Appendix J
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of
a protected species survey conducted in support of the proposed
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plan to construct and operate
additional waste management treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
within the uncleared portion of E-Area at the Savannah River Savannah RiverSite
(SRS) located near Aiken, South Carolina (Figure 1).
Approximately 600 acres of undeveloped
woodland adjacent to E-Area were investigated as potential sites
for the proposed waste management treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. Approximately 61 acres of currently graded, fenced,
and partially developed land and 115 acres of undeveloped
land would be required to develop the additional facilities.
Plant and animal surveys conducted
by the Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station (SRFS) during 1992, 1993, and 1994 located no protected
species within or adjacent to areas that would be affected (LeMaster
1994a, b, and c).
The term "protected species"
as used in the context of this report encompasses both plant and
animal species that have been designated by the Federal government
as endangered or threatened as defined in the Endangered Species
Act and identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants (50 CFR
Parts 17.11 and 17.12).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
This protected species survey evaluated
approximately 600 acres of undeveloped woodland adjacent to approximately
100 acres of previously cleared, fenced, and partially developed
land within E-Area (Figures 2 and 3). Dominant cover types
are shown in Figure 2. The proposed project is to treat, store
and dispose of radioactive, mixed, and hazardous wastes generated
during 40 years of operations at the SRS. DOE proposes to construct
the following treatment, storage, and disposal facilities:
24 long-lived waste storage buildings (size 50' x 50')
18 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted disposal vaults (size 200' x 50')
4 low-activity waste vaults (size 650' x 150')
4 intermediate-level waste vaults (size 250' x 50')
56 shallow land disposal shallow land disposaltrenches (size 100' x 20')
14 transuranic waste transuranic wastestorage pads (size 150' x 50')
80 mixed waste mixed wastestorage buildings (size 160' x 60')
1 supercompactor
1 alpha vitrification facility
1 non-alpha vitrification facility
1 containment building
1 transuranic waste characterization/certification facility
Figure 1. General location of the proposed waste management expansion area of E-Area at the Savannah River Savannah RiverSite, South Carolina.
Note: Refer to Figure 2 for details on the proposed project area indicated by the outlined box on the above map.
Construction of the treatment facilities
that are proposed to be located northwest of F-Area will require
approximately 10 years. Until the treatment facilities are
available, all waste will be stored within the developed portion
of E-Area, a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantation planted
in 1987 (3 acres), and a recently harvested mixed pine hardwood
stand (4 acres) (Figure 2). When treatment of the waste
begins in 2008, waste stored in the developed portion of E-Area
will be treated, consolidated, and disposed in RCRA vaults to
be constructed in a 9acre loblolly pine plantation established
in 1987 (Figure 3).
Efforts will be implemented to avoid
problems before performing activities that would disturb surface
soils soilsand
cause potential impacts. Erosion control will be
established in accordance with the SRS Project Storm Water Management
and Sedimentation Reduction Plan (WSRC 1993) as required by law.
Management practices such as silt fences, hay bales, and rip-rap
will be installed during construction to prevent erosion and
avoid impacts to the wetlands located downgradient
from the proposed project. Marketable timber would be harvested
from the proposed project area.
To minimize impacts to the biodiversity,
wetlands, and archaeological resources of SRS and to protect threatened
and endangered species, the proposed facilities would be located
adjacent to existing cleared and developed land in E-Area. All
disposal facilities except the RCRA disposal vaults would be located
in a 100-acre cleared, graded, and currently developed portion
of E-Area. Additional land requirements for the treatment facilities
would encompass approximately 34 acres of loblolly pine established
in 1987; 57 acres of longleaf pine (P. palustris)
established in 1922, 1931, and 1936; and 20 acres of white oak
(Quercus alba), red oak (Q. rubra), and hickory
(Carya sp.) established in 1922.
