Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.3 Alternative C - Extensive Treatment Configuration

This section describes the effects of implementing alternative C (described in Section 2.5) on the existing environment (described in Chapter 3).

4.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative C would use an extensive treatment configuration, which would minimize the long-term impacts of waste storage and disposal at SRS. This alternative includes continuing ongoing activities listed for the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.1). In addition, DOE would:

- Construct and operate a containment building to treat mixed and hazardous wastes.

- Roast and retort contaminated process equipment to remove mercury and treat mercury by amalgamation at the containment building.

- Oxidize a small quantity of reactive metal at the containment building.

- Construct and operate a non-alpha vitrification facility for hazardous, mixed, and lowlevel wastes to replace the Consolidated Incineration Facility in 2006. The facility would include low-level and mixed waste soil sort capability to separate soil with nondetectable amounts of contamination from contaminated soil.

- Decontaminate and recycle low-activity equipment waste (metals) offsite. Treatment residues would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal.

- Treat small quantities of radioactive PCB wastes offsite; residuals would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal.

- Operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for mixed, hazardous, low-level, and alpha wastes until the vitrification facilities become operational.

- Construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility.

- Dispose of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

- Construct an alpha vitrification facility.

Alternative C would also require additional disposal areas for low-level radioactive wastes and mixed wastes. Four of six new waste treatment facilities [for characterization/certification of transuranic and alpha waste; for vitrification of transuranic and alpha wastes; for vitrification of mixed, hazardous, and low-level wastes; and for decontamination/macroencapsulation (containment) of mixed and hazardous waste] would be built in E-Area on undeveloped land northwest of F-Area.

Construction related to this alternative would require 0.40 square kilometer (99 acres) of undeveloped land northwest of FArea and 0.036 square kilometer (9 acres) of undeveloped land northeast of F-Area by 2006 (Figure 4-22). An additional 0.081 square kilometer (20 acres) of undeveloped land would be required by 2024 for construction of RCRApermitted disposal vaults northeast of FArea (Figure 423). Other construction would be on previously cleared and developed land in the eastern portion of E-Area. The amount of undeveloped land required for the minimum waste forecast would be 0.45 square kilometer (111 acres), and the maximum waste forecast would require 3.9 square kilometers (959 acres). If alternative C were implemented, additional site-selection studies would be required to locate suitable land.

4.3.2 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

4.3.2.1 Geologic Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Effects from alternative C - expected waste forecast would be mainly from the construction of new facilities. The effects discussed under the noaction alternative (Section 4.1.2) form the basis for comparison and are referenced in this section.

Although the number of facilities needed would be fewer for this forecast than under the noaction alternative, waste management activities associated with this case would affect soils in EArea. Land that has been cleared and graded that would be required for this case totals approximately 0.239 square kilometer (59 acres). Approximately 0.44 square kilometer (108 acres) in E-Area would be cleared and graded for the construction of new facilities through 2006. Later, an additional 0.081 square kilometer

(20 acres) would be cleared for construction of RCRA-permitted disposal vaults. The total of 0.518 square kilometer (128 acres) is approximately 80 percent of the 0.65 square kilometer (160 acres) of undisturbed land that would be cleared and graded for the noaction alternative. Fewer facilities and the corresponding decrease in the amount of land needed would reduce the soils that would be affected under this case by about 15 percent.

The potential for accidental oil, fuel, and chemical spills would be less for alternative C - expected waste forecast than under the noaction alternative because of reduced construction and operation activities. Spill prevention, control, and counter measures for this alternative would be the same as for the noaction alternative discussed in Section 4.1.2; therefore, impacts to soils would be minimal.

4.3.2.2 Geologic Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Effects from alternative C - minimum waste forecast would be slightly less than those from the expected waste forecast because less land would be disturbed during construction. Approximately 0.129 square kilometer (32 acres) of cleared land (by 2008) and 0.45 square kilometer (111 acres) (by 2024) of uncleared land would be used for new facilities.

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

4.3.2.3 Geologic Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Effects from alternative C - maximum waste forecast would be greater than those from the minimum or expected waste forecasts because more land would be disturbed during construction. Approximately 0.283 square kilometer (70 acres) of cleared land and 0.745 square kilometer (184 acres) of uncleared land in E-Area, and 3.14 square kilometers (775 acres) of land outside E-Area would be used for new facilities.

Figure 4-22. Configuration of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in E-Area under alternative C expected forecast by 2006.

Figure 4-23. Configuration of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in E-Area under alternative C expected forecast by 2024.

Figure 4-23. (continued)

For operations activities, spill prevention, control, and countermeasures for this forecast would be the same as for the no-action alternative and the potential for spills would be greater than for the expected waste forecast because more facilities would be operated and larger volumes of wastes would be managed.

4.3.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

4.3.3.1 Groundwater Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

This section discusses the effects of alternative C - expected waste forecast on groundwater resources at SRS. Effects can be evaluated by comparing the doses from contaminants predicted to enter the groundwater from each alternative and waste forecast. Effects on groundwater resources under the noaction 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 for the no-action alternative.

For this forecast, and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to the groundwater from RCRA-permitted 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 RCRA-permitted disposal vaults would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

There would be 11 fewer additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (4) than under the no-action alternative (15). Modeling has shown that any releases from these vaults would not cause groundwater standards to be exceeded during the 30-year planning period or the 100year institutional control period or at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995 ). 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 of the 4 millirem standard is applicable to this case. For this waste forecast, impacts to groundwater resources from disposal vaults would be similar to the impacts under the noaction alternative.

For this waste forecast, 123 additional slit trenches would be constructed. Under this alternative, waste disposed in slit trenches would be stabilized (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots). These disposal activities would be 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, impacts to groundwater from alternative C - expected waste forecast would be similar to the impacts under the no-action alternative.

4.3.3.2 Groundwater Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

For alternative C - minimum waste forecast, and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to the groundwater from RCRA-permitted 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 RCRA-permitted disposal vaults would be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

There would be 12 fewer additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (3) than under the no-action alternative (15). Modeling has shown that the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard would not be exceeded by any radionuclide (Toblin 1995). Impacts to groundwater resources from disposal vaults, including minimal doses from tritium would be similar to those under the no-action alternative.

There would be less disposal of radioactive waste by shallow land disposal (45 additional slit trenches compared to 123 for the expected waste forecast). Under this alternative, waste disposed in slit trenches would be stabilized (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots). These disposal activities would be 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, impacts to groundwater from alternative C - minimum waste forecast would be similar to the impacts discussed under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

4.3.3.3 Groundwater Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

There would be seven fewer additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (8) than under the no-action alternative (15). Modeling has predicted that the 4 millirem per year drinking water standard would not be exceeded for any radionuclide at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995) . The impacts of the vaults in this case would be similar to those impacts in the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).

For alternative C - maximum waste forecast, there would be 576 additional slit trenches. Under this alternative, waste disposed in slit trenches would be stabilized (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots). These disposal activities would be 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, impacts to groundwater from alternative C - maximum waste forecast would be similar to the impacts under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) and those for the expected waste forecast of this alternative (Section 4.3.3.1 ).

4.3.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

4.3.4.1 Surface Water - Expected Waste Forecast

The extensive treatment configuration would use the treatment facilities presently available or being installed at SRS and several new facilities. Of the three alternatives, alternative C would treat waste most extensively prior to disposal. Impacts can be compared between the alternatives by evaluating the pollutants that would be introduced to the surface waters. The 4-millirem-per-year drinking water standard would not be exceeded for any radionuclide (Toblin 1995).

Under this alternative, the Consolidated Incineration Facility would operate until the non-alpha vitrification facility began operating. The incinerator would not discharge wastewater (blowdown) because it would be treated in the ashcrete process, and the stabilized ash and blowdown would be disposed of in RCRA-permitted disposal vaults or sent to shallow land disposal as discussed in Section 4.3.3.1.

The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator would evaporate the liquid waste from the high-level waste tanks in the F- and H-Area tank farms (as noted in the no-action alternative). 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 effluent on Upper Three Runs would be the same as it is now.

DOE would also construct two vitrification facilities. The wastewater from both vitrification facilities would be treated at dedicated wastewater treatment facilities using an ion-exchange process, and the treated water would be recycled to each vitrification facility. Wastewater from the containment building would be transferred to the non-alpha vitrification facility for treatment and disposal. Wastewater would not be discharged to a surface stream.

