Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-4. SRS facilities that will cease to operate under the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts during the analysis period (1995 through 2024).

Table 2-5. Decontamination and decommissioning of facilities during the analysis period resulting in the expected waste forecast (1995 through 2024).

Table 2-6. Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used to develop forecasts of environmental restoration. activities resulting in the expected waste forecast.

Table 2-7. Decontamination and decommissioning of facilities during the analysis period resulting in the minimum waste forecast (1995 through 2024).

Table 2-8. Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used to develop forecasts of environmental restoration.. activities resulting in the minimum waste forecast.

Table 2-9. Decontamination and decommissioning level of facilities during the analysis period resulting in the maximum waste forecast (1995 through 2024).

Table 2-10. Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used to develop forecasts of environmental restoration. activities resulting in the maximum waste forecast.

Table 2-11. Waste generated from 1990 through 1993 (cubic meters).

Table 2-12. Waste minimization goals.

Table 2-13. Waste minimization activities under the no-action alternative.

Table 2-14. Possible technologies to manage low-level and transuranic waste.

Table 2-15. Potential and reasonable technologies for low-level waste.

Table 2-16. Example of scoring the incineration technology for intermediate-activity job-control waste

Table 2-17. Potential and reasonable technologies for transuranic waste

Table 2-18. Waste Management eis and SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan comparison of treatment options for low-level mixed waste.

Table 2-19. System evaluation/optimization criteria.

Table 2-20. Treatability groups and proposed management facilities for each alternative.

Table 2-21. NEPA review of facilities in the SRS Waste Management eis.

Table 2-22. Waste minimization activities for alternative A.

Table 2-23. Thirty-year liquid high-level waste volumes for the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-24. Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative A expected waste forecast.

Table 2-25. Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative A minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-26. Mixed waste treatment options for alternative A minimum and maximum forecasts.

Table 2-27. Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative A and the no-action alternative.

Table 2-28. Waste minimization activities for alternative C.

Table 2-29. Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative C minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-30. Hazardous waste treatment options for alternative C minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-31. Mixed waste treatment options for alternative C minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-32. Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative C and the no-action alternative.

Table 2-33. Waste minimization activities under alternative B.

Table 2-34. Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative B minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-35. Mixed waste treatment options for alternative B minimum and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 2-36. Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative B and the no-action alternative.

Table 2-37. Volume reductions achieved for low-level waste.

Table 2-38. Comparison of the impacts of each alternative on environmental resources.

Table 3-1. Waste units associated with known or potential releases to the groundwater at SRS.

Table 3-2. Water quality in the Savannah River upstream and downstream from SRS (calendar year 1993).

Table 3-3. Water quality in Upper Three Runs downstream from SRS discharges (calendar year 1993).

Table 3-4. Average concentrations of gross alpha and nonvolatile beta radioactivity measured in air (1991 to 1993) (microcuries per milliliter of air).

Table 3-5. Atmospheric releases by source facility in 1993.

Table 3-6. Estimated ambient concentration contributions of criteria air pollutants from existing SRS sources and sources planned for construction or operation through 1995 (micrograms per cubic meter of air).

Table 3-7. SRS modeling results for toxic air pollutants that exceed 1 percent of SCDHEC air quality standards (micrograms per cubic meter of air).

Table 3-8. Land cover of undeveloped areas of SRS.

Table 3-9. Threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species of SRS.

Table 3-10. Forecast employment, population, and personal income data for the SRS six-county region of influence.

Table 3-11. Population distribution in 1990 within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of SRS.

Table 3-12. General racial characteristics of the population in the region of analysis.

Table 3-13. Percentage of the population living in poverty in the region of analysis.

Table 3-14. Traffic counts on major SRS roads.

Table 3-15. Traffic counts on major SRS arteries during peak hours (vehicles per hour).

Table 3-16. External radiation levels (milliRoentgen per year) at SRS facilities.

Table 3-17. Maximum measurements of radionuclides in soil for 1993 [picocuries per gram; 0 to 8 centimeters (0 to 3 inches) depth].

Table 3-18. SRS annual individual and collective radiation doses.

Table 3-19. Comparison of 1992 illness and injury incidence rates for SRS operations to 1991 illness and injury incidence rates for general industry, the manufacturing industry, and the chemical industry (number of illnesses and injuries per 100 full-time workers).

Table 4-1. Average increase over baselinea of criteria pollutants at the SRS boundary from construction-related activities under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-2. Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of criteria pollutants at the SRS boundary from operation activities under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-3. Annual radiological doses to individuals and the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS from atmospheric releases under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-4. Estimated construction and operations employment under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-5. Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-6. Projected SRS hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck.