Three waste management alternatives
have been analyzed in a draft environmental impact statement published
in March 1995. If SRS were required to treat the maximum amount
of waste it could handle, new facility construction could affect
as much as 184 acres of undeveloped land north of E-Area. An
additional 789 acres outside the surveyed area would also be required
under the maximum waste forecast. Should SRS have to treat the
maximum amount of waste, additional threatened and endangered
species threatened and endangered speciessurveys,
wetlands assessments, and archaeological resource
surveys would be required. The amount of waste SRS would be required
to treat has not been determined so no siting studies to identify
any additional land have been initiated.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SURROUNDING ARea
The proposed waste management area is located north of the developed portion of E-Area and south of Upper Three Runs Upper Three Runsand M-Line railroad. The majority of the site is a relatively level upland area dominated by Ailey sand (2-6 percent slopes), Lakeland sand (0-6 percent slopes), Troup sand (0-6 percent slopes), and Blanton sand (0-6 percent slopes). These level upland areas end abruptly along distinct bluffs overlooking the floodplain of Upper Three Runs and several small unnamed tributaries. These steep slopes are composed of Troup and Lucy sands
Figure 2. Map depicting the major plant communities/habitat types in and around the proposed waste management expansion area of E-Area and proposed facilities through 2008. Source: SRFS (1994).
Figure 3.
Map depicting the major plant communities/habitat types in and
around the proposed waste management expansion area of E-Area
and proposed facilities through 2024.
(25-40 percent slopes and 15-25 percent
slopes). The wetland floodplain of Upper Three Runs Upper Three Runsis
composed of Ogeechee sandy loam ponded, fluvaquents, frequently
flooded, and Pickney sand, frequently flooded (Rogers 1990).
Contour elevations range from 130 feet above sea level along Upper
Three Runs to 300 feet on the hilltops.
The sandy upland portions of the survey
area are composed of approximately 11 acres of slash pine (P.
elliottii) planted in 1959; 79 acres of loblolly pine planted
in 1987; 88 acres of loblolly pine planted in 1946; 49 acres
of longleaf pine planted in 1988; 158 acres of longleaf pine established
in 1922, 1931, or 1936; and 30 acres of recently harvested mixed
pine hardwood. The slopes are dominated by 180 acres of an upland
hardwood community established in 1922. These steep slopes contain
a closed canopy of mature white oak, red oak, and hickory. The
wetlands wetlandsadjacent
to Upper Three Runs are dominated by tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) (SRFS 1994).
PROTECTED SPECIES REVIEWED
Based on the protected species accounts
provided in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.11 and 17.12 and
the lists provided in Hyatt (1994), a list of protected species
potentially occurring in the proposed project area was compiled
(Table 1). Table 1 also provides a brief description of the preferred
habitat for each of these species.
SURVEY RESULTS
Surveys of the proposed project area
were conducted during 1992, 1993, and 1994 by SRFS for evidence
of any of the protected species listed in Table 1.
IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
Based on the results of the aforementioned
surveys, potential impacts which were identified are listed below:
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Records of the presence of
this species on the SRS date back to the late 1950s (Mayer
et al. 1985, 1986). Two bald eagle nesting territories have been
established on SRS (Mayer et al. 1988; Wike et al. 1994). The
nearest of these nest sites to the proposed project area is located
approximately 7 miles to the south. There have been no documented
records of bald eagles using the proposed project area (Mayer
et al. 1985, 1986). In addition, the proposed project area has
no preferable forage or nesting habitat available. The project
area provides only marginal roosting habitat. Based on SRS records,
use of the project site by bald eagles would be incidental at
best. No evidence indicating the presence of this species was
encountered during the surveys. The proposed project should have
little to no impact on this endangered species. However, there
is the potential that suitable habitat could become inhabited
during the 30-year life of the project. As new facilities are
planned, additional surveys will be initiated as needed and consultation
with the USFWS will continue.
Wood Stork
(Mycteria americana) - The breeding colony of wood storks
from Birdsville, Georgia, continues to sporadically use wetland
areas of the SRS for foraging (Wike et al. 1994). Documented
wood stork use of SRS dates back to the late 1950s (Norris 1963).
However, the proposed project area provides neither forage nor
nesting habitat for this endangered species. In addition, there
are no documented records of any previous use of the project site
by wood storks (Coulter 1993). No evidence of this species was
found during the surveys. The proposed project should not have
any impact on this endangered species. However, as new facilities
are planned, surveys will be initiated as needed and consultation
with the USFWS will continue.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) - Seventy-seven red-cockaded woodpeckers
lived on SRS at the end of 1994 (LeMaster 1994b). Red-cockaded
woodpeckers prefer to nest in pines more than 60 years old and
forage in pine forests more than 40 years old. Although the proposed
project site is within the interior portion of SRS that is not
intensively managed for the birds, the age of several stands of
pines on the site make them appropriate for nesting and foraging.
