4.4 Alternative B - Moderate Treatment Configuration and DOE's Preferred Treatment Alternative
This section discusses the impacts of moderate management
practices (described in Section 2.6) on the existing environment (described in
Chapter 3).
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
Moderate treatment practices (alternative B) for waste at SRS include the ongoing activities listed under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.1). In addition, DOE would:
- Construct and operate a containment building to treat mixed waste.
- Construct and operate a non-alpha vitrification facility for mixed waste soils and sludges.
- Sort mixed waste soils at the non-alpha vitrification facility to separate uncontaminated soils for reuse.
- Operate a mobile low-level soil sort facility to separate uncontaminated soils for reuse and low-activity and suspect soils for disposal.aminate and recycle low-activity equipmentwaste (metals) offsite. Treatment residues would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal
- Treat small quantities of mixed and PCB wastes offsite.
- Operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for mixed, hazardous, and low-level wastes.
- Construct and operate a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility.
- Construct and operate an alpha vitrification facility.
- Dispose of transuranic wastes at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
- Treat small quantities of mixed and PCB wastes offsite. Treatment residuals would be returned to SRS for disposal.
- Operate the Consolidated Incineration Facility for mixed (benzene generated by the Defense Waste Processing Facility, organic and aqueous liquid wastes, decontamination solutions from the containment building, PUREX solvent, radioactive oil, sludges, and debris), hazardous, and low-level wastes.
- Treat low-activity job-control and equipment wastes offsite; residuals would be returned to SRS for treatment at the Consolidated Incineration Facility or for disposal.
- Store tritiated oil to allow time for radioactive decay.
- Send elemental mercury and mercury-contaminated materials to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for treatment; residuals would be returned to SRS for RCRA-permitted disposal or shallow land disposal
- Send calcium metal waste to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for treatment; residuals would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal
- Send lead offsite for decontamination and recycling; treatment residuals would be returned for RCRA-permitted disposal at SRS.
- Construct disposal vaults for stabilized ash and blowdown from the incineration process (Hess 1995a).
Mixed waste storage facilities would be constructed on previously cleared land in E-Area. Four of the six new waste treatment facilities (for characterization/certification of transuranic and alpha waste; for vitrification of transuranic and alpha wastes; for vitrification of mixed wastes; and for decontamination/ macroencapsulation of mixed and hazardous waste) would be built on undeveloped land northwest of FArea. (See Figures 4-31 and 4-32.)
Construction under alternative B would require 0.40 square
kilometer (99 acres) of undeveloped land northwest of FArea and 0.032
square kilometer (8 acres) of undeveloped land northeast of FArea by 2006.
An additional 0.040 square kilometer (10 acres) of undeveloped land would be
required by 2024 for construction of disposal vaults northeast of F-Area. All
other construction would be on previously cleared and developed land in the
eastern portion of EArea.
4.4.2 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES
4.4.2.1 Geologic Resources - Expected Waste Forecast
Effects from alternative B - expected waste forecast would be mainly 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.
Waste management activities associated with alternative B - expected waste forecast would affect soils in E-Area. The number of new facilities would be substantially fewer than under the no-action alternative. Approximately 0.433 square kilometer (107 acres) of undeveloped land in E-Area would be cleared and graded for the construction of new facilities through approximately 2006. Later, an additional 0.040 square kilometer (10 acres) would be cleared for construction of additional RCRA-permitted disposal vaults. This total of 0.47 square kilometer (117 acres) is approximately 73 percent of the 0.65 square kilometer (160 acres) of undisturbed land that would be required under the no-action alternative. Approximately 0.21 square kilometer (51 acres) of developed land (by 2006) would be required for new facilities. The reduction in number of facilities and corresponding decrease in the amount of land needed would reduce the area of soils that would be affected by approximately 25 percent.
The potential for accidental oil, fuel, and chemical spills would be less under this scenario than under the no-action 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; therefore, impacts to soils would be very small.
4.4.2.2 Geologic Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast
Effects on geologic resources from alternative B - minimum waste forecast would be less than those from the expected waste forecast, because less land would be disturbed by construction activities. Approximately 0.10 square kilometer (25 acres) of cleared land (by 2008) and 0.36 square kilometer (90 acres) of uncleared land (by 2024) would be used for new facilities.
For operations activities, spill prevention, control and countermeasures plans would be the same as for the no-action alternative.
4.4.2.3 Geologic Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast
Effects on geologic resources from alternative B - maximum waste forecast would be substantially greater than from the expected waste forecast, because of the large number of new facilities. Approximately 0.283 square kilometer (70 acres) of cleared land and 0.745 square kilometer (184 acres) of uncleared land in E-Area, and 3.06 square kilometers (756 acres) of cleared or uncleared land outside E-Area would be used for construction.
For operations activities, spill prevention, control and countermeasures would be the same as for the no-action alternative.
4.4.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
4.4.3.1 Groundwater Resources - Expected Waste Forecast
This section discusses the effects of alternative B - expected waste forecast on groundwater resources at SRS. Effects can be evaluated by comparing the concentrations of contaminants predicted to enter the groundwater from options under alternative B. Effects to groundwater resources under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) form the basis for comparing the alternatives and are referenced in this section.
Operation and effects 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 alternative and forecast and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to the groundwater from the disposal vaults are 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).
For alternative B - expected waste forecast, the number of additional low-activity and intermediatelevel radioactive waste disposal vaults would be less than half (6) the number required for the no-action alternative (15). Modeling has shown that releases from these vaults would not cause current groundwater standards to be exceeded during the 30year planning period, the 100year institutional control period, or at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995). As in the no-action alternative, the predicted concentrations of tritium would be a very small fraction of the drinking water standard. See the discussion in Section 4.1.3 on the basis for the 4 millirem standard for evaluating the effects of disposal in the EArea vaults on shallow groundwater at SRS.For this forecast, 58 additional slit trenches would be constructed. Fifteen (15) 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 (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots) 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 to groundwater resources for alternative B - expected waste forecast are expected to be similar to the effects under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3).
4.4.3.2 Groundwater Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast
For this forecast and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to the groundwater from 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 fewer additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal vaults (3) 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, the 100-year period of institutional control period, or at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995). Impacts to groundwater resources from disposal vaults would be similar to the impacts under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3). The predicted concentrations of tritium would be a very small fraction of the drinking water standard.
For alternative B - minimum waste forecast, 37 additional slit trenches would be constructed. Six (6) 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 will be filled with stabilized waste forms (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots) 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 for alternative B - minimum waste forecast would be similar to the impacts under the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) and expected waste forecast (Section4.4.3.1).
4.4.3.3 Groundwater Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast
For this forecast and as noted in Section 4.1.3, releases to the groundwater from 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 more additional low-activity and intermediate-level radioactive 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, the 100-year period of institutional control period, or at any time after disposal (Toblin 1995). Impacts to groundwater resources from disposal vaults under this case would be similar to those impacts discussed under the expected waste forecast and the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3). The predicted concentrations of tritium would be a very small fraction of the drinking water standard.
For alternative B - maximum waste forecast, 371 additional slit trenches would be constructed. Two hundred thirty eight (238) 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 (ashcrete, glass, smelter ingots) 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 for alternative B - maximum waste forecast would be similar to the impacts under both the no-action alternative (Section 4.1.3) and alternative B - expected waste forecast (Section 4.4.3.1).
4.4.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
4.4.4.1 Surface Water - Expected Waste Forecast
Impacts to surface water were compared by evaluating the concentrations of pollutants that would be introduced.
For alternative B - expected waste forecast, the F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility, the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility, and the M-Area Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility (which is the final stage of the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility) would operate in the same manner discussed in Section 4.1.4. The wastewater would be similar in composition to wastewater already treated in these facilities and would be discharged to surface streams via existing permitted outfalls.
The Consolidated Incineration Facility would not directly discharge wastewater to the environment. Instead, the wastewater would be used in the ashcrete process and the stabilized ash and blowdown would be disposed of in disposal vaults or sent to shallow land disposal.
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 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.
Alternative B would require the construction and operation of two vitrification facilities, a containment building, additional storage buildings, storage pads, the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility, lowlevel waste disposal trenches, and vaults. As discussed in Section 4.1.4, before facilities would be constructed, DOE would prepare erosion and sedimentation control plans to comply with state regulations on stormwater discharges; after facilities began operating, they would be included in the SRS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Other than through stormwater discharges, the containment building, the storage buildings, the storage pads, and the vaults would not affect SRS surface waters. Liquid waste discharged from processes in the containment building would be sent to the Consolidated Incineration Facility and not discharged to surface waters. The alpha vitrification facility and the non-alpha vitrification facility would have wastewater discharges that would be treated and recycled for reuse in the vitrification processes. Leakage or spills at the storage pads, storage buildings, or vaults would be collected in sumps or secondary containment and checked for contamination before being discharged. If the accumulated liquid were found to be contaminated, it would be treated prior to discharge. Stormwater infiltrating the vaults and trenches would eventually discharge to surface waters. Appendix E contains a detailed list of drinking water doses from these discharges. The doses would be 100,000 times less than the regulatory standards (40 CFR 141) (Toblin 1995).