Table 4-7. Annual dose and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactive material under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-8. Annual accident probabilities, doses associated with those accidents, and associated excess latent cancer fatalitieslatent cancer fatalitiesLatent cancer fatalities from high consequence (low probability) accidents involving the transport of radioactive materials under the no-action alternative.

Table 4-9. Worker radiological doses^a and resulting health effects associated with the no-action alternative.

Table 4-10. Calculated maximum 8-hour average pollutant concentrations (micrograms per cubic meter of air).

Table 4-11. Radiological doses^a associated with the no-action alternative and resulting health effects to the public.

Table 4-12. Estimated probability of excess latent cancers in the SRS offsite population.

Table 4-13. Accident frequency categories.

Table 4-14. Summary of representative bounding accidents for the no-action alternative

Table 4-15. Summary of chemical hazards associated with the no-action alternative estimated to exceed ERPG-2 values.

Table 4-16. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations resulting from a year of construction activities under alternative A.

Table 4-17. Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at theSRS boundary for alternative A - expected, minimum, and maximum wasteforecasts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4-32. Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated with implementation of alternative A.

Table 4-33. Radiological doses associated with implementation of alternative A and resulting health effects to the public.

Table 4-34. Estimated number of excess latent cancers in the offsite population from nonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative A.

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

Table 4-36. Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative A.

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

Table 4-38. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations resulting from a year of average construction activities under alternative C (in micrograms per cubic meter of air).

Table 4-39. Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at the SRS boundary for alternative C - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts.

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

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

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

Table 4-43. Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative C - maximum waste forecast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4-58. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations resulting from a year ofaverage construction activities under alternative B.

Table 4-59. Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at SRS boundary for alternative B - expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts.

Table 4-60. Annual radiological doses to individuals and the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS from atmospheric pathways under alternative B.

Table 4-61. Estimated construction and operations employment for alternative B - minimum, expected, and maximum waste forecasts

Table 4-62. Estimated new operations jobs required to support alternative B - maximumwaste forecast

Table 4-63. Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative B - maximum waste forecast

Table 4-64. Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative B

Table 4-65. SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck under alternative B

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 under alternative B - expected waste forecast

Table 4-67. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material under alternative B - expected wasteforecast

Table 4-68. Probability of an accident during 30 years of offsite transport of radioactivematerial for each waste forecast under alternative B, dose, and excess latentcancer fatalities from an accident

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.

Table 4-70. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative B - minimum 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 radioactivematerial for alternative B - maximum waste forecast

Table 4-72. Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative B - maximum waste forecast

Table 4-73. Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated with implementation of alternative B

Table 4-74. Radiological doses associated with implementation of alternative B and resulting health effects to the public

Table 4-75. Estimated number of excess latent cancers in the offsite population fromnonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative B

Table 4-76. Comparison of risks from accidents under the no-action alternative and alternative B.

Table 4-77. Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative B

Table 4-78. Cumulative maximum SRS boundary-line ground-level concentrations for criteria pollutants

Table 4-79. Estimated annual average radiological doses and potential health effects from transportation activities.

Table 4-80. Estimated maximum annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population and facility workers

Table 4-81. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations and cumulative public health impacts from carcinogenic emissions

Table 5-1. Permit and approval status of existing and planned SRS waste management facilities.

Table A-1. Thirty-year waste forecast by waste type (volume in cubic meters).

Table A-2. Revisions to thirty-year mixed waste generation forecasts by waste classes (volume in cubic meters).

Table A-3. Thirty-year low-level waste forecast by waste classes (volume in cubic meters).

Table A-4. Thirty-year hazardous waste forecast by waste classes (volume in cubic meters).

Table A-5. Thirty-year mixed waste generation forecast by waste classes (volume in cubic meters).

Table A-6. Thirty-year transuranic and alpha waste forecast by waste classes (volume in cubic meters).

Table B.1-1. The amounts and types of waste that would be treated in the alpha vitrification facility for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.2-1. New tanks needed to accommodate estimated aqueous and organic liquid waste forecast.a,b

Table B.3-1. Estimated volume of waste stored in Burial Ground Solvent Tanks (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.4-1. Estimated volumes of waste compacted for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.5-1. Average annual and total estimated volumes of waste incinerated for each alternative. The Consolidated Incineration Facility would operate for the 30year period of analysis in alternativesA and B, and cease operation in 2005 in alternativeC.a

Table B.5-2. Summary of impacts from the operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF) under alternative B.a

Table B.6-1. Waste that would be treated between the years 2006 and 2024 in the containment building under each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.8-1. Estimated volumes and number of additional buildings required for storing long-lived waste under each alternative.a

Table B.8-2. Estimated volumes of low-level waste and number of additional vaults required for each alternative (cubic meters).a

Table B.9-1. Volume of waste that would be processed through the Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay Facility/Waste Certification Facility for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.10-1. Chemical and radioactive constituents currently treated at the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility.a

Table B.10-2. Additional volume of wastewater to be treated at the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility over the 30-year analysis period (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.11-1. Estimated volumes of hazardous and mixed wastes and the number of vaults required for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.13-1. Typical chemical composition of SRS liquid high-level waste.