Due to the suitability of the habitat and the proximity of active
colonies (7 miles to the north) and managed recruitment stands
(1.5 miles to the north), an intensive survey was conducted
in 1993. One hundred and fifty eight acres of longleaf pine established
in 1922, 1931, or 1936 were surveyed. No evidence of red-cockaded
woodpeckers was found during the survey (LeMaster 1994c). While
the proposed project should have no impact on this endangered
species, there is the potential that suitable habitat could become
inhabited during the 30year life of the project. No land
clearing or facility construction is currently planned until at
least after the year 2000. As new facilities are planned, additional
surveys will be initiated as needed and consultation with USFWS
will continue.
American Alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis) - The SRS supports a population
populationof approximately
200 to 250 American alligators (Gibbons and Semlitsch, 1991).
The proposed project area does not provide any suitable habitat
for this protected species. In addition, there are no documented
records of any previous use of the project site by alligators.
The closest known areas used by alligators are the wetlands present
in the Upper Three Runs drainage corridor,
located adjacent to the project site. No evidence of this species
was found during the surveys. The proposed project should not
have any impact on the threatened species. However, as new facilities
are planned, surveys will be initiated as needed and consultation
with the USFWS will continue.
Shortnose Sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) - The proposed project has been
designed utilizing Best Management Practices to eliminate or minimize
impacts from any discharges that could impact tributaries to the
Savannah River. In addition, the proposed project site is an
upland area, and the project boundary is over 1,000 feet from
the nearest stream (Upper Three Runs), which at that point is
15 kilometers from the river. The shortnose sturgeon occurs in
the river along the southwestern boundary of SRS (Wike et al.
1994). The proposed project area does not provide any suitable
habitat for this species. Furthermore, no evidence of this species
was found during the surveys. Therefore, the proposed project
should not have any impact on this endangered species. As new
facilities are planned, additional surveys will be initiated and
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
will continue.
Smooth Purple Coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) - Two populations of this species
are known to occur on the SRS (Knox and Sharitz 1990; Hyatt 1994).
The first, a small dwindling population populationlocated
adjacent to Burma Road, includes approximately 200 individuals
(SRFS 1992). This population is approximately 4.5 miles southwest
of the proposed project area. The second population, composed
of approximately 500 individuals, is located 7.2 miles southeast
of the project area (LeMaster 1994b). The proposed project area
could provide habitat for the smooth purple coneflower. However,
no evidence of this species was found during the 1992 and 1994
botanical surveys. The proposed project should not have any impact
on this endangered species. While the proposed project should
have no impact on this endangered species, there is the potential
that suitable habitat could become inhabited during the 30year
life of the project. As new facilities are planned, additional
surveys will be initiated as needed and consultation with USFWS
will continue.
MITIGATION PLANS
No mitigation plans are necessary to
minimize or prevent potential impacts to any of the protected
species listed in Table 1.
SUMMARY
The proposed project should not affect
any Federally protected animal or plant species. DOE will continue
to consult informally with the USFWS and the NMFS as new facilities
are planned and National Environmental Policy Act reviews continue
over the 30-year life of the project.
REFERENCES
Coulter, M. C. 1993. Wood Storks
of the Birdsville Colony and Swamps of the Savannah River Savannah River Site.
SREL-42, UC-66e. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,
Aiken, South Carolina.
Gibbons, J. W., and R. D. Semlitsch.
1991. Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of the Savannah
River Savannah River Site.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hyatt, P. E. 1994. Savannah River
Savannah River Site
Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plants and
Animals. Savannah River Forest Station, New Ellenton, South
Carolina.
Knox, J. N., and R. R. Sharitz. 1990.
Endangered, Threatened and Rare Vascular Flora of the Savannah
River Savannah River Site.
SRO-NERP-20. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,
Aiken, South Carolina.
LeMaster, E. T., 1994a, Personal communication
between R. K. Abernethy (Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation),
and E. T. LeMaster (Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station), September 27, 1994.
LeMaster, E. T., 1994b, Personal communication
between R. K. Abernethy (Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation),
and E. T. LeMaster (Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station), August 1994.