4.4.4.2 Surface Water - Minimum Waste Forecast
For the minimum waste forecast, fewer new facilities would be built than for the expected waste forecast. The amount of wastewater needing treatment would be less than that for the expected waste forecast discussed in Section 4.4.4.1 . Wastewater would be treated in existing SRS treatment facilities. The receiving streams would not be additionally impacted. As in the expected waste forecast, surface water would not be impacted by groundwater discharges.
Erosion and sedimentation would be controlled
during construction activities, as discussed in Section 4.1.4. After the
facilities are operating, they would be included in the SRS Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan.
4.4.4.3 Surface Water - Maximum Waste Forecast
The wastewater from the vitrification facilities would be treated with ion exchange systems in dedicated wastewater treatment systems and recycled to the vitrification process for reuse, not discharged to a surface stream.
Wastewater from the containment building would be treated in a new wastewater treatment plant. The treated water would be discharged to surface water through a permitted outfall. SRS would comply with the permit limits established by SCDHEC. The predicted dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual would be 1.39´105 millirem per year (Appendix E). Wastewater would not be discharged from the mobile soil sort facility.
Erosion and sedimentation control plans and pollution prevention measures would be the same as for other cases.
4.4.5 AIR RESOURCES
4.4.5.1 Air Resources - Expected Waste Forecast
This section presents the impacts to air quality as a result of alternative B - expected waste forecast. The increases of pollutant concentrations at and beyond the SRS boundary from waste management under this alternative are small when compared to existing concentrations. Operations under alternative B would not exceed state or Federal air quality standards.
4.4.5.1.1 Construction
Potential impacts to air quality from construction activities could include fugitive dust and exhaust from earth-moving equipment. Approximately 2.90¥105 cubic meters (2.22¥105cubic yards) of soil would be disturbed in EArea for the construction of new facilities in this case.
Maximum concentrations at SRS's boundary resulting from a year of average construction are shown in Table 4-58. These concentrations are generally lower than those shown for the no-action alternative. The sum of the increase over baseline of pollutant concentrations due to construction activities plus the existing baseline concentrations would be within both state and federal air quality standards.
4.4.5.1.2 Operations
In addition to existing SRS emissions there would be nonradiological and radiological emissions due to the operation of facilities such as the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank
Precipitation; the Consolidated Incineration Facility; the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility; the mobile soil sort facility; the mixed and hazardous waste containment building; the non-alpha waste vitrification facility (including soil sorting); the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; and the alpha waste vitrification facility.
Emissions from new or proposed facilities are estimated
based on processes occurring in the facilities or similar facilities, annual
average waste flow volumes, and air permit applications. Air emissions from such facilities as storage vaults and mixed waste storage buildings would be minimal.
Increases to maximum boundary-line concentrations of pollutants would not occur as a result of the continued operation of existing facilities. Additional emissions from the M-Area Air Stripper and the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility from the expected waste forecast would be small, as discussed in Section 4.1.5.2.
Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts
Maximum ground-level concentrations for nonradiological air pollutants were estimated from the Industrial Source Complex Version 2 Dispersion Model using calculated emissions from all facilities included in alternative B (Stewart 1994). Modeled air toxic concentrations for carcinogens are based on an annual averaging period and are presented in Section 4.4.12.1.2. Air dispersion modeling was performed with calculated emission rates for the above-listed facilities (Stewart 1994).
The following facilities were incorporated into the modeling analysis for alternative B air dispersion: the Consolidated Incineration Facility, including the ashcrete storage silo, the ashcrete hopper duct, and the ashcrete mixer; four new solvent tanks to support the Consolidated Incineration Facility; the Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank Precipitation; the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility; the mixed and hazardous waste containment building; the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility; hazardous waste storage facilities; mixed waste storage facilities; the mobile soil sort facility; the nonalpha waste vitrification facility (including soil sorting); and the alpha waste vitrification facility.
The emissions of air toxics would be minimal. 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 SCDHEC 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 EArea vaults would have minimal air emissions, as described in Section 4.1.5.2.
Table 4-59 shows the increase in maximum ground-level concentrations at the SRS boundary for nonradiological air pollutants due to routine releases from facilities for alternative B - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts. For the expected waste forecast, maximum ground-level concentrations would be 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 under alternative B. The major sources of radionuclides would be the alpha and non-alpha vitrification facilities, the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility , and the Consolidated Incineration Facility. Other facilities with radiological releases would include the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility, the mobile soil sort facility, and the containment building.
SRS-specific computer codes MAXIGASP and POPGASP were used to determine the maximum 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 4-60 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 0.032 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is well within the annual dose limit of 10 millirem from SRS atmospheric releases. In comparison, an individual living near the SRS receives a dose of 0.25 millirem from all current SRS releases of radioactivity (Arnett 1994). The 0.032 millirem annual dose is greater than the 1.3´10-4millirem annual dose shown for the no-action alternative.
The annual dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS would be 1.5 person-rem. In comparison, the collective dose received from natural sources of radiation is approximately 195,000 person-rem (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). Section 4.4.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases on individuals residing offsite. The 1.5 person-rem annual dose is greater than the 2.9¥10-4annual dose shown for the no-action alternative.
4.4.5.2 Air Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast
The minimum waste forecast would have fewer adverse effects than the expected waste forecast.
4.4.5.2.1 Construction
Impacts were evaluated for the construction of facilities listed in Section 2.6.7. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary resulting from a year of average construction are presented in Table 4-58. These concentrations are less than those for the expected waste forecast. The construction-related emissions would meet both state and federal air quality standards.
4.4.5.2.2 Operations
Increases in radiological and nonradiological impacts were determined for the same facilities listed in Section 4.4.5.1.2.
Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts
Nonradiological air emissions would be less than those estimated for the expected waste forecast. Maximum boundary-line concentrations are presented in Table 4-59. Modeled concentrations would be less than those shown for the expected waste forecast. Total concentrations would be less than applicable state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Radiological Air Emissions Impacts
Table 4-60 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 0.02 millirem (Chesney 1995), which is less than the dose for 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 0.98 personrem, which
would be less than the population dose calculated for the expected waste
forecast.
Air quality would change as a result of
construction and operation activities. The minimum waste forecast would have
less impact than the expected waste forecast.
4.4.5.3 Air Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast
4.4.5.3.1 Construction
Impacts were evaluated for the construction of facilities
discussed in Section 2.6.7. Maximum concentrations at the SRS boundary
resulting from a year of average construction are presented in Table 4-58.
These concentrations are greater than those in the expected waste forecast.
Construction management procedures would require wetting of roads to reduce
particulate emissions.
During a year of average construction, the sum of the additional concentrations of air pollutants resulting from construction activities plus the existing baseline concentrations would be less than both state and federal air quality standards.
4.4.5.3.2 Operations
Both radiological and nonradiological impacts were determined for the facilities listed in Section 4.4.5.1.2. Air emissions would be greater than in the expected waste forecast, and effects on air quality would also be greater.
Nonradiological Air Emissions Impacts
Nonradiological air emissions would be greater than those estimated for the expected waste forecast. Maximum boundary-line concentrations are presented in Table 4-59. Modeled concentrations are greater than those in the expected waste forecast. Cumulative concentrations would be less than applicable state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Radiological Air Emissions Impacts
Offsite maximally exposed individual and population doses were determined for atmospheric releases resulting from routine operations at the facilities presented in Section 4.3.5.2.2.
Table 4-60 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 0.33 millirem (Chesney 1995), which would be greater than the dose for the expected waste forecast, but within 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 14 person-rem, which is greater than the population dose calculated for the expected waste forecast. In comparison, the collective dose to the same population from natural sources of radiation is approximately 195,000 person-rem (Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey 1994). Section 4.4.12.1.2 describes the potential health effects of these releases on individuals
4.4.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.6.1 Ecological Resources - Expected Waste Forecast
For alternative B - expected waste forecast, undisturbed land would be cleared and graded to build new facilities. (The land areas are given in acres; to convert to square kilometers, multiply by 0.004047.) Clearing and grading would affect 107 acres of woodland by 2006 and an additional 10 acres by 2024, as follows:
- 26 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 have recently been harvested
- 10 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1987, which would be cleared between 2006 and 2024
Effects of clearing and grading the land are described in
Section 4.1.6. The land required for this alternative is less than that
required under the no-action alternative or alternative C, but 21 acres
more than under alternative A.
4.4.6.2 Ecological Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast
Approximately 90 acres of undeveloped land located between
the M-Line railroad and the E-Area expansion and extending northwest of F-Area
would be required for alternative B - minimum waste forecast by 2024. Impacts
to the ecological resources of the area would be slightly less than those
described in Section 4.4.6.1.