Investigation-derived waste from groundwater wells that contained volatile organic compounds would be collected and treated by the MArea Air Stripper. Since this water would be similar in composition to the groundwater presently being treated by the MArea Air Stripper, surface waters would not be affected by the discharge of additional treated water.

As discussed in Section 4.2.4.1, additional wastewater would be treated in existing SRS facilities without exceeding the design capacity of any facility.

DOE would construct new facilities and additional storage buildings, pads, and vaults under this alternative. Erosion and sedimentation control plans would be developed and implemented for these projects, as noted in Section 4.1.4. After the facilities were operating, they would be included in the Savannah River Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which details stormwater control measures.

4.3.4.2 Surface Water - Minimum Waste Forecast

As discussed in the other minimum waste forecasts (Sections 4.2.4.2 and 4.4.4.2), additional wastewater would be treated by the existing wastewater treatment facilities.

Erosion and sedimentation control plans for construction projects, and pollution prevention plans would be required as they are under the no-action alternative.

4.3.4.3 Surface Water - Maximum Waste Forecast

Facilities and discharges would be as described in Section 4.3.4.1. The previously described requirements for erosion and sedimentation control plans and pollution prevention plans would apply.

4.3.5 AIR RESOURCES

4.3.5.1 Air Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Impacts to air resources can be evaluated by comparing pollutants introduced under the various alternatives. For alternative C - expected waste forecast, DOE would continue ongoing or planned waste treatment activities and construct and operate additional waste management facilities. Additional nonradiological and radiological emissions would occur. The resulting increases of pollutant concentrations at and beyond the SRS boundary would be minimal compared to existing concentrations. Neither state nor Federal air quality standards would be exceeded by operations under alternative C.

4.3.5.1.1 Construction

Potential impacts to air quality from construction activities would include fugitive dust and earthmoving equipment exhaust. Approximately 6.19x10⁵ cubic meters (8.10 x10⁵ cubic yards) of soil would be disturbed in E-Area for the construction of facilities for alternative C - expected waste forecast.

Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations of air pollutants resulting from a year of average construction are shown in Table 4-38. These concentrations would be similar to those for the noaction alternative. During a year of average construction, the sum of the increase over baseline pollutant concentrations due to construction plus the existing baseline would be within both state and Federal air quality standards.

4.3.5.1.2 Operations

There would be additional radiological and nonradiological emissions at SRS due to the operation of new facilities such as the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility, the mixed and hazardous waste containment building, the non-alpha waste vitrification facility, the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility, the alpha waste vitrification facility, and the Consolidated Incineration Facility (assuming it operates as scheduled until it is replaced by the vitrification facilities).

Emissions from new or proposed facilities are estimated from processes occurring in the facilities or similar facilities, annual average waste flow volumes, and air permit applications. Air emissions from facilities such as disposal vaults and mixed waste storage buildings would be very small.

Per the rationale provided in Section 4.1.5.2 regarding similar facilities, no increase in maximum boundary-line concentrations of pollutants would result from the continued operation of currently operating facilities. Additional emissions from the M-Area Air Stripper and the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility due to the expected waste forecast would be very small and are discussed in Section 4.1.5.2.

Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts

Maximum ground-level concentrations for nonradiological air pollutants are estimated from the Industrial Source Complex Version 2 Dispersion Model using maximum potential emissions from all facilities included in alternative C (Stewart 1994). Calculations for the annual averaging period and for 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 4.3.12.1.2. Air dispersion modeling was performed with calculated emission rates for facilities not yet operating and actual 1990 emission levels for facilities currently operating (Stewart 1994).

The following facilities were included in the modeling analysis for alternative C air dispersion: the Consolidated Incineration Facility, including the ashcrete storage silo, the ashcrete hopper duct, and the ashcrete mixer; four new solvent tanks; the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility; the hazardous and mixed waste containment building; the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; hazardous waste storage facilities; mixed waste storage facilities; the non-alpha waste vitrification facility; and the alpha waste vitrification facility.

Emissions of air toxics would be negligible. Maximum boundary-line concentrations for air toxics emanating from existing 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 E-Area vaults would have very small air emissions, as discussed in Section 4.1.5.2.

Table 4-39 shows the increase in maximum ground-level concentrations at the SRS boundary for nonradiological air pollutants due to routine releases for alternative C - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts. Concentrations due to routine emissions resulting from alternative C - expected waste forecast are similar to those under the no-action alternative. Refer to Section 4.2.5.1.2 for a discussion of the emissions from offsite lead decontamination.

Radiological Air Emissions Impacts

Offsite maximally exposed individual and population doses were determined for atmospheric releases resulting from routine operations. The major sources of radionuclides would be the Consolidated Incineration Facility, the alpha and nonalpha vitrification facilities, and the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility. Other facilities with radiological releases include the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility and the mixed and hazardous waste containment building.

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

Table 4-40 shows the dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and the population. The calculated maximum committed effective annual dose equivalent to a hypothetical individual is 0.18 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is well within 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 routine releases (Arnett 1994).

For alternative C - expected waste forecast, the annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS would be 10 person-rem. In comparison, the collective dose received from natural sources of radiation is approximately 195,000 person-rem (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994) to the same population. Section 4.3.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases on individuals residing offsite.

Table 4-40. Annual radiological doses to individuals and the population within 80 kilometers (50miles) of SRS under alternative C.a

4.3.5.2 Air Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

The alternative C - minimum waste forecast would have a smaller impact to air resources than the expected waste forecast.

4.3.5.2.1 Construction

Impacts were evaluated for the construction of facilities listed in Section 2.5.7. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary resulting from average annual emissions during the 30year construction period are presented in Table 4-38. As discussed in Section 4.3.5.1.1, SRS would still be in compliance with both state and Federal air quality standards.

4.3.5.2.2 Operations

Both radiological and nonradiological impacts were determined for the same facilities listed in Section 2.5.7. Air emissions would be less than for the expected waste forecast.

Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts

Nonradiological air emissions would be less than those estimated for the expected waste forecast. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary are presented in Table 4-39. Modeled concentrations are similar to the expected waste forecast. Total concentrations would be less than both state and Federal ambient air quality standards, and SRS would remain in compliance with both state and Federal standards.

Radiological Air Emissions Impacts

Table 4-40 shows 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 0.09 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is less than the dose from the expected waste forecast and 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 4.9 person-rem, less than the population dose calculated for the expected waste forecast.

4.3.5.3 Air Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Alternative C - maximum waste forecast would have greater impacts than the expected waste forecast.

4.3.5.3.1 Construction

Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary that would result from average annual emissions during the 30year construction period are presented in Table 4-38.

During a year of average construction, the sum of concentrations of air pollutants resulting from construction activities plus the existing baseline would be below both state and Federal air quality standards. Good construction management procedures would require the wetting of roads to reduce particulate emissions.

4.3.5.3.2 Operations

Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts

Nonradiological air emissions would be greater than those estimated for the expected waste forecast. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary are presented in Table 4-39. Cumulative concentrations would be within applicable state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Radiological Air Emissions Impacts

Table 4-40 shows the dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and the population due to atmospheric releases from the facilities operating for the maximum waste forecast. The calculated maximum committed annual dose equivalent to a hypothetical individual is 4.0 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is greater than the dose calculated for the expected waste forecast but within the annual dose limit of 10 millirem from all SRS atmospheric releases.

The annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS would be 229 person-rem, which is greater than the population dose calculated for the expected waste forecast. The collective dose the same population receives from natural sources of radiation is approximately 195,000 person-rem (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). Section 4.3.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases.

4.3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.6.1 Ecological Resources - Expected Waste Forecast

Development of new facilities would result in the clearing and grading of undisturbed land. (These land areas are presented in acres; to convert from acres to square kilometers, multiply by 0.004047.) Clearing and grading would affect 108 acres of woodland by 2006 and an additional 20 acres by 2024, as follows:

- 27 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1987

- 20 acres of white oak, red oak, and hickory regenerated in 1922

- 57 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 the years 2008 and 2024

Effects on the ecological resources would be the same as those described in Section 4.1.6 for the noaction alternative; however, because slightly less land (i.e., 128 acres versus 160 under the no-action alternative) would be required, the overall impact would be slightly less.

4.3.6.2 Ecological Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Approximately 111 acres of undeveloped land located between the M-Line railroad and the E-Area expansion and extending northwest of F-Area would be required. Impacts to the ecological resources of the area would be slightly less than under the expected waste forecast due to the reduced area.