LeMaster, E. T., 1994c, Personal communication
between R. K. Abernethy (Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation),
and E. T. LeMaster (Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station), November 3, 1994.
Mayer, J. J., R. T. Hoppe, and R. A.
Kennamer. 1985. Bald and Golden Eagles on the Savannah River
Savannah RiverPlant,
South Carolina. The Oriole, 50(4):53-57.
Mayer, J. J., R. T. Hoppe, and R. A.
Kennamer. 1986. Bald and Golden Eagles of the SRP. SREL-21,
UC-66e. Savannah River Savannah RiverEcology
Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina.
Mayer, J. J., R. A. Kennamer, and F.
A. Brooks. 1988. First Nesting Record for the Bald Eagle
on the Savannah River Savannah RiverPlant.
The Chat, 52(2):29-32.
Norris, R. A. 1963. Birds of the
AEC Savannah River Savannah RiverPlant
Area. Contrib. Charleston (SC) Mus. Bull., 14:1-78.
Rogers, V. A. 1990. Soil Survey
of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale
Counties, South Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, Aiken, South Carolina.
SRFS (Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station). 1992. Savannah River Site Wildlife, Fisheries and
Botany Status Report - FY 1992. Savannah River Forest Station,
New Ellenton, South Carolina.
SRFS (Savannah River Savannah RiverForest
Station). 1994. Stand Inventory Data for Compartment 49.
Savannah River Forest Station, New Ellenton, South Carolina.
Wike, L. D., R. W. Shipley, A. L. Bryan,
Jr., J. A. Bowers, C. L. Cummins, B. R. del Carmen,
G. P. Friday, J. E. Irwin, J. J. Mayer, E. A. Nelson, M. H. Paller,
V. A. Rogers, W. L. Specht, and E. W. Wilde. 1994.
SRS Ecology: Environmental Information Document. WSRC-TR-93-496,
Westinghouse Savannah River Savannah RiverCompany,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.
50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. August 23, 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Code of Federal Regulations.
59 FR 35584. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Reclassify the Bald Eagle from Endangered
to Threatened in Most of the Lower 48 States. 50 CFR Part
17. Federal Register Vol. 59. No. 132. Tuesday, July
12, 1994. Pages 35584-35594.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
TITLE: FinalDraft Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/eis-0217-D).
CONTACT: For additional information on this statement, write or call:
- A. B. Gould, Director
Environmental Compliance Division
NEPA Compliance Officer
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Operations Office
P. O. Box 5031
Aiken, South Carolina 29804-5031 Telephone: (800) 242-8269
Attention: WMeis email: nepa@barms036.b-r.comemail: nepa@barms036.b-r.com
For general information on the DOE National Environmental Policy ActU.S. Department of Energy NEPA process, write or call:
- Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this environmental impact statementeis is to helpassist DOE in decideing how to manage over the next 30 years liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, mixed, hazardous, and transuranic wastes generated during 40 years of past operations and on-going activities (including management of wastes received from offsite activities (including management of wastes received from offsite) at Savannah River Site (SRS) in southwestern South Carolina. The wastes are currently stored at SRS. DOE seeks to dispose of the wastes in a cost-effective manner that protects human health and the environment. In this document, DOE assesses the cumulative environmental impacts of storing, treating, and disposing of the wastes, examines the impacts of alternatives, and identifies measures available to reduce adversee impacts. Evaluations of impacts on water quality, air quality, ecological systems, land use, geologicc resources, cultural resources, socio-economics, and the health and safety of onsite workers and the public are included in the assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: In preparing this Final eis, DOE considered comments received by letter and voice mail, and formal statements given at public hearings in Barnwell, South Carolina (February 21, 1995); Columbia, South Carolina (February 22, 1995); North Augusta, South Carolina (February 23, 1995); Savannah, Georgia (February 28, 1995); Beaufort, South Carolina (March 1, 1995); and Hilton Head, South Carolina (March 2, 1995). One set of comments was received after the format comment period closed. Responses to those comments and resulting addenda to this eis re included as an enclosure with the document. One set of comments was received after the formal comment period closed. Responses to those comments and resulting addenda to this eis are included as an enclosure with the document.