4.4.6.3 Ecological Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast
Approximately 184 acres of undeveloped land located between
the M-Line railroad and the E-Area expansion and extending northwest of F-Area
would be required for the maximum waste forecast. By 2008, an additional 756 acres
of land in an undetermined location would also be required. Impacts to the
ecological resources of the area would be considerably greater than described in
Section 4.4.6.1 due to the greater area (see Section 4.2.6.3 for some
possible adverse effects). Additional threatened and endangered species surveys and wetlands
assessments would be required as part of the site-selection process should this
case be implemented.
4.4.7 LAND USE
4.4.7.1 Land Use - Expected Waste Forecast
DOE would use approximately 158 acres (107 acres of
undeveloped land; 51 acres of developed land) in EArea through 2006
for activities associated with alternative B - expected waste forecast. By
2024, the total would have been reduced to about 136 acres because as
wastes are treated and disposed of, the storage buildings would be taken out of
service and decontaminated and decommissioned; some would be demolished. 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 B would not
affect current SRS land-use plans; EArea was designated as an area for
nuclear facilities in the draft 1994 Land-Use Baseline Report.
Furthermore, no part of EArea 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 EArea 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.
4.4.7.2 Land Use - Minimum Waste Forecast
Activities associated with alternative B - minimum waste
forecast would not impact current SRS land uses. DOE
would use approximately 107 acres (51 fewer than for the expected waste
forecast) in E-Area through 2008 for the facilities described in Section 4.4.1.
4.4.7.3 Land Use - Maximum Waste Forecast
Activities associated with alternative B - maximum
waste forecast would not affect current SRS land uses.
By 2006, DOE would use a total of 1,010 acres (254 acres in EArea
and 756 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 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). Current land uses in EArea
would not be impacted. The location of the 756 acres outside of EArea
has not been identified and would be the subject of further impact analyses (see
Appendix J). However, DOE would minimize the impact of clearing 756 acres
by using the central industrialized portion of the site, as described in Section 2.1.2
and Figure 2-1.
4.4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS
This section describes the potential effects of alternative
B on the socioeconomic resources in the region of influence discussed in Section
3.8.
4.4.8.1 Socioeconomics - Expected Waste Forecast
4.4.8.1.1 Construction
DOE anticipates that construction employment
would peak during 2004 through 2005 with approximately 170 jobs (Table 4-61),
120 more 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 alternative B. 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.
Table 4-61. Estimated construction and operations employment for alternative B - minimum, expected, and maximum waste forecasts.a
4.4.8.1.2 Operations
Operations employment associated
with implementation of the alternative B - expected waste forecast is expected
to peak in 2008 through 2018 with an estimated 2,550 jobs (Table 4-61), 100 more
than during peak employment under the no-action alternative. This employment
demand represents less than 1 percent of 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
does not anticipate an impact on socioeconomic resources from changes in
operations employment.
4.4.8.2 Socioeconomics - Minimum Waste Forecast
4.4.8.2.1 Construction
Construction employment
associated with alternative B - minimum waste forecast would be slightly less
than that for the expected waste forecast and would peak during 2004 through
2005 with approximately 120 jobs (Table 4-61), 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 alternative. As a
result, socioeconomic resources in the region would not be affected.
4.4.8.2.2 Operations
Operations employment associated with implementation of the minimum waste forecast is expected to peak during 2017 and 2018 with an estimated 1,570 jobs (Table 4-60), 980 fewer than the expected waste forecast. This employment demand represents less than 1 percent of the forecast employment in 2018 and approximately 8 percent of 1995 SRS employment. DOE believes these jobs would be filled from the existing SRS workforce and, therefore, anticipates that socioeconomic resources would not be affected by changes in operations employment.
4.4.8.3 Socioeconomics - Maximum Waste Forecast
4.4.8.3.1 Construction
Construction employment associated with alternative B - maximum waste forecast would be greater than that for the expected waste forecast and would peak during 2003 through 2005 with approximately 330 jobs (Table 4-61), 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 alternative. As a result, DOE does not expect socioeconomic resources in the region to be affected.
4.4.8.3.2 Operations
Operations employment associated
with the implementation of alternative B - maximum waste forecast is expected to
peak between 2002 through 2005 with an estimated 10,010 jobs (Table 4-62),
which represents 3.7 percent of the forecast regional employment in 2005 and
approximately 50 percent of SRS's employment in 1995. 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 2,110 new employees would 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 4,800 new jobs (Table 4-63) (HNUS 1995b). This would represent a 1.8 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 new residents may have children after they move into the area. As a result, the maximum change in population would occur in 2005 with an estimated 8,340 additional people in the six-county region (Table 4-63) (HNUS 1995b). This increase is approximately 1.7 percent above the baseline 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 $390 million increase over forecast regional income levels for that year (Table 4-63) (HNUS 1995b). This would be a 2.5 percent increase over baseline income levels and would have a substantial, positive effect on the regional economy.
4.4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4.9.1 Cultural Resources - Expected Waste Forecast
This section discusses the effects of alternative B - expected waste forecast on cultural resources. As illustrated in Figure 431, waste management facilities under alternative B would be constructed primarily within the currently developed, fenced portion of EArea. Construction within this area would not affect archaeological resources because this area has been disturbed.
Construction of disposal vaults to the northwest of the currently developed portion of EArea (Figure 431) would not affect archaeological resources because when this area was surveyed, no important sites were discovered. No additional archaeological work is planned.
Archaeological sites in the area of proposed 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.
4.4.9.2 Cultural Resources - Minimum Waste Forecast
Construction of new waste management facilities for this
forecast would require approximately 0.21 square kilometer (51 acres) less
than for the expected waste forecast. Although the precise configuration of
facilities is currently undetermined, construction would take place within the
areas discussed in Section 4.4.9.1.
As discussed in Section 4.4.9.1, construction within the
developed and fenced portion of E-Area or to the northwest of this area would
have no effect on cultural or archaeological resources. Before construction
could be initiated 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).
4.4.9.3 Cultural Resources - Maximum Waste Forecast
Construction of new waste management facilities for this
forecast would require approximately 4.1 square kilometers (1,010 acres),
3.4 square kilometers (852 acres) more than for the expected waste forecast.
Much of the proposed construction would take place within E-Area. However, this
area is not large enough to support all of the new facilities. DOE would need
an additional estimated 3.1 square kilometers (756 acres) outside of the
areas addressed in Section 4.4.9.1.
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 has determined the precise location of the
additional 3.1 square kilometers (756 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 all areas
proposed for construction activities prior to disturbance. If important
resources were discovered, DOE would avoid or remove them.
4.4.10 AESTHETICS AND SCENIC RESOURCES - EXPECTED, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM WASTE FORECASTS
Activities associated with alternative B and the three waste
forecasts would not adversely affect scenic resources or aesthetics. E-Area is
already dedicated to industrial use. 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.
4.4.11 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
4.4.11.1 Traffic
4.4.11.1.1 Traffic - Expected Waste Forecast
This section discusses the effects of alternative B -
expected waste forecast on traffic and transportation.
This case would require 119 more construction workers than
the no-action alternative. Traffic on all roads would remain within carrying
capacity (Table 4-64), and effects on traffic would be minimal.
Table 4-64. Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative B.
There would be four additional daily waste shipments over the no-action estimate (Table 4-65). These additional shipments are due primarily to the shipment of low-level waste to offsite processing facilities. Offsite trucks with shipments of low-level waste would travel approximately 340,000 miles per year and would be expected to result in 0.04 prompt fatality annually. DOE does not expect effects on traffic.
Table 4-65. SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck under alternative B.a
As discussed in Section 4.1.11.1, the 1992 South Carolina
highway fatality rate of 2.3 per 100 million miles driven leads to a
baseline estimate of 5.5 traffic fatalities annually. Under alternative B, the
largest increase in construction workers would occur for the maximum waste
forecast (280 more workers than under the noaction alternative). These
workers would be expected to drive 3.3 million miles annually (2.8 million
miles more than under the no-action alternative), which is predicted to result
in 1.4 additional prompt fatalities per year.
4.4.11.1.2 Traffic - Minimum Waste Forecast
Alternative B - minimum waste forecast would require 68 more
construction workers (Table 4-64) than the no-action alternative. Traffic on
all roads would remain within design capacity, and the effects of increased
traffic would be minimal.
There would be 11 fewer waste shipments per day compared to
estimates for the no-action alternative (Table 4-65). This would be due to
smaller volumes of all types of waste. The effects of decreased truck traffic
would be minimal.
4.4.11.1.3 Traffic - Maximum Waste Forecast
Alternative B - maximum waste forecast would require 280 more construction workers than the noaction alternative (Table 4-64). However, traffic on all roads would remain within carrying capacity, and effects to traffic would be minimal.