Table B.13-2. Typical radionuclide content of combined supernatant, salt, and sludge in tanks in the F- and H-Area tank farms (curies per liter).a

Table B.13-3. F- and H-Area high-level waste tank features.a

Table B.13-4. High-level waste tank leakage and spill history.

Table B.13-5. Volumes of waste to be stored and treated at the F- and H-Area high-level waste tank farms (cubic meters).a,b,c,d

Table B.14-1. Volumes of investigation-derived waste from groundwater monitoring wells to be treated in the M-Area Air Stripper (cubic meters).b

Table B.16-1. Mixed waste storage requirements for each alternative.a

Table B.16-2. Estimated amount of mixed waste that would be stored on Pad 3154M (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.18-1. Volumes of waste that would be treated in the non-alpha vitrification facility (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.19-1. Estimated volumes of low-level waste smelted for each alternative.a,b

Table B.20-1. Volumes of low-activity waste that would be treated offsite (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.27-1. Total waste requiring shallow land disposal and number of slit trenches (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.28-1. Estimated volumes of soil sorted for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table B.29-1. Estimated volumes of supercompacted low-level waste for each alternative as proposed in the draft eis (cubic meters).a,b,c

Table B.29-2. Summary of impacts from the operation of an onsite supercompactor as proposed in the draft eis.a

Table B.30-1. Number of additional transuranic waste storage pads that would be required under each alternative.a

Table B.31-1. Volume of waste that would be processed in the transuranic waste characterization/ certification facility for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b

Table C-1. Estimated cost of facilities for each alternative and waste forecast in the draft and final eis.

Table C-2. Economies of scale for the non-alpha vitrification facility

Table C-3. Examples of equipment cost factors for waste management facilities considered in this analysis.

Table C-4. Examples of building cost factors for waste management facilities considered in this analysis.

Table C-5. Examples of annual labor cost factors for waste management facilities considered in this analysis.

Table C-6. Total facility cost for the non-alpha vitrification facility

Table C-7. Cost distribution for the non-alpha vitrification facility

Table C-8. Cost of facilities in the SRS Waste Management eis ($ million).

Table D-1. Technologies considered for treatment of SRS waste.

Table D-2. Comparison of Section 2.3 process technologies and Appendix D technologies.

Table D-3. Summary of emerging technologies.

Table E.1-1. 1993 analytical data for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall M¡004 (M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility)-Permit SC#0000175.a,b

Table E.1-2. 1993 analytical data for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall H¡016 (F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility)-Permit SC#0000175.a,b

Table E.1-3. Water quality in Beaver Creek Dam on SRS (calendar year 1992).a,b

Table E.1-4. Water quality in Fourmile Branch on SRS (calendar year 1993).a,b

Table E.1-5. Water quality in Pen Branch on SRS (calendar year 1993).a,b

Table E.1-6. Water quality in Steel Creek on SRS (calendar year 1993).a,b

Table E.1-7. Water quality in Lower Three Runs on SRS (calendar year 1993).a,b

Table E.2-1. Results of SRS modeling for toxic air pollutants (micrograms per cubic meter of air).a,b

Table E.2-2. Comparison of potential worker annual exposure to OSHA permissible exposure limits under alternative A (micrograms per cubic meter of air).a

Table E.2-3. Comparison of potential worker exposure to OSHA permissible exposure limits under alternative C (micrograms per cubic meter of air).a

Table E.2-4. Comparison of potential worker exposure to OSHA permissible exposure limits under alternative B (micrograms per cubic meter of air).

Table E.2-5. Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations of carcinogens without risk factors (micrograms per cubic meter).

Table E.3-1. Hazardous waste shipments during 30-year period of interest.

Table E.3-2. Low-level and transuranic (TRU) waste shipments during the 30-year period of interest.

Table E.3-3. Mixed waste shipments during the 30-year period of interest.

Table E.3-4. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste under the no-action alternative.

Table E.3-5. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative A - expected waste forecast.

Table E.3-6. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative A - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.3-7. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternativeA - maximum waste forecast.

Table E.3-8. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative B - expected waste forecast.

Table E.3-9. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative B - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.3-10. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative B - maximum waste forecast.