4.3.6.3 Ecological Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Approximately 184 acres of undeveloped land located between M-Line railroad and the E-Area expansion and extending northwest of F-Area would be required. By 2006, an additional 775 acres of land in an undetermined location would also be required for alternative C - maximum waste forecast. Impacts to the ecological resources would be considerably greater than for the expected waste forecast due to the greater area, and similar to those described for alternative A - maximum forecast (see Section 4.2.6.3). Additional threatened and endangered species surveys and a floodplain/wetlands assessment would be required as part of the site-selection process.

4.3.7 LAND USE

4.3.7.1 Land Use - Expected Waste Forecast

DOE would use approximately 167 acres (108 acres of undeveloped; 59 acres of developed) of land in EArea through 2006 for activities associated with alternative C - expected waste forecast. By 2024, the total would have been reduced to about 155 acres because as wastes would be treated and disposed, the storage buildings would be taken out of service and decontaminated and decommissioned; some would be demolished and the land converted back to a natural area. 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 C 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. And according to the FY 1994 Draft Site Development Plan, proposed future land management plans specify that E-Area be characterized and remediated for environmental contamination in its entirety, if necessary. DOE will make decisions on future SRS land uses through the site development, land-use, and future-use planning processes, including public input through avenues such as the Citizens Advisory Board.

4.3.7.2 Land Use - Minimum Waste Forecast

Activities associated with alternative C - minimum waste forecast would not affect current SRS land uses. Approximately 0.57 square kilometer (141 acres) (slightly less than for the expected waste forecast) in EArea would be utilized.

4.3.7.3 Land Use - Maximum Waste Forecast

Activities associated with alternative C - maximum waste forecast would not affect current SRS land uses. By 2006, DOE would use a total of 1,029 acres (254 acres in E-Area and 775 acres elsewhere) for the facilities listed in Section 4.3.1. This acreage is nearly 10 times the land that would be required under the expected or minimum waste forecasts, but is 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). There would be no impact to current land uses in E-Area. The location of the 775 acres outside of EArea has not been identified and would be the subject of further impact analyses. However, DOE would minimize the impact of clearing 775 acres by siting new facilities using the central industrialized portion of SRS, as described in Section 2.1.2 and Figure 2-1.

4.3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS

This section describes the potential effects of alternative C 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, as listed in Tables 4-41 and 4-42.

4.3.8.1 Socioeconomics- Expected Waste Forecast

4.3.8.1.1 Construction

DOE anticipates that for alternative C - expected waste forecast, construction employment would peak during 2004 through 2005 with approximately 160 jobs (Table 4-41), 110 more than during peak employment under the no-action alternative. This employment demand represents 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 case. Given no net change in employment, neither population nor personal income in the region would change. As a result, socioeconomic resources would not be affected.

4.3.8.1.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with implementation of alternative C - expected waste forecast is expected to peak from 2002 through 2005 with an estimated 2,160 jobs, 290 fewer than during peak employment under the no-action alternative (Table 4-41). This employment demand represents less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2005 and approximately 10 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE believes these jobs would be filled from the existing SRS workforce. Thus, DOE does not anticipate impacts to socioeconomic resources from changes in operations employment.

Table 4-41. Estimated construction and operations employment for alternative C - minimum, expected, and maximum waste forecasts.a

	Waste Forecast
	Minimum		Expected		Maximum
year	Construction	Operations	Construction	Operations	Construction
1995	20	810	30	980	170
1996	20	970	20	1,250	40
1997	20	970	20	1,250	50
1998	20	970	20	1,360	140
1999	20	1,090	20	1,480	140
2000	20	1,100	20	1,610	140
2001	20	1,100	20	1,610	140
2002	60	1,230	90	2,160	270
2003	90	1,230	110	2,160	300
2004	130	1,470	160	2,160	350
2005	130	1,350	160	2,160	350
2006	90	1,300	100	1,940	230
2007	60	1,230	70	1,830	210
2008	20	1,330	30	1,910	80
2009	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2010	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2011	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2012	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2013	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2014	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2015	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2016	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2017	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2018	20	1,260	30	1,910	80
2019	20	1,180	30	1,820	70
2020	20	1,180	30	1,820	70
2021	20	1,180	30	1,820	70
2022	20	1,180	30	1,820	70
2023	20	1,180	30	1,820	70
2024	20	1,180	30	1,820	70

a. Source: Hess (1995a).

b. Operations employment for the maximum waste forecast is provided in Table 4-42.

Table 4-42. Estimated new operations jobs required to support alternative C - maximum waste forecast.a

Year	Projected Total Site Employment	Site Employment Available for WM Activities^b	Total Operations Employment for Alternative C- Maximum Case	New Hires^c
1995	20,000	10,000	1,260	0
1996	15,800	7,900	2,620	0
1997	15,800	7,900	2,800	0
1998	15,800	7,900	7,720	0
1999	15,800	7,900	7,720	0
2000	15,800	7,900	7,880	0
2001	15,800	7,900	7,880	0
2002	15,800	7,900	10,060	2,160
2003	15,800	7,900	10,060	2,160
2004	15,800	7,900	10,060	2,160
2005	15,800	7,900	10,060	2,160
2006	15,800	7,900	8,870	970
2007	15,800	7,900	8,910	1,010
2008	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2009	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2010	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2011	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2012	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2013	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2014	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2015	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2016	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2017	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2018	15,800	7,900	4,540	0
2019	15,800	7,900	4,020	0
2020	15,800	7,900	4,020	0
2021	15,800	7,900	4,020	0
2022	15,800	7,900	4,020	0
2023	15,800	7,900	4,020	0
2024	15,800	7,900	4,020	0

a. Source: Hess (1995a).

b. DOE assumed that approximately 50 percent of the total site workforce would be available to work on waste management activities.

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

4.3.8.2 Socioeconomics- Minimum Waste Forecast

4.3.8.2.1 Construction

Construction employment associated with alternative C - minimum forecast would be slightly less than that for the expected waste forecast and would peak in 2004 and 2005 with approximately 130 jobs (Table 4-41), 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.

4.3.8.2.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with implementation of the minimum waste forecast is expected to peak in 2004 with an estimated 1,470 jobs, approximately 690 fewer jobs than under the expected waste forecast (Table 4-41). This employment demand represents less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2005 (see Chapter 3) and approximately 7 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE believes these jobs could be filled from the existing SRS workforce and, therefore, anticipates that socioeconomic resources would not be affected by changes in operations employment.

4.3.8.3 Socioeconomics- Maximum Waste Forecast

4.3.8.3.1 Construction

Construction employment associated with alternative C - maximum waste forecast would be greater than that for the expected waste forecast and would peak in 2004 and 2005 with approximately 350 jobs (Table 4-41), which represents less than 1 percent of forecast employment for 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 impacted.

4.3.8.3.2 Operations

Operations employment associated with the implementation of alternative C - maximum waste forecast is expected to peak during 2002 through 2005 with an estimated 10,060 jobs (Table 4-42), which represents 3.7 percent of the forecast regional employment in the year 2005 and approximately 50 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE assumes that approximately 50 percent of the total SRS workforce would be available to support implementation of this case. If DOE transfers 50 percent of the SRS workforce, an additional 2,160 new employees would still be required in 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 5,320 new jobs (Table 4-43) (HNUS 1995b). This would represent a 2 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 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 6,630 additional people in the six-county region (Table 4-43) (HNUS 1995b). This increase is approximately 1.4 percent above the baseline regional population forecast 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 $410 million increase over forecast regional income levels for that year (Table 4-43) (HNUS 1995b). This would be a 2.6 percent increase over baseline income levels and would have a substantial, positive effect on the regional economy.

4.3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

4.3.9.1 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 (Figures 4-22 and 4-23).

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

The two small areas of unsurveyed land (Figure 4-5) would be surveyed and any resources would be protected as described in Section 4.1.9. Archaeological sites in the proposed area of expansion could be impacted as described in Section 4.1.9. If this occurred, DOE would protect the cultural resources as described in Section 4.1.9.

4.3.9.2 Cultural Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast

Construction of new waste management facilities under this case would require approximately 0.11 fewer square kilometer (26 fewer acres) than for the expected waste forecast. Although the precise configuration of facilities is currently undetermined, construction would take place within the areas identified in Section 4.3.9.1.