There would be 57 additional daily waste shipments
over the no-action estimate (Table 4-65), primarily due to the larger volumes of
wastes [offsite shipments of low-level waste would be approximately equal to the
expected case (2 per day)]. Except for offsite shipments, these 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
wastetransuranic 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 57
trucks during normal work hours would be expected to have a
very small adverse effect on traffic.
4.4.11.2 Transportation
Consequences of incident-free onsite transportation over 30
years under alternative B were based on those calculated for the no-action
alternative adjusted for changes in number of shipments (as a result of changes
in volume of waste shipped). Consequences and health effects of onsite transportation accidents
for any given shipment are independent of the number of shipments and are,
therefore, the same as for the noaction alternative (Table 4-8). The
probability of an accident occurring for each type of waste shipped is shown in
Table 4-26.
For alternative B, DOE analyzed the impacts from offsite
shipments of mixed waste (lead) and lowlevel waste. Other offsite
shipments were excluded from the analyses because the volumes over the 30-year
period are very small or the shipments occur only once. The methodology and
receptors are defined in Section 4.2.11.
4.4.11.2.1 Transportation - Expected Waste Forecast
Incident-Free Radiological Impacts
For the expected waste forecast, there would be a small
increase in dose and in the number of excess fatal cancers compared to the
no-action alternative because of the addition of stabilized ash and blowdown
from the Consolidated Incineration Facility that would be shipped onsite (Table 4-66) for this
alternative.
The probability per year of an individual uninvolved worker
developing an additional fatal cancer from incident-free onsite shipments is
about 1 in 200,000 (Table 4-66). Members of the involved and uninvolved worker
populations could expect less than one fatal cancer
from transportation exposure.
Table 4-66. Annual dose (percent change from the no-action alternative) and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative B - expected waste forecast.
Radiological effects of offsite shipments would be similar
to those under alternative A and are summarized in Table 4-67. The probability
of an individual member of the public developing an additional fatal cancer
would be about 1 in 15 millionper
year from
incident-free offsite transportation of radioactive material (Table 4-67).
The number of additional fatal cancers that could be expected among members of the public and involved workers would be less than one per year from incident-free onsite transportation. This analysis
assumes that offsite shipments occur between SRS and a facility located in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. This route was selected as representative of possible offsite
vendor locations.
Table 4-67. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material for alternative B - expected waste forecast.
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 a particular accident would be the same as
described in Section 4.1.11.3. Probabilities of an accident involving each
waste type are given in Table 4-26.
The consequences and associated excess latent cancer
fatalities in the offsite
population along the transportation route ("remote population")
from offsite shipments under this alternative are similar to those for the
uninvolved workers from onsite shipments as summarized in Table 4-67 and Table 4-27.
An offsite accident would be less severe than one involving onsite shipments
due to the smaller volume of waste in an individual shipment (Table 4-68).
The number of fatal cancers that could be expected among members of the public
would be less than one from incident-free offsite transport.
Table 4-68. Probability of an accident during 30 years of offsite transport of radioactive material for each waste forecast under alternative B, dose, and excess latent cancer fatalities from an accident.
4.4.11.2.2 Transportation - Minimum Waste Forecast
Incident-Free Radiological Impacts
For the minimum waste forecast, there would be decreases in
dose to all onsite receptors from all radioactive shipments compared to doses
from the expected waste forecast (Table 4-69) due to the decrease in
volumes of waste.
The annual probability of an uninvolved worker developing an additional fatal cancer from incident-free onsite transport would be about 1 in 430,000 (Table 4-69). Involved workers and uninvolved workers could expect less than one additional excess fatal cancer per year.
For the minimum waste forecast, the annual probability of a member of the public developing an additional fatal cancer would be about 1 in 21 million from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material (Table 4-70). The number of additional fatal cancers that could be expected among 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 decrease slightly for the minimum waste forecast (Table 4-26)
because of the decreased volumes that would be shipped compared to those for the
expected waste forecast; however, the consequences due to a particular accident
would be the same as described in Section 4.1.11.2.2. Effects of offsite
shipments would be the same as in Table 48; however, the probability
of an offsite accident would decrease by about one half compared to the expected
waste forecast due to the decrease in volume of waste shipped (Table 4-68).
Table 4-69. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative B - minimum waste forecast.
(person-rem) |
(person-rem) |
|||||
| Low-level | 5.7¥10-3 | (-49%) | 1.0 | (-51%) | 120 | (-49%) |
| Mixed | 4.4¥10-5 | (-34%) | 0.091 | (-53%) | 2.5 | (-47%) |
| Transuranic | 9.0¥10-5 | (-30%) | 0.0066 | (-30%) | 0.1 | (-30%) |
| Totalsc | 5.9¥10-3d | 1.1e | 120e | |||
| Excess latent cancer fatalities | 2.3¥10-6f | 4.4x10-4g | 0.050g | |||
4.4.11.2.3 Transportation - Maximum Waste Forecast
Incident-Free Radiological Impacts
For the maximum waste forecast, there would be large
increases in dose to all receptors compared to the expected waste forecast
(Table 4-71), due to the increases in volumes of all wastes that would be
shipped. These increases would be similar to those described under alternative
A - maximum waste forecast.
Table 4-71. Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material for alternative B - maximum waste forecast.
The annual probability of an uninvolved worker developing an
additional fatal cancer would be about 1 in 150,000(Table 4-71). The involved workers population
and the uninvolved workers could expect less than one additional excess fatal
cancer from 30 years of incident-free onsite transportation under the maximum
waste forecast.
The annual probability of a member of the public developing
an additional fatal cancer is about 1 in 7,700,000from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material (Table 4-72). The number of additional fatal cancers that could be expected among
members of the public and involved workers would be less than one.
Table 4-72. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsite transport of radioactive material for alternative B - maximum waste forecast.
Transportation Accident Impacts
The probability of an onsite accident involving radioactive wastes would increase (Table 4-26) 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 468); however, the probability of an offsite accident would be three times greater than the expected waste forecast because of the increase in volume of waste shipped.
4.4.12 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HeaLTH
Radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers and the public are presented in this section for alternative B. As expected, the impacts are smallest for the minimum waste forecast and largest for the maximum waste forecast.
Under alternative B, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, the alpha and non-alpha vitrification facilities, the mixed and, hazardous waste containment building, the mobile soil sort facility, compaction facilities, and the transuranic waste characterization/certification facility would operate. Emissions from these facilities (see Appendix E for detailed facility dose information) would increase adverse health effects over the noaction alternative for the three waste forecasts. However, effects would remain small relative to those normally expected in the worker and regional population groups from all causes. In addition, significant quantities of low-level radioactive waste would be shipped offsite for processing (supercompacting, sorting, incinerating, or smelting).
Under this alternative the major sources of potential exposure the involved workers would be the transuranic waste storage pads, the F and HArea tank farms, and the transuranic characterization/certification facility; for the public and uninvolved workers, the major sources of potential exposure would be environmental releases from the alpha and non-alpha vitrification facilities, the transuranic characterization/certification facility, and the Consolidated Incineration Facility (Consolidated Incineration Facility impacts are summarized in Appendix B.5). The report Dose Comparison for Air Emissions From Incineration and Compaction of SRS Low-level Radioactive Job Control Waste (Mulholland and Robinson 1994) compared radionuclide releases from treating solid low-level waste by incineration and compaction. The report evaluated release mechanisms and control equipment efficiencies to estimate quantities of radionuclides released by each process. These emissions were used to estimate doses to the nearest uninvolved worker and the maximally exposed offsite individual based on treatment of similar volumes of job-control waste by each technology. The report estimated that the annual dose to the uninvolved worker (baseline emissions estimate) at a distance of 350 meters (1,148 feet) from the Consolidated Incineration Facility and to the maximally exposed offsite individual would be 7.7 ´ 10-4millirem and 8.6´10 -4millirem, respectively. As a perspective, these dose rates are 400,000 times lower than the background radiation dose (357 millirem, see Section 3.12.1.1) that the average member of the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS receives.
The Mulholland and Robinson (1994a) report estimated the
annual dose to the maximally exposed offsite individual from compaction of
low-level job control waste to range from 1.3´10-6millirem to 4.1´105millirem, depending on the percentage of tritium assumed
to be released in the process. Similarly, the annual dose to the uninvolved
worker ranged from 5.9´10-5millirem to 0.0013
millirem. These doses are 30,000 times lower than the background radiation rate
for the SRS region.
For radiological assessments, the same general methodology
was used as for 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.
4.4.12.1 Occupational and Public Health - Expected Waste Forecast
For alternative B - expected waste forecast, the amounts of
wastes to be treated are the same as for the no-action alternative.
4.4.12.1.1 Occupational Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-73 presents the worker doses and resulting health
effects associated with the expected waste
forecast. The doses (0.037 rem per year) would be well below 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 for alternative B - expected waste forecast would be much lower
than those expected from all causes during the workers' lifetimes. An
individual worker has a 1 in 44,000 probability of developing a fatal cancer due
to exposure to SRS waste management activities. Therefore, in the involved
workforce of 2,154 workers, there could be as many as one additional fatal
cancer from the 30 years of waste management activities considered in this
eis.
