-30) due to the increases in volumes of all wastes shipped. Impacts from incident-free offsite transportation of mixed waste (Table 4-31) would be very small.

Table 4-30. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative A - maximum waste forecast.

Table 4-31. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of mixed waste for alternative A - maximum waste forecast.

Transportation Accident Impacts

The probability of an onsite accident involving radioactive wastes would increase for the maximum waste forecast (Table 4-26)because more waste would be shipped compared to the expected waste forecast; however, the consequences due to an accident would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.2.2. Effects of offsite accidents would be the same as for the expected waste; however, the probability of an offsite accident would be three times greater than that in the expected waste forecastbecause of the larger volumes of wastes shipped (Table 4-27).

4.2.12 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HeaLTH

Radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers and the public are presented in this section for the three waste forecasts. As expected, the impacts are smallest for the minimum waste forecast and largest for the maximum waste forecast.

Under this alternative, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, the transuranic waste characterization/
certification facility, the mixed waste containment building, compaction facilities, and the mobile soil sort facility would operate. These facilities and changes in waste management would result in an increase in adverse health effects over the no-action alternative for the three waste forecasts. However, the effects would be small overall, except to involved workers under the maximum waste forecast.

The waste management operations that produce most of the occupational and public health effects are as follows:

For the involved workers, the sources of largest exposure would be the transuranic waste storage pads, the H-Area high-level waste tank farm, and the transuranic waste characterization/ certification facility.

For the public and uninvolved workers, the sources of largest exposure would be the Consolidated Incineration Facility and the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility. (Doses and health effects for the Consolidated Incineration Facility are presented in Appendix B.5.)

For the public only, the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility would be the source of greatest exposure.

For radiological assessments, the same general methodology was used as under the no-action alternative (see Section 4.1.12). The same risk estimators were used to convert doses to fatal cancers, and wastes were classified into treatability groups to facilitate the evaluations. However, the development of radiological source terms and worker exposures was much more involved. The releases of radioactivity to the environment and the radiation exposures of workers were determined for each waste forecast. The expected performance of new facilities was based on actual design information, augmented as necessary by operating experience with similar facilities.

Radiological impacts of facility operations were estimated for the 30-year period of analysis based on total material throughput. Annual impacts to workers and the offsite population were estimated by dividing the total 30-year impact by 30.

4.2.12.1 Occupational and Public Health - Expected Waste Forecast

For alternative A - expected waste forecast, the volumes of wastes to be treated would be the same as under the no-action alternative.

4.2.12.1.1 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-32 presents the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the expected waste forecast. Doses would remain well within the SRS administrative guideline of 0.8 rem per year. The probabilities and projected numbers of fatal cancers from 30 years of waste management operations under this alternative would be much lower than those expected from all causes during the workers' lifetimes. It is expected that there could be 0.86 additional fatal cancer in the workforce of 2,123. In comparison, the lifetime fatal cancer risk from all causes is 23.5 percent (refer to Section 4.1.12.1), which translates to a 1 in 4 chance of any individual (including a worker) contracting a fatal cancer, or 499 fatal cancers in the workforce of 2,123.

Nonradiological Impacts

DOE considered potential nonradiological impacts to SRS workers from air emissions from the following facilities: the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank Precipitation; the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility; the Consolidated Incineration Facility; Building 645-N, hazardous waste storage; Building 645-2N, mixed waste storage; the mobile soil sort facility; four new solvent tanks; the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; and the mixed waste containment building. Occupational health impacts to employees at the Defense Waste Processing Facility and In-Tank Precipitation were discussed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Defense Waste Processing Facility. Occupational health impacts to employees associated with the Consolidated

Incineration Facility were discussed in the Environmental Assessment, Consolidated Incineration Facility (DOE 1992).

Table E.22 in Appendix E presents a comparison between Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limit values and potential exposures to uninvolved workers at both 100 meters (328 feet) and 640 meters (2,100 feet) from each facility for the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts. Downwind concentrations were calculated using EPA's TSCREEN model (EPA 1988). For each facility's emissions, based on the expected waste forecast, uninvolved workers occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits. In most instances, downwind concentrations would be less than 1 microgram per cubic meter, whereas the Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits are greater than 2,000 micrograms per cubic meter.