As discussed in Section 4.3.9.1, construction within the developed and fenced portion of E-Area or to the northwest of this area would not affect archaeological resources. Before construction could 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).

4.3.9.3 Cultural Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast

Construction of new waste management facilities for this forecast would require approximately 4.2 square kilometers (1,029 acres), 3.5 square kilometers (862 acres) more than for the expected waste forecast. Much of the proposed construction would take place within the areas identified in Section 4.3.9.1. However, these areas are not large enough to support all of the new facilities required under this case. DOE would need an estimated 3.1 square kilometers (775 acres) outside the areas identified in Section 4.3.9.1.

Construction within the developed and fenced portion of E-Area or to the northwest of this area would not affect archaeological resources. Before construction could 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, as described in Section 4.3.9.2.

Until DOE determines the precise location of the additional 3.1 square kilometers (775 acres) that would be used outside of F- and EAreas, effects on cultural resources cannot be predicted. The potential disturbance of important cultural resources would be proportional to the amount of land that would be disturbed. However, in compliance with the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement, DOE would survey all areas proposed for construction activities prior to disturbance. If important resources are discovered, DOE would avoid or remove them.

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

Activities associated with alternative C 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 to the atmosphere that would be visible or that would indirectly reduce visibility.

4.3.11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.3.11.1 Traffic

4.3.11.1.1 Traffic - Expected Waste Forecast

The alternative C - expected waste forecast would require 108 more construction workers than the noaction alternative. As shown in Table 4-44, no roads would exceed carrying capacity.

Traffic effects would be minimal. There would be one less waste shipment per day compared to the estimate for the no-action alternative (Table 4-45) due to fewer hazardous waste shipments to and from the RCRA-permitted storage facility. The effect on traffic would be very small.

4.3.11.1.2 Traffic - Minimum Waste Forecast

For the minimum forecast, there would be 85 more construction workers than under the no-action alternative. Roads would remain within the design carrying capacity (Table 4-44). Effects on traffic would be minimal.

There would be 14 fewer daily waste shipments compared to no-action estimates (Table 4-45). This decrease would be due to smaller volumes of all types of waste. The lower number of hazardous waste shipments would also be due to a lower number of shipments to and from the storage facility. The lower volume of truck traffic would result in a slightly positive effect on traffic.

Table 4-44. Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative C.

	Design Capacity, vehicles per hour	No-action alternative (percentage of design capacity)
			Waste Forecast
			Minimum	Expected	Maximum
Offsite			(percentage of design capacity)
SC 19	3,000^a	2,821(94)	2,860(95)	2,870(96)	2,957(99)
SC 125	3,200^a	2,720(85)	2,757(86)	2,768(87)	2,853(89)
SC 57	2,100^a	706(34)	714(34)	717(34)	738(35)
Onsite
Road E at E-Area	2,300^b	788^c(33)	873^d(38)	896^d(39)	1,089^d(47)

a. Adapted from Smith (1989).

b. Adapted from TRB (1985).

c. Includes baseline plus the maximum number (42) of construction workers (Hess 1995a).

d. Includes baseline plus the maximum number (132 for the minimum, 155 for expected, and 348 for the maximum waste forecast) of construction workers (Hess 1995a).

Table 4-45. SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck under alternativeC.a

Waste	1994 no action traffic^a	Change from no-action
Waste	1994 no action traffic^a	Minimum	Expected	Maximum
Hazardous	14	-6	-1	4
Low-level	7	-3	<1b
Mixed	8	-5	<1	14
Transuranicc	1	<1	<1	15
Total change	NAd	-14	-1	43
Total shipments per day	30	16	29	73

a. Shipments per day: To arrive at shipments per day, the total number of waste shipments estimated for the 30 years considered in this eis was divided by 30 to determine estimated shipments per year. These numbers were divided by 250, which represents working days in a calendar year, to determine shipments per day. Supplemental data are provided in the traffic and transportation section of Appendix E.

b. Values less than 1 are treated as 0 for purposes of comparison.

c. Includes mixed and nonmixed transuranic waste shipments.

d. NA = not applicable.

4.3.11.1.3 Traffic - Maximum Waste Forecast

As discussed in Section 4.1.11.1, the 1992 South Carolina highway fatality rate of 2.3 per 100 million miles driven provides a baseline estimate of 5.5 traffic fatalities annually. Under alternative C, the largest increase in construction workers would occur for the maximum waste forecast (301 more workers than under the noaction alternative). These workers would be expected to drive 3.5 million miles annually (3.0 million miles more than under the noaction alternative), which is predicted to result in 1.5 additional traffic fatalities per year. Traffic on roads would remain within design carrying capacity (Table 4-44). Effects on traffic would be minimal.

There would be 43 additional daily waste shipments compared to no-action estimates (Table 4-45), primarily due to larger volumes of waste and shipments of ashcrete to EArea. These shipments would originate at various SRS locations (primarily F- and HAreas) and terminate at the EArea treatment and disposal facilities. Shipments from the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility, alpha vitrification and non-alpha vitrification facilities, and containment building are not considered because these shipments would occur on a dedicated road that would be designed to accommodate expected traffic flows. The addition of 43 trucks during normal work hours would have minimal adverse effects on traffic.

4.3.11.2 Transportation

Consequences from incident-free onsite transportation under alternative C were based on those calculated under the no-action alternative adjusted for changes in number of shipments (as a result of changes in volumes of wastes shipped). Consequences and corresponding health effects from onsite transportation accidents for any given shipment are independent of the number of shipments and are, therefore, the same as the noaction alternative. These results are provided in Table 4-8. The probability of an accident occurring for each type of waste shipped is provided in Table 4-26.

For alternative C, DOE analyzed the impacts that would result from offsite shipments of mixed waste (lead) and low-level waste. Methodology and receptors are defined in Section 4.2.11. Incident-free doses from offsite shipments were calculated as in Section 4.1.11.2.1.

4.3.11.2.1 Transportation - Expected Waste Forecast

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

The dose and number of excess fatal cancers from incident-free transportation for alternative C - expected waste forecast would not change from the no-action alternative in any receptor group except involved workers (Table 4-46) because of the minimal increases in volumes of waste shipped under this alternative. Involved workers' exposures would increase slightly due to the increased volume of lowlevel equipment shipped.

The probability of an uninvolved worker developing an excess fatal cancer would be about 1 in 220,000 from incident-free onsite transportation of radioactive material (Table 4-44). The number of additional fatal cancers in the involved and uninvolved workers workforce due to incident-free onsite transportation would be about two, while the uninvolved workers would be less than one.

The annual probability of a member of the public developing an excess fatal cancer would be about 1 in 58 million from incident-free offsite transportation of radioactive material (Table 4-47). The additional fatal cancers that could develop in members of the public and involved workers from exposure to offsite waste shipments would be less than one.

Transportation Accident Impacts

The probability of an onsite accident would be similar to that under the no-action alternative because similar waste volumes would be shipped; the consequences due to an accident would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.2.2. Effects from accidents involving offsite shipments were calculated as in Section 4.1.11.2.2. The results are summarized in Table 4-48. Probabilities of an accident involving each waste type are presented in Table 4-26.

The low consequences and associated excess latent cancer fatalities in the remote population from offsite shipments for alternative C - expected waste forecast (Table 4-48) would be comparable to consequences to the onsite population under the no-action alternative (Table 4-8) and alternative A (Table 4-25). An offsite accident would be less severe than one involving onsite shipments because of the small volume of waste shipped offsite. There would be less than one additional cancer to members of the general public from accidents during 30 years of waste shipments.

Table 4-46. Annual dose percent change from the no-action alternative) and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternativeC - expected waste forecast.

Waste^a	Uninvolved Worker^b (rem)		Uninvolved workers (person-rem)		Involved Workers (person-rem)
Low-level	0.011	(0%)	2.0	(2%)	190	(31%)
Mixed	5.8x10^-5	(5%)	0.12	(4%)	4.4	(2%)
Transuranic	1.3x10^-4	(0%)	0.0095	(0%)	0.15	(0%)
Total^c	0.011^d		2.1^e		200^e
Excess latent cancer fatalities	4.5x10^-6f		8.6x10^-4^g		0.079^g

a. See Appendix E for a list of waste streams which make up each waste type. Dose is based on exposure to all waste streams of a particular waste type.

b. See Section 4.1.11.2 for descriptions of receptors

c. Totals rounded to two significant figures.

d. Assumes the same individual has maximal exposure to each waste (Appendix E) for a single year.

e. Dose from 1 year of exposure to incident-free transportation of waste (see Appendix E).

f. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer

g. Value equals the total dose the risk factor (0.0004 excess latent fatal cancer per person-rem).