Nonradiological Impacts
DOE considered potential nonradiological impacts to SRS workers from air emissions from the following facilities: Defense Waste Processing Facility, including In-Tank Precipitation; the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility; the Consolidated Incineration Facility; Building 645-2N, mixed waste storage; the mobile soil sort facility; four new solvent tanks; the transuranic waste characterization/ certification facility; 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 for the Consolidated Incineration Facility.
Table E.2-3 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.
Worker exposure is approximately the same as would occur in the no-action
alternative due to the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility and Building 645-2N
mixed waste storage operations. In most instances,
downwind concentrations would be less than 1 percent of the applicable
Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure guidelines.
DOE expects minimal health impacts to uninvolved workers due to air emissions from these facilities.
4.4.12.1.2 Public Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-74 presents the doses to the public and resulting health effects that are associated with the expected waste forecast. The annual doses to the maximally exposed individual (0.032 millirem) and to the SRS regional population 1.5 person-rem) would be lower than those that resulted from total SRS operations in 1993, which were much 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 (1.710 3millirem) and to regional population (1.210-2person-rem) surrounding Oak Ridge, Tennessee, represent a small fraction (less than 6 percent) of the comparable doses to the SRS regional population. These doses remain less than 6 percent of the comparable SRS doses for all waste forecast under this alternative (see Appendix E for facility specific data). For this waste forecasts, radiologically induced health effects to the public (0.023 fatal cancers from 30 years of exposure) would be very small (Table 4-74).
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 4.4.5.1.2.
For routine releases from SRS operating facilities under the
expected waste forecast, criteria pollutant concentrations would be within state
and federal ambient air quality standards, as
discussed in Section 4.4.5.1.2. During periods of construction, the
criteria pollutant concentrations at the SRS boundary would not exceed air
quality standards under normal operating conditions.
Risks due to carcinogens for the SRS offsite population
were calculated using the Industrial Source Complex 2 model for the same
facilities discussed in Section 4.4.12.1.1. Emissions of carcinogenic compounds
are based on the types and quantities of waste being processed at each facility.
Table 4-75 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). As shown in Table 4-75, 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. This risk is
equal to the calculated excess latent cancer risk for the no-action alternative.
DOE expects minimal health impacts from offsite exposures.
4.4.12.1.3 Environmental Justice Assessment
Section 4.1.12.2.3 describes the methodology for analyzing
radiological dose emissions to determine if there would be disproportionate and
adverse impacts on people of color or low income. Figure 4-33 illustrates the
results of the analysis for alternative B - expected waste forecast for the
80-kilometer (50mile) 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 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 in this alternative.
4.4.12.2 Occupational and Public Health - Minimum Waste Forecast
Because the waste amounts for alternative B - minimum waste
forecast would be smaller than for the expected waste forecast and the treatment
operations would be basically the same, the impacts to workers and the public
would be smaller than described in Section 4.4.12.1.
4.4.12.2.1 Occupational Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-73 includes the worker doses and resulting health effects associated with the minimum waste forecast. Doses (0.036 rem per year) and health effects associated with this case would be smaller than those associated with the expected waste forecast. The dose from 30 years of waste management could result in one additional fatal cancer in the involved workforce.
Nonradiological Impacts
Table E.2-4 in Appendix E presents a comparison of the
nonradiological air concentrations to permissible exposure limits under the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Exposures to SRS workers are
either equal to or less 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.
Worker exposure is less than that which would occur under the no-action
alternative due to the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility and Building 645-2N
mixed waste storage operations.
4.4.12.2.2 Public Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-74 includes the doses and resulting health effects to the public that are 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. An 0.015 additional fatal cancer in the exposed public could occur from 30 years of minimum waste generation under alternative B.
Nonradiological Impacts
Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite are considered for both criteria and carcinogenic pollutants for 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 4.4.5.2. During periods of construction, the criteria pollutant concentrations at the site boundary would not exceed air quality standards under normal operating conditions.
Table 4-75 presents offsite risks due to emissions of carcinogens. The overall increased lifetime cancer risk is approximately 3 in 10 million, which is less than for the expected waste forecast. DOE expects minimal health impacts from the minimum waste forecast.
4.4.12.2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment
Figure 4-34 illustrates the results of the analysis for
alternative B - minimum waste forecast for the 80kilometer (50mile)
region of interest in this eis. No communities would be disproportionately
affected by emissions resulting from this scenario.
4.4.12.3 Occupational and Public Health - Maximum Waste Forecast
The amounts of wastes to be treated for alternative B - maximum waste forecast would be greater than for the minimum and expected waste forecasts, but the treatment operations would be the same. The maximum waste forecast would result in the largest health impacts to workers and the public for this alternative.
4.4.12.3.1 Occupational Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-73 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. Based on a risk estimator of 0.0004 latent cancer fatality per rem (Section 4.1.12.1), the probability of a worker contracting a fatal cancer as the result of a 30-year occupational exposure to radiation would be about
7 chances in 10,000. It is also projected that 2 people in the workforce of 2,501 could develop a fatal cancer sometime during their lifetimes as the result of a 30-year exposure. Based on a lifetime fatal cancer risk from all causes of 23.5 percent (refer to Section 4.1.12.1), 588 people in this workforce would be expected to develop a fatal cancer independent of their occupational exposure.
Nonradiological Impacts
Nonradiological air concentrations were assessed for exposure by SRS workers under the maximum waste forecast. Table E.2-4 in Appendix E presents a comparison of these concentrations to permissible exposure limits under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Exposures to SRS workers would be either equal to or greater than those that would occur under the expected waste forecast. However, for all facilities, employee occupational exposure would be less than Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limits.
4.4.12.3.2 Public Health and Safety
Radiological Impacts
Table 4-74 includes the doses associated with the maximum waste forecast and resulting health effects to the public. The annual doses to the maximally exposed individual (0.33 millirem) and to the regional population (14 person-rem) would exceed the corresponding doses (0.25 millirem and 9.1 person-rem) 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 4-74. Based on a risk estimator of 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per rem (see Section 4.1.12.2), the probability of the maximally exposed member of the public developing a fatal cancer from 30 years of exposure to radiation associated with this waste forecast would be about 5 in 1 million. The number of additional fatal cancers in the regional population could be 0.20 (effectively zero). This probability of a fatal cancer is much smaller than the 1 chance in 4 that a member of the public would contract a fatal cancer from all causes, and the total fatal cancers would be much fewer than the 145,700 cancers that would be expected in the regional population of 620,100 from all causes sometime during their lifetimes.
Alternative B would result in radiological doses and health effects to the public that are intermediate between those associated with the alternatives A and C (Tables 4-33, 4-54, and 4-74). This would be true regardless of the amount of waste generated.
Nonradiological Impacts
Potential nonradiological impacts to individuals residing offsite were 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 qualitystandards, as discussed in Section 4.4.5.3. 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 procedures, such as wetting dirt roads twice a day, particulate emissions would be approximately 50 percent of the levels shown in Section 4.4.5.3. DOE does not expect adverse health impacts due to routine air releases from operating facilities and construction activities.
Table 4-75 presents offsite risks due to carcinogens. The overall increased lifetime cancer risk is approximately 3 in 10 million, which is approximately equal to the expected waste forecast risk. DOE expects minimal health impacts from emissions of carcinogenic compounds.
4.4.12.3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment
Figure 4-35 illustrates the results of the analysis for alternative B - maximum waste forecast for the 80kilometer (50-mile) region of interest in this eis. Emissions resulting from this case would not disproportionately affect any communities.
4.4.13 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 B. 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.
4.4.13.1 Facility Accidents- Expected Waste Forecast
Figures 4-36 through 4-39 summarize the projected impacts of radiological accidents on the population, offsite maximally exposed individual, and uninvolved workers at 640 meters (2,100 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet) for alternative B expected waste forecast. An anticipated accident (i.e., one occurring between once every 10 years and once every 100 years) involving either low-level waste or mixed waste is the accident scenario under alternative B that presents the greatest risk to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS (see Figure 4-27). This accident scenario would increase the risk to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) by 1.7 ´10-2latent fatal cancer per year. The postulated accident scenarios associated with the various waste types are described in Appendix F.
An anticipated accident involving either low-level waste or mixed waste would pose the greatest risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual (Figure 4-37) and the uninvolved worker at 640 meters (2,100 feet) (Figure 4-38). 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 low-level waste or mixed waste would also pose the greatest risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) (Figure 4-39). The anticipated accident scenario would increase the risk to the uninvolved worker at 100 meters (328 feet) by 1.0´ 10-3 latent fatal cancer per year.