4.2.12.1.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-33 presents the radiological doses to the public and the resulting health effects associated with the expected waste forecast. The annual doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual (0.012 millirem) and to the regional population (0.57 person-rem) surrounding SRS are small fractions of the doses that resulted from SRS operations in 1993, which were well within regulatory limits (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). For the offsite facility (assumed to be located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the purposes of this assessment) under this forecast, the annual doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual (5.110-7 millirem) and to the regional population (2.310-7 person-rem) surrounding Oak Ridge, Tennessee, represent a very small fraction (less than 0.01 percent) of the comparable doses to the SRS regional population. These doses remain less than 0.01 percent of the comparable SRS doses for all waste forecasts under this alternative (see Appendix E for facility-specific data). For this waste forecast, radiologically induced health effects to the public would be very small (Table 4-33).

Nonradiological Impacts

Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite were considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations for criteria pollutants are discussed in Section 4.2.5.1.2.

For routine releases from operating facilities under the expected waste forecast, criteria pollutant concentrations would be within state and federal ambient air quality standards, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.1.2, and health impacts to the public would be very small.

Offsite risks due to carcinogens were calculated using the Industrial Source Complex 2 model (Stewart 1994) for the same facilities listed in Section 4.2.12.1.1. Emissions of carcinogenic compounds were based on the types and quantities of waste being processed at each facility. Table 4-34 shows the excess individual lifetime cancer risks calculated from unit risk factors (see Section 4.1.12.2.2) derived from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System database (EPA 1994). As shown in Table 4-34, the estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk associated with routine emissions under the expected waste forecast is 2 in ten million. This is the same as that for the no-action alternative and represents a small overall increase in risk.

4.2.12.1.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

Section 4.1.12.2.3 described DOE's methodology for analyzing radiological dose to determine if there might be adverse and disproportionate impacts on people of color low income. Figure 4-15 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative A - expected waste forecast for the 80-kilometer (50-mile) region of interest in this eis. Supporting data for the analysis can be found in Appendix E.

The predicted per capita dose differs very little between types of communities at a given distance from SRS, and the per capita dose is extremely small in each type of community. This analysis indicates that people of color or with low incomes in the 80-kilometer (50-mile) region would be neither disproportionately nor adversely affected.

4.2.12.2 Occupational and Public Health - Minimum Waste Forecast

Because the waste amounts for alternative A - minimum waste forecast would be smaller than for the expected waste forecast and the treatment operations would be the same, the impacts to workers and the public would be smaller than described for the expected waste forecast.

Figure 4-15. Dose to individuals in communities within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS under the alternative A expected waste forecast.

4.2.12.2.1 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-32 includes the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the minimum waste forecast. Doses and health effects associated with this case would be smaller than those associated with the expected waste forecast.

Nonradiological Impacts

Table E.2-2 in Appendix E presents a comparison of the nonradiological air concentrations to SRS workers for the minimum waste forecast to permissible exposure limits under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Exposures to SRS workers are either equal to or less than those that would occur in the expected waste forecast. For each facility, employee occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits.

4.2.12.2.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-33 includes the doses to the public and the resulting health effects associated with the minimum waste forecast. Doses and health effects associated with this case would be smaller than those associated with the expected waste forecast.

Nonradiological Impacts

Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite are considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants under the minimum waste forecast. For routine releases from operating facilities, criteria pollutant concentrations would be within state and Federal ambient air quality standards, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.2.

Offsite risks due to carcinogens are presented in Table 4-34. The overall incremental lifetime cancer risk is approximately 1.9 in ten million. This latent cancer risk is slightly less than that expected from the no-action alternative. DOE expects very small health impacts to the public from emissions from facilities under alternative A minimum waste forecast.

4.2.12.2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

Figure 4-16 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative A - minimum waste forecast for the 80kilometer (50-mile) region of interest in this eis. Supporting data for the analysis can be found in the environmental justice section of Appendix E. No community within 80 kilometers (50 miles) would be disproportionately affected by emissions under this case.