Table 4-47. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material for alternative C - expected waste forecast.

Waste	Involved workers^a(person-rem)	Remote MEI^b(rem)	Remote populationpopulationPopulation (person-rem)
Low-level	0.36	3.3x10^-5	0.54
Mixed	0.012	3.2x10^-8	0.0025
Totals^c	0.37	3.3x10^-5	0.54
Excess latent cancer fatalities	1.5x10^-4	1.7x10^-8d	2.7x10^-4

a. See Section 4.1.11.2 for descriptions of receptors.
b MEI = maximally exposed individual.
c. Dose for the remote MEI assumes exposure to each waste (see Appendix E) in a year; for the populations, dose is the result of exposure to 1 year of incidentfree transportation of waste (see Appendix E).
d. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer.

Table 4-48. Probability of an accident during 30 years of offsite transport of radioactive material for each waste forecast under alternative C, dose, and excess latent cancer fatalities from an accident.

	Probability of an accident
Waste	Minimum forecast	Expected forecast	Maximum forecast	Dose (person-rem)	Number of excess latent fatal cancers
Low-level	7.2x10^-7	1.3x10^-6	3.4x10^-6	5.2x10^-4	2.6x10^-7
Mixed	4.6x10^-4	1.1x10^-3	2.7x10^-3	0.0047	2.4x10^-6

4.3.11.2.2 Transportation - Minimum Waste Forecast

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

For alternative C - minimum waste forecast, there would be decreases in dose to all receptors from radioactive waste shipments (Table 4-49) compared to the expected waste forecast (Table 4-46) as a result of the decrease in volumes of all wastes. The annual probability of an uninvolved worker developing a fatal cancer from incident-free onsite transport would be about 1 in 430,000 (Table 4-49).

The involved worker population and the uninvolved workers could expect less than one additional fatal cancer per year from onsite transportation.

The probability per year that a member of the public would develop an excess fatal cancer from incident-free offsite transportation of radioactive material would be 1 in 110 million (Table 4-50). The number of

additional fatal cancers in both the remote population and the involved worker population would be less than one.

Transportation Accident Impacts

The probability of an onsite accident involving radioactive wastes would decrease slightly (Table 4-26) for the minimum waste forecast because of the decreased volumes that would be shipped compared to the expected waste forecast; however, the consequences due to an accident would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.3. Effects of offsite accidents would be the same for the expected case (Table 4-48); however, the probability of an offsite accident would decrease by about one-half compared to the expected waste forecast because of the decrease in volume of waste shipped.

Table 4-49. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternativeC - minimum waste forecast.

Waste^a	Uninvolved worker^b (rem)		Uninvolved workers (person-rem)		Involved workers (personrem)
Low-level	0.0057	(-49%)	0.98	(-51%)	0	(-47%)
Mixed	2.3x10^-5	(-61%)	0.050	(-60%)	1.7	(-62%)
Transuranic	9.0x10^-5	(-30%)	0.0066	(-30%)	0.10	(-30%)
Total^c	0.0058^d		1.0^e		0^e

Excess latent cancer fatalities	2.3x10^-6f		4.1x10^-4g		0.041^g

a. See Appendix E for a list of waste streams which make up each waste type. Dose is based on exposure to all waste streams of a particular waste type.

b. See Section 4.1.11.2 for descriptions of receptors.

c. Totals were rounded to two significant figures.

d. Assumes the same individual has maximal exposure to each waste (Appendix E) for a single year.

e. Dose from 1 year of exposure to incident-free transportation of waste (see Appendix E).

f. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer.

g. Value equals the total dose x the risk factor (0.0004 excess latent fatal cancers per personrem).

Table 4-50. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material for alternative C - minimum waste forecast.

Waste	Involved workers (person-rem)	Remote MEI^a (rem)	Remote Population (person-rem)
Low-level	0.20	1.8x10^-5	0.31
Mixed	0.0052	1.4x10^-8	0.0011
Totals^b	0.21	1.8x10^-5	0.31

Excess latent cancer fatalities	8.4x10^-5	9.0x10^-9c	1.6x10^-4

a. MEI = maximally exposed individual.

b. Dose for the remote MEI assumes exposure to each waste (see Appendix E) in a year; for the populations, dose is the result of 1 year of incident-free transportation of waste (see Appendix E).

c. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer.

4.3.11.2.3 Transportation - Maximum Waste Forecast

Incident-Free Radiological Impacts

For the maximum waste forecast, there would be large increases in dose to all receptors (Table 4-51) due to the increases in volumes of wastes shipped. These increases would be similar to those that would occur for alternative A - maximum waste forecast. The annual probability of an uninvolved worker developing an excess fatal cancer would be about 1 in 150,000 (Table 4-51). The involved workers

population and the uninvolved workers could expect less than one additional fatal cancer per year from 30 years of incident-free transport.

Table 4-52 shows that the probability of a member of the public developing a fatal cancer is about 1 in 23 million per year from incident-free offsite transportation of radioactive material. The number of cancers that could develop in members of the public and involved workers would be less than one.

Transportation Accident Impacts

The probability of an onsite accident involving radioactive wastes would increase (Table 4-26) under the maximum waste forecast because more waste would be shipped compared to the expected waste forecast; however, the consequences due to a particular accident would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.3. Effects of offsite shipments would be the same as for the expected case (Table 4-48); however, the probability of an offsite accident would be three times greater than that in the expected waste forecast because of the increase in volume of waste shipped.

Table 4-51. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative C - maximum waste forecast.

Waste^a	Uninvolved worker^b (rem)		Uninvolved workers (person-rem)		Involved workers (person-rem)
Low-level	0.014	(27%)	2.6	(31%)	350	(83%)
Mixed	2.0x10^-4	(247%)	0.45	(263%)	19	(321%)
Transuranic	0.0021	(1,550%)	0.16	(1,550%)	2.4	(1,550%)
Total^c	0.016^d		3.2^e		370^e
Excess latent cancer fatalities	6.6x10^-6f		0.0013g		0.15^g

a. See Appendix E for a list of waste streams which make up each waste type. Dose is based on exposure to all waste streams of a particular waste type.
b. See Section 4.1.11.2 for descriptions of receptors.
c. Totals rounded to two significant figures.
d. Assumes the same individual has maximal exposure to each waste type (Appendix E) for a single year.
e. Dose from 1 year of exposure to incident-free transportation of waste (see Appendix E).
f. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer.
g. Value equals the total dose the risk factor (0.0004 excess latent fatal cancers per person-rem).

Table 4-52. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material for alternative C - maximum waste forecast.

Waste	Involved workers (person-rem)	Remote MEI^a (rem)	Remote Population (person-rem)
Low-level	0.94	8.6x10^-5	1.4
Mixed	0.031	8.2x10^-8	0.0064
Totals^b	0.97	8.6x10^-5	1.4

Excess latent cancer fatalities	3.84x10^-4	4.3x10^-8c	7.0x10^-4

a. MEI = maximally exposed individual.

b. Dose for the remote MEI assumes exposure to each waste (see Appendix E) in a year; for the populations, dose is the result of exposure to 1 year of incident-free transportation of waste (see Appendix E).

c. Additional probability of an excess latent fatal cancer.

4.3.12 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HeaLTH

Under alternative C, the non-alpha vitrification facility (including soil sorting), the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, the alpha vitrification facility, compaction facilities, and the containment building would operate. Emissions from these facilities would increase adverse health effects over the no-action alternative for each of the three waste forecasts. However, effects would be small overall, except to involved workers under the maximum waste forecast.

For involved workers, the sources of most exposure would be the transuranic waste storage pads, the non-alpha vitrification facility, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, the H-Area high-level waste tank farm, and the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; for the public and uninvolved workers the sources of most exposure would be the environmental releases from the alpha vitrification facility, the non-alpha vitrification facility, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, and the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility. (Consolidated Incineration Facility impacts are summarized in Appendix B.5.)

For radiological assessments, the same general methodology was used as under the no-action alternative (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 expected performance of new facilities was based on actual design information, if available, augmented as necessary with operating experience with similar facilities.