For each receptor group, regardless of waste type, the greatest estimated risks associated with the noaction alternative and alternative B are identical. However, there could be differences in the overall risk to each receptor group for specific waste types. Table 4-76 provides a comparison of overall risk for specific waste types between the no-action alternative and alternative B. A multiplicative change factor is used to illustrate differences between no-action and alternative B risks. If the risks presented are identical, a multiplication factor of one is used. However, if the risks presented are different, a multiplication factor that would equate the two values is used. Arrows indicate whether the alternative B risks were larger or smaller than the no-action risks.
A complete summary of all representative bounding accidents considered for alternative B is presented in Table 4-77. 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 alternative B 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 ERPG-2 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 under alternative B expected waste forecast.
Table 4-77. Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative Ba
Table 4-76. Comparison of risks from accidents under the no-action alternative and alternative B.
| Estimated Riska | ||||
| Population within 80 kilometers | Low-level | 0.017 | 0.017 | 1.0 |
| Mixed | 0.017 | 0.017 | _1.0 | |
| Transuranic | 0.005 | 0.015 | _3.0 | |
| High-level | 6.3´10-4 | 6.3´10-4 | 1.0 | |
| Offsite maximally exposed individual | Low-level | 3.3´10-7 | 3.3´10-7 | 1.0 |
| Mixed | 3.3´10-7 | 3.3´10-7 | 1.0 | |
| Transuranic | 9.8´10-8 | 2.9´10-7 | _3.0 | |
| High-level | 1.3´10-8 | 1.3´10-8 | 1.0 | |
| Uninvolved worker to 640 meters | Low-level | 1.8´10-5 | 1.8´10-5 | 1.0 |
| Mixed | 1.8´10-5 | 1.8´10-5 | 1.0 | |
| Transuranic | 5.5´10-6 | 1.6´10-5 | _2.9 | |
| High-level | 3.4´10-7 | 3.4´10-7 | 1.0 | |
| Uninvolved worker to 100 meters | Low-level | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.0 |
| Mixed | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.0 | |
| Transuranic | 3.1 ´10-4 | 9.0 ´10-4 | _2.9 | |
| High-level | 1.8´10-5 | 1.8´10-5 | 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 the no-action alternative risks to the alternative B risks (e.g., no-action alternative risk times change factor equals alternative B risk). The up arrow (_) indicates that the alternative B risk is the greater risk 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.
4.4.13.2 Facility Accidents - Minimum Waste Forecast
The minimum waste forecast is not expected to change the duration of risk for the facilities associated with the representative bounding accidents identified under alternative B (see Appendix F).
DOE expects that a slight decrease in risk would occur for alternative B - minimum waste forecast. A comparison of the number and types of facilities needed for the minimum and expected waste forecasts is provided in Section 2.6.7.
4.4.13.3 Facility Accidents - Maximum Waste Forecast
The maximum waste forecast is not expected to change the duration of risk for the facilities associated with the representative bounding accidents identified under alternative B (see Appendix F).
DOE expects that an increase in risk would occur for the alternative B maximum waste forecast over the expected waste forecast. A comparison of the number and type of facilities needed for the maximum and expected waste forecasts is provided in Section 2.6.7.
4.4.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES UNDER ALTERNATIVE B
This section describes adverse impacts that would result from alternative B that cannot be avoided. It also describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would be associated with alternative B. As indicated in the preceding sections, the major variations in impacts are much more strongly influenced by the amount of wastes to be managed than by variations in the degree of treatment applied. Accordingly, the unavoidable adverse impacts and the irretrievable commitments of resources for the various waste forecasts for alternative B are also representative of the same forecasts under alternatives A and C.
4.4.14.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Several unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected as a result of implementing alternative B. The following sections identify impacts for the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts.
4.4.14.1.1 Expected Waste Forecast
Construction activities would generate transient and minor air quality impacts as a result of fugitive dust and vehicle emissions.
Unavoidable radiation exposures to workers and the public from normal operation for alternative B - expected waste forecast would be well below established DOE limits. The hypothetical offsite maximally exposed individual would receive an annual average effective dose equivalent of 0.032 millirem from facility operations, compared to about 300 millirem from natural radiation sources. The two radioisotopes contributing the most to the potential exposure would be cesium-137 and plutonium239.
New facilities would require the conversion of approximately 0.64 square kilometer (158 acres; both developed and undeveloped) to waste management use by 2006. Long-term impacts are expected to be limited to the loss of 0.47 square kilometer (117 acres) of undeveloped terrestrial habitat and associated natural resources. Small mammals, reptiles, and birds occupying this habitat would be displaced, disturbed, or killed by land clearing and associated construction activities, but local and regional populations of these wildlife species would not be severely affected.
Construction of waste management facilities would prohibit use of associated land areas for other purposes (e.g., agriculture or timber production) for the foreseeable future. However, E-Area was designated as an area for nuclear facilities in the 1994 Draft Land-Use Baseline Report, and is being used as intended.
Releases of radioactive constituents from low-level and mixed waste disposal facilities (vaults and slit trenches) would introduce radioactive contaminants to groundwater. Resulting concentrations would remain within the performance of objective of 4 millirem per year adopted by DOE in Order 5400.5. Hazardous constituents would also be released from the disposal facilities. Groundwater would eventually carry contaminants to the onsite streams. In addition, onsite streams would receive wastewater discharges containing hazardous and radioactive constituents, such as the discharge from the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility to Upper Three Runs. These streams would eventually carry the hazardous and radioactive constituents to the Savannah River. Impacts on groundwater resources, surface water resources, and aquatic organisms would be small.
Traffic increases under alternative B are expected to be small and the impacts on onsite and offsite roads small.
DOE anticipates that only minor unavoidable adverse impacts on public or worker health would result from the expected waste forecast. The calculated discharges and exposures of pollutants (including radioactivity) to the public and facility workers would be many times below normal risk levels. This case would result in an additional 7.5´ 10-4 latent cancer fatality per year to the offsite population from airborne releases of radioactivity.
Archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places could be affected during construction of waste management facilities on undeveloped land within EArea. Mitigation action plans developed by the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program and approved by the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office would protect, recover, or preserve these resources.
An unavoidable adverse impact resulting from operation of the proposed waste management facilities would be the generation of new waste, including low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and nonhazardous solid waste. Disposal of these wastes has been accounted for in planning the proposed waste management facilities, with the exception of nonhazardous solid waste, which would be accommodated in existing onsite sanitary and industrial landfills and their successors.
4.4.14.1.2 Minimum Waste Forecast
The adverse impacts associated with the minimum waste forecast that cannot be avoided would be slightly less than those associated with the expected waste forecast. For example, only 0.36 square kilometer (90 acres) of undeveloped woodland would be cleared and graded. A maximum of 107 acres (both developed and undeveloped) would be converted to waste management use by 2008.
4.4.14.1.3 Maximum Waste Forecast
The adverse impacts associated with the maximum waste forecast that cannot be avoided would be greater than those associated with the expected waste forecast. For example, 3.8 square kilometers (940 acres) of undeveloped woodland would be cleared and graded. A maximum of 1,010 acres (both developed and undeveloped) would be converted to waste management use by 2006. The loss of this much natural habitat could adversely affect protected natural resources such as wetlands and threatened and endangered species. Impacts would require mitigation measures.
There would be 57 additional daily waste shipments over the 1994 baseline, primarily due to the larger volume of waste and the shipment of stabilized ash and blowdown from the Consolidated Incineration Facility to E-Area. This would almost triple the 1994 baseline traffic, but would be expected to slightly increase the total volume of onsite traffic and would not be expected to impact the SRS road system.
4.4.14.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Several irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources would be expected to result from implementing alternative B. The sections which follow identify these commitments for the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts.
4.4.14.2.1 Expected Waste Forecast
The implementation of alternative B - expected waste forecast would commit approximately 0.47 square kilometer (117 acres) of undeveloped land and associated natural resources and a total of 158 acres (both developed and undeveloped) to waste management use for an indefinite period of time.
Construction and operation of the facilities needed for alternative B - expected waste forecast would involve the commitment of land resources. At present, most of this land is dedicated to industrial, nuclear, and waste management uses. With the exception of the land supporting existing facilities, all other land could be recommitted to other purposes, if required.
Construction of the various facilities would require the consumption of materials such as concrete and steel. Operation of the nonalpha vitrification facility and the Consolidated Incineration Facility would consume chemicals such as nitrogen, sodium hydroxide, nitric acid, glass frit, sodium nitrite, and others. Operation of the waste management facilities would generate small volumes of nonhazardous solid, hazardous mixed, and low-level radioactive wastes and would require additional land area for disposal of these wastes.
Construction and operation of the waste management facilities associated with alternative B - expected waste forecast would include consumption of fossil fuels. Gasoline and diesel fuel would be consumed by heavy equipment used to clear and grade land and construct facilities. Fuel oil would be used as auxiliary fuel in each of the thermal treatment facilities. Auxiliary fuel consumption by the Consolidated Incineration Facility under alternative B has been evaluated in this eis and is presented in Table B.5-2 of Appendix B. Comparable amounts of auxiliary fuel would be consumed by the thermal pretreatment units of the non-alpha and alpha vitrification facilities. Fuels would also be consumed to provide electrical power, including diesel fuel for emergency generators.