FOREWORD
This environmental impact statement (eis) evaluates addresses alternative approaches to and environmental impacts of managing wastes at the Savannah RiverSavannah River Site (SRS). The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) primary mission at SRS from the 1950s until the recent end of the Cold War was tothe producetion and processing of nuclear materials to support defense programs. These activities resulted in the generatedion of five types of waste: liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and hazardous combined), and transuranic wasteTransuranic wastes. These wastes are still being continue to be generated by ongoing operations, environmental restorationEnvironmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioningdecontamination and decommissioning of surplus facilities. This eis evaluates alternatives for managing the five types of waste during the next decade and establishes a baseline for analyzing facilities that DOE might build and other actions that DOE might take after 2005assessing options for waste management beyond that time. Because waste management alternatives would be implemented over several years, DOE maycould issue more than one Record of Decision based on this eis.
Four waste management alternatives are evaluatedanalyzed in this eis. In addition to the no-action alternative, which consists ofincludes continuing current management practicesactivities, this eis examines one alternative for the limited treatment of waste, another for the extensive treatment of waste, and a third (the preferred alternative) that represents a moderate approach to waste treatment. TheAll alternatives (except the no-action alternative) are analyzed based on three forecasts of the amounts of wastes that DOE could be required to manage over the next 30 years (1995 through 2024) at SRS. In addition, tThis eis evaluates siting, constructionngion, and start-up or operatioon ofng of specific waste managementtreatment, storage, and disposal facilities at SRS over the next 10 years, as well as operational impacts for the 30-year forecast horizon. TenÊyears was sellected because that is approximately the time required to get a project approved, designed, and constructed. In addition, because of ongoing advances in technology, current treatment processes may be superseded by more effective processes as technology improves. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to select technologies now for treatment processes that will not be implemented in the next decade.
Assumptions and analyses in this eis are generally consistent with those that are in or expected to be in the WasteEnvironmental Management Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0200), the TritiumTritium Supply and RecyclingRecycling Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0161), the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0236), the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs eis (DOE/eis-0203; draft issued June 1994), the Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy for the Acceptance of United States Origin Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel eis (DOE/eis-0218), the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Useable Fissile Materials Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0229), the Urgent-Relief Acceptance of Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental Assessment (DOE/ea-0912), the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials at SRSSavannah River Site eis (DOE/eis-0220D), the F-Canyon PlutoniumPlutonium Solutions at SRS eis (DOE/eis-0219; final issued December 1994), the Defense Waste Processing FacilityDefense Waste Processing Facility Supplemental eis (DOE/eis-0082S; final issued November 1994), the Environmental Assessment for Operations of the HB-Line Facility and Frame Waste Recovery Process for Production of Pu-238 Oxide at the SRS (DOE/ea-0948; draft issued September 1994), the Continued Operation of the Pantex PlantPlant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components eis (DOE/eis-0225), and the SRS ProposedDraft Site Treatment Plan for mixed wasteMixed waste.
DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare this eis in the Federal Register on AprilÊ6, 1994 (59ÊFRÊ16494). The notice announced a public scoping period that ended on May 31, 1994, and solicited comments and suggestions on the scope of the eis. DOE held scoping meetings during this period in Savannah, Georgia, and North Augusta and Columbia, South Carolina, on May 12, 17, and 19, 1994, respectively. During the scoping period, comments were received from individuals, organizations, and government agencies. Comments received during the scoping period and DOE's responses were used to prepare an implementation plan thatto defined the scope and approach of this eis. The implementation plan was issued by DOE in June 1994. Publication of the draft eis provideds a second opportunity for public comment.
Transcripts of public testimony received during the scoping process, copies of letters, and comments, the implementation plan, and reference materials cited in this eis are available for review in the DOE Public Reading Room, located at the University of South Carolina-Aiken Campus, Gregg-Graniteville Library, 2ndÊFloor, University Parkway, Aiken, South Carolina [(803) 648-6851], and the Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room lE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000ÊIndependence Avenue, Washington, D.C. [(202) 586-6020].
DOE completed the draft of this eis in January 1995, and on January 27, 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the document in the Federal Register (60 FR 5386). This notice officially started the public comment period on the draft eis, which extended through March 31, 1995. Publication of the draft eis provided an opportunity for public comment on the nature and substances of the analyses included in the document.