4.3.12.1 Occupational and Public Health - Expected Waste Forecast

For alternative C - expected waste forecast, the amounts of wastes would be the same as under the noaction alternative. Refer to Section 4.1.12 for a discussion of the no-action alternative.

4.3.12.1.1 Occupational Health And Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-53 presents the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with alternative C - expected waste forecast. The doses (0.04 rem per year) 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 alternative C waste management operations under this forecast would be much lower than those expected from all causes during the workers' lifetimes. It is expected that there would be 1.1 additional fatal cancers in the projected workforce of 2,184 involved workers.

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 6452N, mixed waste storage; four new solvent tanks; the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility (includingsoil sorting); the containment building; the non-alpha vitrification facility (including soil sorting); and the alpha vitrification facility. Occupational health impacts to employees in the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including 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.

Table E.23 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 under the expected waste forecast, employee occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits. DOE expects minimal health impacts as a result of uninvolved worker exposure to emissions from these facilities.

Table 4-53. Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated with the implementation of alternative C.a

	No-action	Waste forecast
Receptor(s)	alternative	Expected	Minimum	Maximum
Individual involved worker^b
- Average annual dose (rem)	0.025	0.040	0.038	0.060
- Associated probability of a fatal cancer	1.0x10^-5	1.6x10^-5	1.5x10^-5	2.4x10^-5
- 30-year dose to average worker (rem)	0.75	1.2	1.2	1.8
- Associated probability of a fatal cancer	3.9x10^-4	4.8x10^-4	4.6x10^-4	7.2x10^-4
All involved workersc,b
- Annual dose (person-rem)	52	86	83	150
- Associated number of fatal cancers	0.021	0.035	0.033	0.060
- 30-year dose (person-rem)	1,600	2,600	2,500	4.5x10⁴
- Associated number of a fatal cancer	0.62	1.0	1.0	1.8
Individual uninvolved worker^b,d
- Annual dose at 100 meters (rem)^a (associated probability of a fatal cancer)	1.0x10^-5 (4.1x10^-9)	0.0094 3.8x10^-6	0.0045 1.8x10^-6	0.22 (8.8x10^-5)
- Annual dose at 640 meters (rem) (associated probability of a fatal cancer)	2.9x10^{-7 (1.1x10)}	0.0031 1.2x10^-6	0.0014 5.7x10^-7	0.073 2.9x10^-5
- 30-year dose at 100 meters (rem) (associated probability of a fatal cancer)	3.0x10^{-4 (1.2x10^-7)}	0.28 1.1x10^-4	0.14 5.4x10^-5	6.6 (0.003)
- 30-year dose at 640 meters (rem) (associated probability of a fatal cancer)	8.6x10^{-6 (3.4x10^-9)}	0.092 3.7x10^-5	0.043 1.7x10^-5	2.2 (0.0009)

a. Supplemental facility information is provided in Appendix E.

b. Annual individual worker doses can be compared with the regulatory dose limit of 5 rem (10 CFR 835) and with the SRS administrative exposure guideline of 0.8 rem. Operational procedures ensure that the dose to the maximally exposed worker will also remain within the regulatory dose limit as is reasonably achievable.

c. The number of involved workers is estimated to be 2,184 for the expected waste forecast, 2,169 for the minimum forecast, and 2,526 for the maximum forecast.

d. Dose is due to emissions from the alpha and non-alpha vitrification facilities. Doses conservatively assume 80 hours per week of exposure.

4.3.12.1.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-54 presents the radiological doses to the public and resulting health effects associated with the alternative C - expected waste forecast. The annual doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual (0.18 millirem) and to the SRS regional population (10 person-rem) would be about the same as those that resulted from total SRS operations in 1993, which were more than 10 times lower than the 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 (3.6×10-4millirem) and to regional population (2.4×10-3person-rem) surrounding Oak Ridge, Tennessee, represent a very small fraction (less than 0.3 percent) of the comparable doses to the SRS regional population. These doses remain less than 0.3 percent of the comparable SRS doses for all waste forecast under this alternative (see Appendix E for facility specific data). For this waste forecast, radiologically induced health effects to the public (0.15 fatal cancers from 30 years of exposure) would be very small (Table 4-54).

Nonradiological Impacts

Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite are considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants. Maximum site boundary-line concentrations for criteria pollutants are discussed in Section 4.3.5.1.2.

For routine releases from SRS operating facilities for the expected waste forecast, criteria pollutant concentrations would be within state and federal ambient air quality standards, as discussed in Section 4.3.5.1.2. During periods of construction, the criteria pollutant concentrations at the SRS boundary would not exceed air quality standards under normal operating conditions. Neither the state nor the federal air quality standards would be exceeded by actual emissions from SRS. Emissions of criteria pollutants would have negligible health effects on offsite individuals.

Offsite risks due to carcinogens are calculated using the Industrial Source Complex 2 model (Stewart 1994) for the facilities listed in Section 4.3.12.1.1. Emissions of carcinogenic compounds are based on the types and quantities of waste being processed at each facility. Table 4-55 shows the individual lifetime cancer risks calculated from unit risk factors (see Section 4.1.12.2.2) derived from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System data base (EPA 1994). The estimated increased probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime due to routine SRS emissions under the expected waste forecast is approximately 2 in 10 million (Table 4-55). DOE expects minimal health impacts from emissions of carcinogenic compounds.

Table 4-54. Radiological doses associated with the implementation of alternative C and resulting health effects to the public.a

	No-action alternative				Alternative C
	Dose^b					Dose^b
Waste forecast/receptor(s)	Atmospheric releases	Aqueous releases	Total	Probability^c or number of fatal cancer		Atmospheric releases^f	Aqueous releases	Total	Probability^c or number of fatal cancers
Expected waste generation
Offsite MEI^d
- Annual, millirem	1.2x10^-4	6.9x10^-4	8.1x10^-4	4.1x10^-7		0.18	6.9x10^{^-4}	0.18	9.0x10^-8
- 30-year, millirem	0.0037	0.021	0.025	1.2x10^-8		5.4	0.021	5.4	2.7x10^-6
Population
- Annual, person-rem	2.9x10^-4	0.0068	0.0071	3.5x10^-6		10	0.0068	10	0.0050
- 30-year, person-rem	0.0086	0.20	0.21	1.0x10^-4		302	0.20	302	0.15
Minimum waste generation
Offsite MEI
- Annual, millirem	NAe	NA	NA	NA		0.09	6.9x10^-4	0.09	4.6x10^-8
- 30-year, millirem	NA	NA	NA	NA		2.71	0.021	2.7	1.4x10^-6
Population
- Annual, person-rem	NA	NA	NA	NA		4.9	0.0068	4.9	0.0025
- 30-year, person-rem	NA	NA	NA	NA	148	0.20	148	0.074
Maximum waste generation
Offsite MEI
- Annual, millirem	NA	NA	NA	NA	4.0	6.9x10^-4	4.0	2.0x10^-6
- 30-year, millirem	NA	NA	NA	NA	120	0.021	120	6.0x10^-5
Population
- Annual, person-rem	NA	NA	NA	NA	229	0.0068	229	0.11
- 30-year, person-rem	NA	NA	NA	NA	6,880	0.20	6,880	3.4

a. Supplemental facility information is provided in Appendix E.

b. For atmospheric releases, the dose is to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS. For aqueous releases, the dose is to the people using the Savannah River from SRS to the Atlantic Ocean.

c. For the offsite maximally exposed individual, probability of a fatal cancer; for population, number of fatal cancers.

d. MEI = maximally exposed individual.

e. NA = not applicable.

f. Atmospheric releases for MEI and population include contribution from offsite facilities, which contribute less than 0.3 percent to the atmospheric releases reported here.

Note: The doses to the public from total SRS operations in 1993 were 0.25 millirem to the offsite maximally exposed individual and 9.1 person-rem to the regional population. These doses, when added to the doses associated with the waste management alternative that are given in this table, are assumed to equal total SRS doses. For the maximum waste forecast (which gives the highest doses), the total annual dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual and the regional population would equal 4.42 millirem (0.25 + 4.17) and approximately 248 person-rem (9.1 + 239), respectively. The individual dose would fall below the proposed annual regulatory limits of 10 millirem from airborne releases, 4 millirem from drinking water, and 100 millirem from all pathways combined (proposed 10 CFR 834); the population dose would be lower than the proposed annual notification limit of 100 person-rem (proposed 10 CFR 834).