Releases from low-level and mixed waste disposal facilities (vaults and slit trenches) would introduce radioactive and hazardous contaminants to groundwater and streams. Concentrations of radioactive constituents in groundwater would remain within the performance objective of 4 millirem per year adopted by DOE in Order 5400.5.
4.4.14.2.2 Minimum Waste Forecast
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for alternative B - minimum waste forecast would be slightly less than for the expected waste forecast. For example, approximately 0.43 square kilometer (107 acres) of land (both developed and undeveloped) would be committed to waste management.
4.4.14.2.3 Maximum Waste Forecast
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for alternative B - maximum waste forecast would be substantially greater than for the expected waste forecast. For example, approximately 0.74 square kilometer (184 acres) of undeveloped woodland in E-Area and 3.1 square kilometers (756 acres) of undeveloped woodland in an undetermined location would be required for the maximum waste forecast. A maximum of 1,010 acres (both developed and undeveloped) would be used for waste management by 2006.
4.4.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM ALTERNATIVEB
This section presents potential cumulative impacts from alternative B when it is added to impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable onsite activities and impacts of offsite industrial facilities.
Cumulative impacts were assessed only for the moderate treatment alternative with the expected waste forecast because the impacts for this case generally fall between the other cases, and impacts do not vary greatly between alternatives. Despite some variation in impacts, using this approach allows for an assessment of the cumulative impacts that are representative of the magnitude of the cumulative impacts of the other alternatives. Assessing the cumulative impacts of one case also simplifies the presentation of the analysis.
4.4.15.1 Existing Facilities
The existing facilities and activities that are included in the analysis of baseline impacts are summarized in the following sections. Projected releases from normal operations of these facilities are reflected in the descriptions of baseline environmental conditions in Chapter 3 and are included in the analysis of impacts in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 and 4.4.1 through 4.4.13.
4.4.15.1.1 Savannah River - Technology Center
The Savannah River Technology Center is the major research and development laboratory at SRS. It conducts research on fuels and targets, waste management, and process modifications and provides support for SRS improvements (WSRC 1994i).
4.4.15.1.2 F- and H-Area Separations Facilities
At the F- and H-Area separations facilities, irradiated fuel and target elements are dissolved in nitric acid. A solvent-extraction process yields (1) a solution of plutonium, uranium, and neptunium and (2) a highly radioactive liquid waste containing nonvolatile fission products. After the product solutions are separated from the fission products, further processing converts plutonium, uranium, and other products in solution to solid forms for shipment, recycling, or further processing. Chemical processing in F-Area was suspended in March 1992 pending resolution of a potential safety concern and resumed after resolution of the safety concerns (DOE 1994c) and issuance of the Record of Decision on the F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions at SRS eis (DOE 1995a). H-Area chemical processing has continued in support of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration space exploration program (DOE 1994b).
4.4.15.1.3 Reactors
Of the five production reactors, four are permanently shut down, and the remaining reactor is defueled and mothballed but capable of being restarted (WSRC 1994i).
4.4.15.1.4 Replacement Tritium Facility
The Replacement Tritium Facility, a 1-acre underground facility in H-Area, is designed to minimize tritium losses to the environment and reduce waste generation. The Replacement Tritium Facility separates, mixes, and loads tritium in one facility (WSRC 1994i).
4.4.15.1.5 F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility, located in H-Area, stores and treats wastewater from the chemical separations facilities in F- and H-Areas. The F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility will treat wastewater from the Defense Waste Processing Facility when it begins operating, and would treat wastewater from some facilities proposed in this eis. Spills and inadvertently contaminated water from any of the waste management facilities would be treated at the F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility (DOE 1992, 1994d).
4.4.15.1.6 Offsite Facilities
Radiological impacts from the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Plant Vogtle), a twounit commercial nuclear electric facility operated by Georgia Power directly across the Savannah River from SRS, are very small (for example, annual latent cancer fatalities are estimated to be 2.9 ´10 5) and have been included in the analysis.
Radiological impacts from the operation of the Chem-Nuclear Services facility, a commercial low-level waste disposal facility just east of SRS in the Barnwell County Industrial Park (see Figure 32), are very small and are not included in this analysis.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's Urquhart Station, a three-unit, 250-megaWatt, coal- and natural-gas-fired steam electric plant in Beech Island, South Carolina, is about 32 river kilometers (20 river miles) north of SRS. Because of the distance between SRS and the Urquhart Station and the regional wind direction frequencies, there is little opportunity for any interaction of plant emissions, and no significant cumulative impact on air quality (DOE 1990).
4.4.15.2 New and Proposed Facilities or Programs
In addition to the ongoing SRS and offsite operations, there are a number of planned actions and facilities at SRS included in the cumulative impacts analysis.
4.4.15.2.1 Defense Waste Processing Facility
The Defense Waste Processing Facility is almost complete, and the high-level waste pre-treatment processes and the vitrification process are nearly ready to begin operating. The decision to operate the Defense Waste Processing Facility is the subject of a separate NEPA document (DOE 1994d). The eis on the Defense Waste Processing Facility has been completed, and a Record of Decision was issued in April 1995 (DOE 1995a). The decision stated that DOE will complete facility construction and begin operating the Defense Waste Processing Facility to pretreat, immobilize, and store high-level radioactive waste. The environmental impacts from the operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility are included in all alternatives and are therefore included in this cumulative analysis.
4.4.15.2.2 F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions
In March 1992, DOE suspended chemical processing in FArea until potential safety concerns could be adequately addressed. Those concerns were addressed; however, before processing resumed, the Secretary of Energy directed SRS to phase out defense-related chemical separations. There have been no operations since March 1992. Approximately 3.03´105 liters (80,000 gallons) of solutions containing plutonium have been held in tanks in the processing facility since the suspension of operations. DOE proposed to process these solutions into forms that can be stored with less risk to the public, worker health and safety, and the environment and prepared a separate NEPA review for that proposal (DOE 1994c). Processing resumed in F-Canyon following issuance of a Record of Decision on this eis (DOE 1995b). The environmental impacts associated with the processing of these solutions to plutonium metal are included in this cumulative impact analysis.
4.4.15.2.3 Interim Management of Nuclear Materials
The cessation of nuclear reprocessing operations at SRS resulted in significant amounts of materials in various stages of the production and recovery cycle. These materials include irradiated and unirradiated fuel, targets, and control rods; acidic solutions containing dissolved targets or fuels and recovered isotopes; product forms of isotopes (oxide powders and metals) packaged in storage containers; and irradiated fuel and targets stored in the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels in H-Area. The Draft Interim Management of Nuclear Materials eis (DOE 1995c) evaluates how to manage these existing SRS nuclear materials in a safe and environmentally sound manner until disposition decisions can be made, while maintaining the required inventory of usable forms of special isotopes. The environmental impacts identified from the processes evaluated in the Draft Interim Management of Nuclear Materials eis are included in this cumulative analysis.
4.4.15.2.4 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs
DOE prepared a separate eis to inform two related decisionmaking processes concerning: (1) the transport, receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel at the DOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory over the next 10 years; and (2) programmatic decisions on spent nuclear fuel management over the next 40 years. SRS is a candidate for spent nuclear fuel management operations under several alternatives that DOE considered in the eis (DOE 1995d). In that eis, alternative 5 for spent nuclear fuel [Centralization, Processing option; see DOE (1995d)] would have had the greatest onsite impacts to SRS; SRS would have had to manage approximately 2,700 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, most of which would have been transported to SRS from other DOE sites. The environmental effects at SRS of spent nuclear fuel actions under alternative 5 are included in this cumulative impact analysis. In the Record of Decision (DOE 1995e), however, DOE selected the regionalization alternative. Under the regionalization alternative, SRS will manage approximately 213 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel.
4.4.15.3 Moderate Treatment Configuration Alternative
For the alternative B, the following new or additional facilities are proposed to manage the wastes projected under the expected waste forecast and were the basis for predicting impacts in Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.13 as summarized in Table 238:
- 24 long-lived low-level waste storage buildings
- 79 mixed waste storage buildings
- 10 transuranic and alpha waste storage pads
- a mixed waste containment building
- a non-alpha vitrification facility
- an alpha vitrification facility
- a mobile soil sort facility
- the Consolidated Incineration Facility
- a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility
- 58 shallow land disposal slit trenches
- 1 low-activity waste vault
- 5 intermediate-level waste vaults
- 21 RCRA-permitted disposal vaults
- the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility
Refer to Appendix B for complete descriptions of the facilities and actions.
4.4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents data on potential impacts from alternative B - expected waste forecast which, when added to impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable SRS operations and offsite facilities, constitute the cumulative impacts on the affected environment.