DOE has considered comments it received during the public comment period in the preparation of preparing this final eis. These comments were received by letter, telephone, and formal statements made at public hearings held in Barnwell, South Carolina (February 21, 1995); Columbia, South Carolina (February 22, 1995); North Augusta, South Carolina (February 23, 1995); Savannah, Georgia (February 28, 1995); Beaufort, South Carolina (March 1, 1995); and Hilton Head, South Carolina (March 2, 1995). Comments and responses to comments are in Appendix I.
ChangesRevisions from the draft eis are indicated in this final eis by vertical change bars in the margin. The change bars are marked TC for technical changes, TE for editorial changes, or, if the change was made in response to a public comment, the designated comment number as listed in Appendix I. Many of the technical changes were the result of the availability of updated information since publication of the draft eis.
In May 1995, DOE announced its intention to revise the moderate treatment alternative to include supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting), and incineration at an offsite commercial treatment facility (60 FR 26417, May 17, 1995). The proposed change from the draft eis concerned the location of, but not the technology used in the treatment of about 40 percent of the expected volume of low-level wastes at SRS. DOE provided an opportunity for public comment through June 12, 1995. No comments were received.
The proposed low-level waste volume reduction initiative is included in this final eis, and as announced in the May 1995 Federal Register notice, it is subject to competitive procurement practices under procedures described in DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR 1021.216). A Request for Proposals was sent to a selected group of 47 potential bidders on May 22, 1995 with a closing date of July 20, 1995. Work under any contract awarded would begin no earlier than the start of fiscal year 1996.
In June 1995, DOE published a draft of the Environmental Assessment for the Off-Site Volume Reduction of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the Savannah River Site (DOE/ea-1061) for preapproval review by potentially affected states. The environmental assessment describes a proposed short-term temporary method of volume reduction for low-level waste by a commercial facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This action would reduce the volume of low-level waste at SRS in an expedient and cost-effective manner over the near term (prior to the start of fiscal year of 1996). Because the impacts of the proposed action would be very small and the proposed action would not limit the selection of alternatives under consideration, this proposed volume reduction action qualifies as an interim action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.1).
DOE prepared this eis in accordance with the provisions of NEPA, regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021). This eis identifies the methods used in the analyses and the sources of information. In addition, it incorporates, directly or by reference, information from other ongoing studies. The document is structured as follows:
Chapter 1 provides background information, sets forth the purpose and need for action, and describes related actions evaluated in other NEPA analysesreviews.
- Chapter 2 describes the alternatives, identifies the preferred alternative, and provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of each alternative.
- Chapter 3 describes the affected environment at SRS potentially affected by as it relates to the alternatives addressed.
- Chapter 4 provides a detailed assessment of the potential environmental impactsconsequences of the alternatives. ItThe chapter also assesses unavoidable adverse impactsUnavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and cumulative impactsCumulative impacts.
- Chapter 5 identifies regulatory requirements and evaluates their applicability to the alternatives considered.
- Appendix A provides waste forecasts (i.e., estimates of the expected, minimum, and maximum amounts of waste that could be managed over the 30-year analysis period at SRS).
- Appendix B describes existing and proposed facilities that would be needed to implement the alternatives.
- Appendix C describes the cost methodology and its application in estimating costs for facilities and processes to treat, store, and dispose of wastes.
- Appendix D discusses emerging or innovative waste management technologies that were considered but rejected for use on SRS wastes. The technologies are in bench, pilot, or demonstration stages of development and are not likely to be available for implementation in the next decade, but might be suitable for implementation at some time during the 30-year period addressed in this eis.
- Appendix E furnishes a compilation of supplemental technical data used to prepare this eis.
- Appendix F describes accident scenarios related to the facilities that could be used to manage waste at SRS. It summarizes the potential consequences and risks to workers, the public, and the environment from the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2.
- Appendix G is a compilation of the appendixes included in the Federal Facility Agreement and provides information on the commitments made by SRS to regulatory agencies to manage wastes and spills.
- Appendix H compares DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission low-level waste requirements.
- Appendix I containsfurnishes copies of letters, and hearing transcripts frommade during the public comment period, and DOE's responses from DOE to those comments.
- Appendix J is a copy of the Protected Species Survey prepared in April 1995 in support of the draft eis and agency confirmation that endangered species will not be impacted.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