4.2.12.3 Occupational and Public Health - Maximum Waste Forecast

The volumes of wastes to be treated for alternative A - maximum waste forecast would be larger than for the minimum and expected waste forecasts, but the treatment operations would be the same. Therefore, the maximum waste forecast would result in the greatest health impacts to workers and the public for this alternative.

4.2.12.3.1 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-32 includes the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the maximum waste forecast. The doses would remain well within the SRS administrative guideline of 0.8 rem per year. However, it is projected that less than 2 people in the involved workforce of 2,379 could develop a fatal

cancer sometime during their lifetimes as the result of exposure to radiation during the 30-year period of analysis.

Nonradiological Impacts

DOE assessed concentrations for exposure to SRS workers. Table E.2-2 in Appendix E presents a comparison between the nonradiological air concentrations SRS workers would be exposed to for the maximum waste forecast with Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits values. Exposures to SRS workers are either equal to or greater than those occurring in the expected waste forecast. However, for all facilities, employee occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits.

Figure 4-16. Dose to individuals in communities within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the SRS under the minimum waste forecast.

4.2.12.3.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-33 includes the doses and resulting health effects to the public associated with the maximum waste forecast. The annual doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual (0.08 millirem) and to the SRS regional population (3.4 person-rem) would be about onethird of the doses that resulted from SRS operations in 1993, which were well within regulatory limits (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). For alternative A - maximum waste forecast, radiologically induced health effects to the public would be very small.

Nonradiological Impacts

Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite are considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants under the maximum waste forecast. For routine releases from operating facilities, criteria pollutant concentrations would be within state and Federal ambient air quality standards, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.3. During periods of construction, the criteria pollutant concentrations at the SRS boundary would not exceed air quality standards under normal operating conditions. With good construction management practices, such as wetting dirt roads twice a day, particulate concentrations would be approximately 50 percent of those shown in Section 4.2.5.3.

Table 4-34 presents offsite risks from carcinogens. The overall incremental lifetime cancer risk is approximately 2 in 10 million. This latent cancer risk is the same as expected under the no-action alternative. DOE expects very small health impacts to the public from emissions from facilities in the maximum waste forecast.

4.2.12.3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

No community within 80 kilometers (50 miles) would be disproportionately affected by emissions under this scenario (Figure 4-17).

4.2.13 FACILITY ACCIDENTS

This section summarizes the risks to workers and members of the public from potential facility accidents associated with the various amounts of wastes that might be managed under alternative A. The methodologies used to develop the radiological and hazardous material accident scenarios are the same as those discussed in Section 4.1.13.1 under the no-action alternative.

Figure 4-17. Dose to individuals in communities within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the SRS under the maximum waste forecast.

4.2.13.1 Facility Accidents- Expected Waste Forecast

Figures 4-18 through 4-21 summarize the estimated increases in latent fatal cancers from radiological accidents involving the various waste types on the population, offsite maximally exposed individual, and uninvolved workers at 640 meters (2,100 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet) for alternative A expected waste forecast. Analyses are based on dose from the estimated bounding accident. The accident presenting the greatest overall risk to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS under this case is an anticipated accident (i.e., one occurring between once every 10 years and once every 100 years) involving either mixed waste or low-level waste, which would increase the risk to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) by 1.7´10-2 latent fatal cancer per year (Figure 4-18).

An anticipated accident involving either mixed waste or low-level waste would pose the greatest risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual (Figure 4-19) and the uninvolved worker at 640 meters
(2,100 feet) (Figure 4-20). The anticipated accident scenario would increase the risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual by 3.3´10-7latent fatal cancer per year and to the uninvolved worker at 640 meters (2,100 feet) by 1.8´10-5 latent fatal cancer per year.

An anticipated accident involving either mixed wastes or low-level wastes would also pose the greatest risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) (Figure 4-21). The anticipated accident scenario would increase the risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) by 1.0´10-3latent fatal cancer per year.

For each receptor group, regardless of waste type, the greatest estimated risks associated with alternative A are identical to the no-action alternative. However, there could be differences in the overall risk to each receptor group for specific waste types. For example, the overall risks for transuranic waste increase approximately 100 times between the no-action alternative and alternative A. Table 4-35 provides a comparison of overall risk for specific waste types between the no-action alternative and alternative A. A multiplicative change factor is used to illustrate differences between no-action and alternative A risks. If the risks presented are identical, the multiplication factor is one. However, if the

Figure 4-18. Summary of radiological accident impacts to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) for alternative A expected waste forecast.