Discussions of cumulative impacts for the following subjects are omitted because the impacts of the proposed waste management activities would be so small that their potential contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible:
- geologic resources
- ecological resources
- aesthetics and scenic resources
- environmental justice
- cultural resources
- traffic
4.4.15.4.1 Groundwater Resources
Cumulative impacts to groundwater resources would be very small from stabilizing the plutonium solutions, the interim management of nuclear materials, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, or waste management activities.
Under alternative B - expected waste forecast, only small impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated. Any releases from shallow land disposal, disposal of low-level waste in vaults, or disposal in RCRA permitted vaults would not cause current groundwater standards to be exceeded during the 30year planning period, the 100-year period of institutional control, or any time after disposal (see Section 4.1.3). Releases from RCRA storage facilities are unlikely.
Groundwater contamination resulting from the waste disposal under this eis would be in addition to existing contamination from past waste disposal. By the time that concentrations resulting from waste disposal activities evaluated in this eis reached their peak (at least 97 to 130 years in the future), the concentrations of contaminants introduced by past disposal will have been substantially reduced below present concentrations as a result of natural decay processes and any environmental restoration programs.
Radioactive releases from the Defense Waste Processing Facility that result in future doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual of 0.03 millirem per year (via groundwater infiltration to surface water) are projected from saltstone disposal in the vaults (DOE 1994d). In comparison, total SRS aqueous releases in 1993 resulted in doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual of 0.14 millirem (WSRC 1994i). For spent nuclear fuel activities, additional groundwater withdrawals would total about 67.7 million liters (17.9 million gallons) per year compared to current site withdrawals of 34.1 to 45.4 million liters (9 to 12 million gallons) per day.
4.4.15.4.2 Surface Water Resources
Cumulative impacts to surface water resources would be very small. Few or no impacts are expected from spent fuel management, plutonium stabilization, interim management of nuclear materials, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, or waste management.
For alternative B - expected waste forecast, very small impacts to surface water resources are anticipated. Stormwater infiltrating the vaults and trenches and migrating into surface waters would contain radionuclides; however, doses in the Savannah River would be 10,000 times less than the municipal system drinking water limits of 4 millirem per year. Additional wastewater directed to the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility would meet applicable effluent permit limits, and calculated radionuclide doses would be very small.
4.4.15.4.3 Air Resources
Cumulative maximum boundary-line ground-level concentrations due to nonradiological air emissions from existing facilities (using actual emissions) and proposed facilities (using calculated emissions) are shown in Table 4-78. The cumulative concentration for each criteria pollutant would be less than either state or federal ambient air quality standards. Non-SRS facilities (such as Plant Vogtle and Chem-Nuclear Services) make very small contributions by comparison to air emissions over the area surrounding SRS.
As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, toxic air emissions from existing facilities and new facilities such as the Defense Waste Processing Facility and the Consolidated Incineration Facility would be very small, and compliance with SCDHEC standards has been demonstrated in the SCDHEC Regulation No. 62.5 Standard No. 2 and Standard No. 8 Compliance Modeling Input/Output Data. Collective emissions of air toxics from the proposed facilities, such as the transuranic waste certification/characterization facility, the nonalpha vitrification facility, or the mixed waste containment building, would be very small.
4.4.15.4.4 Land Use
As indicated in Section 4.4.7.1, implementation of alternative B - expected waste forecast would require 0.64 square kilometer (158 acres) in EArea; implementation of the centralization option for spent nuclear fuel management at SRS would require an additional 0.53 square kilometer (130 acres) (locations undetermined) (DOE 1995c). Additional land commitments are not anticipated for the Defense Waste Processing Facility or the plutonium solutions operations. The cumulative land commitment of 1.2 square kilometers (288 acres) associated with these potential activities constitutes about 0.1 percent of the SRS land area.
4.4.15.4.5 Socioeconomics
The maximum potential change in employment associated with alternative B - expected waste forecast, spent nuclear fuel management, interim management of nuclear materials, stabilization of plutonium solutions, and other SRS activities would occur around 2002, when approximately 3,000 (mostly construction) jobs would be created. This compares to a predicted regional labor force of 258,300 in 2002. This small increase, roughly 1 percent, in direct employment would have correspondingly small and temporary impacts on socioeconomics in the six-county region of influence.
4.4.15.4.6 Transportation
The cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects from incident-free transportation are presented in Table 4-79. Data for the Defense Waste Processing Facility and the stabilization of plutonium solutions are not included because transportation was not a factor in these eiss.
Table 4-79. Estimated annual average radiological doses and potential health effects from transportation activities.
| Normal (incident-free) transportation | ||||
| Waste Managementa |
Interim management of nuclear materialb |
Spent nuclear fuelc |
Total | |
| Remote population dose (person-rem) | 7.3 | (d) | 0.23 | 7.53 |
| Remote population excess LCFse | 3.6 ´ 10-3 | (d) | 1.2´10-4 | 3.7´10-3 |
| Uninvolved workers dose (person-rem) | 2.2 | 105 | (f) | 107 |
| Onsite population excessLCFs | 8.9´10-4 | 4.20´10-2 | (f) | 4.3´10-2 |
| Involved workers dose (person-rem) | 240 | 6.09 | 2.5 | 249 |
| Involved workers excess LCFs | 0.098 | 2.44´10-3 | 1.0´10-3 | 0.101 |
a. Alternative B - expected waste forecast.
b. Preferred alternative from the Draft Interim
Management of Nuclear Materials eis (DOE 1995c).
c. Highest consequence option; from DOE (1995d).
d. Not calculated - no offsite transport.
e. Latent cancer fatalities.
f. Not calculated - little onsite transport.
4.4.15.4.7 Occupational and Public Health
Radiological
Table 4-80 summarizes the cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to the offsite population from airborne and liquid releases from current activities (1993 SRS baseline conditions), operation of the proposed waste management facilities, actions planned for spent nuclear fuel management, stabilization of plutonium solutions, operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility, actions associated with interim management of nuclear materials, and operation of Georgia Power Company's Plant Vogtle. Doses and resulting health effects are also presented for involved workers from direct radiation exposure for the same activities (except Plant Vogtle). Health effects from alternative B represent a small fraction of the minimal health effects due to current SRS practices. Doses and health effects due to alternative B represent less than 10 percent of the cumulative values listed in Table 4-80.
For all activities listed in Table 4-80, the annual cumulative dose to the offsite maximally exposed individual would increase approximately tenfold over the dose received from current SRS practices (to 0.0020 rem from 0.00025 rem). Alternative B would contribute less than 2 percent of the total increment. The resulting cumulative health effects for all activities would increase the excess annual risk to the offsite maximally exposed individual of developing a fatal cancer from approximately 1 in 1.0´107to 1 in 1.0´106. Alternative B would contribute only about 2 percent of this increase.
Table 4-80. Estimated maximum annual cuumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population and facility workers.Offsite cumulative population poses from all activities presented in Table 4-80 would increase by less than tenfold compared to current levels (to 70 person-rem from 9.1 person-rem). Alternative B would contribute slightly more than 2 percent of the total. The resulting cumulative dose from all activities would increase the annual expected excess latent cancer fatalities rom 0.0046 to 0.035. Alternative B would contribute slightly more than 2 percent of the increase.
For all activities listed in Table 4-80, the annual
cumulative collective dose to involved workers would increase by a factor of 3
compared to the dose from current practices (to 799 person-rem from 263 personrem).
Alternative B would contribute approximately 10 percent of the total. The
resulting cumulative dose to the involved workers would increase from 0.11
latent cancer fatality per year for current practices to 0.32 latent cancer
fatality per year from all activities presented in Table 4-80. Alternative B
would contribute approximately 10 percent of the total increase.
Nonradiological
The cumulative occupational health impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed waste management facilities and the Defense Waste Processing Facility, in addition to facilities associated with spent nuclear fuel management, stabilization of plutonium solutions, are analyzed qualitatively because most of the facilities associated with these programs are not yet operating. Each eis for the above facilities concludes that nonradiological air emissions from routine operations for the facilities involved with these programs would be well below applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines. In addition, concentrations of air contaminants near facilities operating under alternative B would be less than 1 percent of the applicable permissible exposure guidelines under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Cumulative maximum boundary-line ground-level concentrations from the routine operation of facilities associated with alternative B, spent nuclear fuel management, and the stabilization of plutonium solutions were calculated for criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 4-78. For each criteria pollutant, maximum boundary-line concentrations would be less than either state or federal ambient air quality standards. EPA considers ambient air not to be harmful to the public when concentrations of air contaminants are less than federal standards.
Cumulative public health impacts due to carcinogenic emissions from facilities associated with the proposed programs are presented in Table 4-81. Unit risk factors for latent nonfatal cancers were obtained from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Total estimated latent nonfatal cancers due to the routine operation of the proposed facilities would be approximately 5 in 100 million.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