4.3.12.1.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

Section 4.1.12.2.3 describes the methodology for analyzing radiological dose emissions to determine if there would be environmental justice concerns. Figure 4-24 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative C expected 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.

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 low income in the 80-kilometer (50-mile) region would be neither disproportionately nor adversely impacted. Therefore, environmental justice issues would not be a concern for the alternative C - expected waste forecast.

4.3.12.2 Occupational and Public Health - Minimum Waste Forecast

Because the waste amounts for alternative C - minimum waste forecast would be smaller than for the expected forecast and the treatment operations the same, the impacts to workers and the public would be smaller than described in Section 4.3.12.1.

Figure 4-24.

4.3.12.2.1 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-53 includes the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the minimum waste forecast. Doses (0.039 rem per year) and health effects associated with this case would be smaller than those associated with the expected waste forecast. From 30 years of exposure, there would be one additional fatal cancer in the workforce of 2,169.

Nonradiological Impacts

Table E.2-3 in Appendix E presents a comparison of the nonradiological air concentrations to SRS workers exposed under the minimum waste forecast based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits values. Exposures to SRS workers are either equal to or less than those occurring in the expected waste forecast. For all facilities, employee occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits. Negligible impacts to worker's health would occur due to emissions under the minimum waste forecast.

4.3.12.2.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-54 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 4.3.5.2. During periods of construction, the criteria pollutant concentrations at the SRS boundary would not exceed air quality standards under normal operating conditions. DOE expects very small health impacts to the public from emissions of criteria pollutants.

Table 4-55 presents offsite risks from emissions of carcinogens. The overall incremental lifetime cancer risk is approximately 2 in 10 million. DOE expects very small health impacts to the public from emissions of carcinogenic compounds.

Table 4-55. Estimated probability of excess latent cancers in the offsite population from nonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative C.

		Concentration^b,c			Latent cancers^d
Pollutant	Unit risk factor^a (latent cancers/ m g/m³)^e	Expected waste forecast (mg/m³)	Minimum waste forecast (mg/m³)	Maximum waste forecast (mg/m³)	Expected waste forecast	Minimum waste forecast	Maximum waste forecast
Acetaldehyde	2.2x10^-6	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	4.4x10^-13	2.3x10^-13	9.6x10^-13
Acrylamide	0.0013	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	2.6x10	1.3x10	5.6x10
Acrylonitrile	6.8x10^-5	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	1.3x10^-11	7.0x10^-12	3.0x10^-11
Arsenic Pentoxide	0.0043	1.0x10^-6	4.1x10^-7	2.0x10^-6	1.8x10^-9	7.6x10	3.7x10^-9
Asbestos	0.23	5.9x10^-8	4.6x10^-8	2.3x10^-7	5.8x10^-9	4.5x10^-9	2.3x10^-8
Benzene	8.3x10^-6	0.044	0.044	0.044	1.6x10^-7	1.6x10^-7	1.6x10^-7
Benzidine	0.067	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	1.3x10^-8	6.9x10^-9	2.9x10^-8
Bis(chloromethyl) ether	0.062	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	1.2x10^-8	6.4x10^-9	2.7x10^-8
Bromoform	1.1x10^-6	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	x10^-13	1.1x10^-13	4.8x10^-13
Carbon Tetrachloride	1.5x10^-5	1.1x10^-5	1.1x10^-5	1.4x10^-5	7.1x10^-11	6.8x10^-11	9.0x10^-11
Chlordane	3.7x10^-4	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	7.3x10^-11	3.8x10^-11	1.6x10
Chloroform	2.3x10^-5	0.003	0.003	0.003	3.0x10^-8	3.0x10^-8	3.0x10^-8
Cr(+6) Compounds	0.012	1.4x10^-8	7.4x10^-9	3.2x10^-8	7.2x10^-11	3.8x10^-11	1.6x10
Formaldehyde	1.3x10^-5	9.4x10^-7	7.2x10^-7	1.5x10^-6	5.3x10^-12	4.0x10^-12	8.3x10^-12
Heptachlor	0.0013	1.1x10^-6	5.9x10^-7	2.5x10^-6	6.4x10	3.3x10	1.4x10^-9
Hexachlorobenzene	4.6x10^-4	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	9.1x10^-11	4.7x10^-11	2.0x10
Hexachlorobutadiene	2.2x10^-5	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	4.4x10^-12	2.3x10^-12	9.6x10^-12
Hydrazine	0.0049	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	9.7x10	5.0x10	2.1x10^-9
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	5.8x10^-5	9.2x10^-6	4.7x10^-6	2.0x10^-5	2.3x10	1.2x10	5.0x10
1,1,2-Trichloroethane	1.6x10^-5	4.6x10^-7	2.4x10^-7	1.0x10^-6	3.2x10^-12	1.6x10^-12	7.0x10^-12
Toxaphene	3.2x10^-4	1.1x10^-6	5.9x10^-7	2.5x10^-6	1.4x10	8.1x10^-11	3.5x10
1,1 Dichloroethene	5.0x10^-5	2.2x10^-5	2.2x10^-5	2.8x10^-5	4.8x10	4.6x10	6.0x10
Methylene Chloride	4.7x10^-7	9.4x10^-7	7.2x10^-7	1.5x10^-6	1.9x10^-13	1.5x10^-13	3.0x10^-13
				TOTAL	2.2x10^-7	2.1x10^-7	2.7x10^-7

a. Source: EPA (1994).

b. Maximum annual boundary line concentration.

c. Source: Stewart (1994).

d. Latent cancer probability equals unit risk factor times concentration times 30 years divided by 70 years.

e. Micrograms per cubic meter of air.

4.3.12.2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

Figure 4-25 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative C - minimum waste forecast for the 80kilometer (50-mile) region of interest in this eis. No communities would be disproportionately affected by emissions resulting from this case.

4.3.12.3 Occupational and Public Health - Maximum Waste Forecast

The amounts of wastes to be treated for alternative C - maximum waste forecast would be larger than for the minimum and expected waste forecasts, but the treatment operations would be the same. The maximum waste forecast would result in the greatest effects on worker and public health.

4.3.12.3.1 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-53 includes the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the maximum waste forecast. The doses would remain below the SRS administrative guideline of 0.8 rem per year. However, it is projected that two people in the involved workforce of 2,526 could develop a fatal cancer sometime during their lifetimes as the result of 30 years of exposure.

Nonradiological Impacts

Table E.2-3 in Appendix E presents a comparison of the nonradiological air concentrations to SRS workers exposed under the maximum waste forecast based on 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. DOE expects minimal health impacts from emissions from facilities under the maximum waste forecast.

Figure 4-25.

4.3.12.3.2 Public Health and Safety

Radiological Impacts

Table 4-54 includes the doses to the public and resulting health effects associated with the maximum waste forecast. The annual doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual (4.0 millirem) and to the regional population (229 person-rem) would exceed the corresponding doses of 0.25 millirem and 9.1 person-rem, respectively, from total SRS operations in 1993 (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). However, regulatory dose limits would not be exceeded (refer to note on Table 4-54).

The health effects associated with the maximum waste forecast are included in Table 4-54. Based on a risk estimator of 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per rem (Section 4.1.12.2), the probability of the offsite maximally exposed individual developing a fatal cancer from 30 years of exposure to radiation associated with this waste forecast would be 6 in 100,000, and the number of additional fatal cancers in the regional population could be 3.4. This probability of a fatal cancer is much smaller than the one chance in four (23.5 percent) that a member of the public will develop a fatal cancer from all causes, and the number of fatal cancers is much less than the 145,700 fatal cancers that the regional population of 620,100 can expect to develop from all causes during their lifetimes.

Each alternative C waste forecast would result in larger radiological doses to the public and consequent health effects than would alternative A (see Tables 4-33 and 4-54).

Nonradiological Impacts

Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite are considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants for alternative C - 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 4.3.5.3. During periods of construction, the criteria pollutant concentrations at the SRS boundary would not exceed air quality standards under normal operating conditions.

Table 4-55 presents offsite risks from carcinogens. The overall change in lifetime cancer risk is approximately 3 in 10 million, which is greater than the risk associated with expected waste forecast. Nonetheless, very small health effects to the public are expected from facilities in the maximum waste forecast.