Figure 4-19. Summary of radiological accident impacts to the offsite maximally exposed individual from alternative A expected waste forecast.

Figure 4-20. Summary of radiological accident impacts to the uninvolved worker within 640 meters (2,100 feet) from alternative A expected waste forecast.

Figure 4-21. Summary of radiological accident impacts to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the alternative A expected waste forecast risks presented are different, the multiplication factor is the ratio of the two values (i.e., higher estimated risk divided by smaller estimated risk). Arrows indicate the alternative A risks that are larger than the no-action risks.

Table 4-35. Comparison of risks from accidents under the no-action alternative and alternative A.

A complete summary of all representative bounding accidents considered for alternative A is presented in Table 4-36. This table provides accident descriptions, annual frequency of occurrence, increased risk of latent fatal cancers for all receptor groups, and the waste type associated with the accident scenario. Details regarding the individual postulated accident scenarios associated with the various waste types are provided in Appendix F.

Table 4-37 presents for each waste considered a summary of the chemical hazards estimated to exceed ERPG-2 values for the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet). For this worker, seven chemical release scenarios would exceed ERPG-3 values. Moreover, another five chemical release scenarios would have estimated airborne concentrations that exceed ERPG-2 values where equivalent ERPG-3 values were not identified. For the offsite maximally exposed individual, no chemical release scenario

Table 4-37. Summary of chemical hazards associated with alternative A estimated to exceed ERPG-2 values.

would have airborne concentrations that exceed ERPG-3 values. In fact, in only one instance would a chemical release scenario have an airborne concentration that exceeds an ERPG-2 value for the offsite maximally exposed individual (release of lead; see Table F25 in Appendix F). Appendix F provides further detail and discussion regarding chemical hazards associated with each waste type.

In addition to the risk to human health from accidents, secondary impacts from postulated accidents on plant and animal resources, water resources, the economy, national defense, contamination, threatened and endangered species, land use, and Native American treaty rights are considered. This qualitative assessment (see Appendix F) determined that no substantial impacts would result from accidents for alternative A - expected waste forecast.

4.2.13.2 Facility Accidents- Minimum Waste Forecast

DOE assumes that conclusions regarding representative bounding accident scenarios could change with the amount of waste generated. Since accident analyses in this eis are based on a conservative assumption of peak utilization of facilities, the various waste forecasts would only affect how long a facility (e.g., the Consolidated Incineration Facility) would operate. Therefore, while consequence or frequency for the postulated accidents would not change, the time the risk from a facility-specific accident would exist could be the same, more, or less, depending on the waste forecast. Alternative A -minimum waste forecast would not be expected to increase or decrease the duration of risk associated with the representative bounding accidents (see Appendix F).

The size and number of new facilities needed to meet waste management requirements would be affected by the amount of waste generated. Thus, the consequences or frequencies for specific accident scenarios could increase or decrease with the addition or subtraction of facilities, depending on the waste forecast. DOE expects that a slight decrease in risk would occur for alternative A - minimum waste forecast. A comparison of the number and type of facilities needed for the minimum and expected waste forecasts is provided in Section 2.4.7.

Transuranic waste provides the most dramatic example of why the risk would increase or decrease. It should be noted that the risk remains constant for an alternative and waste forecast, regardless of the waste type evaluated. For example, while alternative A - expected waste forecast calls for 12 transuranic waste storage pads, the minimum waste forecast estimates only 3 additional transuranic waste storage pads. Since the number of drums would be reduced, a resultant decrease in the overall risk is assumed between the two waste forecasts.

4.2.13.3 Facility Accidents- Maximum Waste Forecast

The maximum waste forecast would not be expected to increase or decrease the duration of risk for the facilities associated with the representative bounding accidents identified under alternative A (see Appendix F).

While the expected waste forecast calls for 12 transuranic waste storage pads, the maximum waste forecast estimates that 1,168 additional transuranic waste storage pads would be needed to store the maximum amount of waste SRS could receive. Since the number of drums would increase, an increase in risk over the expected waste forecast would occur.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)