4.3.12.3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment

Figure 4-26 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative C - maximum waste forecast for the 80kilometer (50-mile) region of interest in this eis. No communities would be disproportionately affected by emissions resulting from this case.

4.3.13 FACILITY ACCIDENTS

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

4.3.13.1 Facility Accidents - Expected Waste Forecast

Figures 4-27 through 4-30 summarize the projected impacts of radiological accidents on the population, the offsite maximally exposed individual, and uninvolved workers at 640 meters (2,100 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet) for alternative C - expected waste forecast. An anticipated accident (i.e., one occurring between once every 10 years and once every 100 years) involving mixed waste presents the greatest risk under alternative C to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS (see Figure 427). This accident scenario would increase the risk to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) by 1.7 x10^-2 latent fatal cancer per year. The postulated accident scenarios associated with the various waste types are described in Appendix F.

An anticipated accident involving mixed waste would pose the greatest risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual (Figure 4-28) and the uninvolved worker at 640 meters (2,100 feet) (Figure 4-29). The anticipated accident scenario would increase the risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual by 3.3x10^-7 latent fatal cancer per year and to the uninvolved worker at 640 meters (2,100 feet) by 1.8x10^-5 latent fatal cancer per year.

An anticipated accident involving mixed waste would pose the greatest risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) (Figure 4-30). The anticipated accident scenario would increase the risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) by 1.0x10^-3 latent fatal cancer per year.

Regardless of waste type for each receptor group, the greatest estimated risks associated with alternative C are identical to those for the noaction alternative. However, there could be differences in the overall risk to each receptor group for specific waste types. For example, the overall risks for lowlevel, mixed, and transuranic wastes are different to greater or lesser degrees between the two alternatives.

Table 4-56 provides a comparison of overall risk for specific waste types between the no-action alternative and alternative C. A multiplicative change factor is used to illustrate differences between noaction and alternative C risks. If the risks presented are identical, the multiplication factor is one. However, if the risks presented are different, the multiplication factor is the ratio of the two values. Arrows indicate whether the alternative C risks are larger or smaller than the no-action alternative risks.

A complete summary of all representative bounding accidents considered for alternative C is presented in Table 4-57. This table provides accident descriptions, annual frequency of occurrence, increased risk of latent fatal cancers for all receptor groups, and the waste type with which the accident scenario was associated. Details regarding the individual postulated accident scenarios associated with the various waste types are provided in Appendix F.

The impacts resulting from chemical hazards associated with the alternative C - expected waste forecast are the same as those discussed for alternative A in Section 4.2.13.1. Only one chemical release scenario would expose an offsite maximally exposed individual to airborne concentrations greater than ERPG2 values. 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, environmental contamination, threatened and endangered species, land use, and Native American treaty rights are considered. This qualitative assessment (see Appendix F) determined that there would be no substantial impacts from accidents for alternative C - expected waste forecast.

Table 4-56. Comparison of risks from accidents under the no-action alternative and alternativeC.

		Estimated Risk^a
Receptor	Waste^b	No-action alternative	Alternative C	Change factor^c
Population within 80 kilometers	Low-level	0.017	0.0081	-2.1
	Mixed	0.017	0.017	1.0
	Transuranic	0.005	1.4x10^-5	-3.0
	High-level	6.3x10^-4	6.3x10^-4	1.0
Offsite maximally exposed individual	Low-level	3.3x10^-7	1.6x10^-7	-2.1
	Mixed	3.3x10^-7	3.3x10^-7	1.0
	Transuranic	9.8x10^-8	2.9x10^-7	+3.0
	High-level	1.3x10^-8	1.3x10^-8	1.0
Uninvolved worker to 640 meters	Low-level	1.8x10^-5	8.9x10^-6	-2.1
	Mixed	1.8x10^-5	1.8x10^-5	1.0
	Transuranic	5.5x10^-6	1.6x10^-5	+2.9
	High-level	6.4x10^-7	6.4x10^-7	1.0
Uninvolved worker to 100 meters	Low-level	0.001	2.5x10^-4	-4.0
	Mixed	0.001	0.001	1.0
	Transuranic	3.1x10^-4	9.0x10^-4	+2.9
	High-level	1.8x10^-5	1.8x10^-5	1.0

a. Increased risk of latent fatal cancers per year.

b. Wastes are described in Section 2.1 and Appendix F.

c. Change factors represent the multiplication factor required to equate no-action alternative risks to alternative C risks (e.g., no-action risk times change factor equals alternative C risk ). The plus sign (+) indicates that alternative C presents the greater risk and the minus sign (-) indicates that alternative C presents the lesser risk.

4.3.13.2 Facility Accidents - Minimum Waste Forecast

Alternative C - minimum waste forecast is not expected to change the duration of risk for the facilities associated with the representative bounding accidents (see Appendix F).

DOE does expect that a slight decrease in risk would occur for the alternative C minimum waste forecast. A comparison of the number and types of facilities needed for the minimum and expected waste forecasts is provided in Table 2-31.

4.3.13.3 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 C (see Appendix F).

DOE does expect that an increase in risk over the expected waste forecast would occur for the maximum waste forecast under alternative C. A comparison of the number and types of facilities needed for the maximum and expected waste forecasts is provided in Section 2.5.7.

Table 4-57. Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative C.a

			Increased risk of latent fatal cancers per year^b
Accident Description	Affected waste types^c	Frequency (per year)	Uninvolved worker at 100 meters	Uninvolved worker at 640 meters	Maximally exposed offsite individual	Population within 80 kilometers
RHLWE^drelease due to a feed line break	High-level	0.007^e	1.79x10^-5	6.38x10^-7	1.32x10^-7	6.34x10^-4
RHLWE release due to a design basis earthquake	High-level	2.00x10^-4f	1.54x10^-6	5.46x10^-8	1.12x10^-9	5.43x10^-5
RHLWE release due to evaporator pressurization and breech	High-level	5.09x10^-5g	1.95x10^-6	3.46x10^-8	7.13x10	3.44x10^-5
Design basis ETFh airborne release due to tornado	High-level	3.69x10^-7i	3.20x10^-13	1.02x10^-14	7.20x10^-15	6.35x10^-14
Fire at the LLWSB^j	Low-level	0.0830^e	2.51x10^-4	8.93x10^-6	1.61x10^-7	0.00813
Container breach at the ILNTV^k	Mixed	0.02^e	0.00104	1.84x10^-5	3.31x10^-7	0.0168
Release due to multiple open containers at the Containment Building	Mixed	3.00x10^-4f	4.69x10^-7	6.91x10^-7	1.22x10^-8	5.70x10^-4
F3 tornado^l at Building 316-M	Mixed	2.80x10^-5g	5.35x10^-12	1.29x10^-9	1.65x10^-9	1.12x10^-9
Aircraft crash at the Containment Building	Mixed	1.60x10^-7i	9.73x10	3.46x10^-11	6.66x10^-13	3.19x10^-8
Deflagration in culvert during TRU^mdrum retrieval activities	Transuranic	0.01^e	8.96x10^-4	1.59x10^-5	2.86x10^-7	0.0145
Fire in culvert at the TRU waste storage pads (one drum in culvert)	Transuranic	8.10x10^-4f	3.07x10^-4	5.48x10^-6	9.84x10^-8	0.00498
Vehicle crash with resulting fire at the TRU waste storage pads	Transuranic	6.50x10^-5g	4.47x10^-6	7.96x10^-8	1.43x10^-9	7.25x10^-5

a. A complete description and analysis of the representative bounding accidents are presented in Appendix F.

b. Increased risk of fatal cancers per year is calculated by multiplying the [consequence (dose) x latent cancer conversion factor] x annual frequency. For dose consequences and latent cancer fatalities per dose, see tables in Appendix F.

c. The waste type for which the accident scenario is identified as a representative bounding accident. A representative bounding accident may be identified for more than one waste type. These waste types are listed as high-level, low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste types.

d. Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator.

e. The frequency of this accident scenario is within the anticipated accident range.

f. The frequency of this accident scenario is within the unlikely accident range.

g. The frequency of this accident scenario is within the extremely unlikely accident range.

h. F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility.

i. The frequency of this accident scenario is within beyond-extremely-unlikely accident range.

j. Long-lived waste storage building.

k. Intermediate-level nontritium vault.

l. F3 tornadoes have rotational wind speeds of 254 to 331 kilometers (158 to 206 miles) per hour.

m. Transuranic.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)