Table E.3-11. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative C - expected waste forecast.

Table E.3-12. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative C - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.3-13. Annual radiological doses from incident-free transportation during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste for alternative C - maximum waste forecast.

Table E.3-14. Accident probabilities for onsite shipments of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste by alternative and waste forecast.

Table E.3-15. Radiological doses from a single accident during onsite transport of low-level, mixed, and transuranic waste under any alternative.

Table E.3-16. Probability of and radiological dose from a single accident during onsite transport of low-level and mixed waste ashcrete from the Consolidated Incineration Facility under each alternative.

Table E.3-17. Radiological doses from incident-free transportation and accidentsduring offsite transport of low-level (low-activity equipment), mixed waste (lead), and low-level waste volume reduction.

Table E.3-18. Waste volumes (in cubic meters) shipped in each alternative.

Table E.4-1. Average number of workers assigned to onsite facilities.

Table E.4-2. Onsite facility workers annual dose during the 30-year period of interest (in person-millirem).

Table E.4-3. Summary of facility-specific doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual from atmospheric releases (in millirem).

Table E.4-4. Summary of facility-specific doses to offsite population from atmospheric releases (person-rem).

Table E.4-5.Summary of facility-specific doses to the 640-meter (2,100 feet) uninvolved worker from atmospheric releases (in millirem).

Table E.4-6. Summary of facility-specific dosesa to the 100-meter (328 foot) uninvolved worker (in millirem) from atmospheric releases.

Table E.4-7. Summary of facility-specific doses to the offsite maximally exposed individual from aqueous releases

Table E.4-8.Summary of facility-specific dosesa to the offsite population (in person-rem) from aqueous releases.

Table E.4-9. Compactor facility dose distribution by isotope for the no-action alternative.

Table E.4-10. Consolidated Incineration Facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-11. Compactor facilities dose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-12. Soil sort facility dose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-13. Transuranic waste characterization/certification facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-14. Containment building dose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-15. Mixed wasteoffsite vendor dose distribution by isotope for alternative A.

Table E.4-16. Consolidated Incineration Facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-17. Onsite compactor facility dose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-18. Onsite vitrificationfacilities dose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-19. Soil sort facility dose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-20. Transuranic waste characterization/certification facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-21. Containment building dose distribution by isotope for alternative B.

Table E.4-22. Offsite supercompaction, sorting, repackaging dose distribution by isotope for alternativeB.

Table E.4-23. Offsite smelting, incineration, and metal melt dose distribution by isotope for alternativeB.

Table E.4-24. Consolidated Incineration Facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-25. Compactor facilities dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-26. Onsite vitrificationfacilities dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-27. Soil sort facility dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-28. Transuranic waste characterization/certification facilitydose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-29. Containment building dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-30. Mixed wasteoffsite vendor dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-31. Offsite smelter dose distribution by isotope for alternative C.

Table E.4-32. F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility dose distribution by isotope for all alternatives.

Table E.4-33. M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility dose distribution by isotope for all alternatives.

Table E.4-34. Radionuclides listed under "Other" in Tables E.4-9 through E.4-33.

Table E.5-1. Annular sector factors for local dose evaluations.

Table E.5-2. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for the no¡action alternative.

Table E.5-3. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative A - expected waste forecast.

Table E.5-4. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative A - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.5-5. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative A - maximum waste forecast.

Table E.5-6. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative C - expected waste forecast.

Table E.5-7. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative C - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.5-8. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative C - maximum waste forecast.

Table E.5-9. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50-mile) region for alternative B - expected waste forecast.

Table E.5-10. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50¡mile) region for alternative B - minimum waste forecast.

Table E.5-11. Estimated per capita 30-year dose for identified communities in 80-kilometer (50¡mile) region for alternative B - maximum waste forecast.

Table F-1. Accident frequency categories.

Table F-2. Activities that have a one-in-one-million chance of causing death.

Table F-3. Hierarchy of established limits and guidelines used to determine impacts from postulated hazardous material Accidents

Table F-4. List of potential Accidents associated with the management of high-level waste.

Table F-5. Representative bounding radiological accidents under the no-action alternative.

Table F-6. Chemical hazards analysis results for the F/H-Area tank farm facilities.

Table F-7. F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility chemical hazards analysis results.

Table F-8. Low-level waste facilities identified by alternative.

Table F-9. List of potential Accidents associated with the management of low-level waste.

Table F-10. Representative bounding radiological accidents for low-level waste under the no-action alternative.

Table F-11. Representative bounding radiological accidents for low-level waste under alternative B.

Table F-12. Hazardous waste facilities identified by alternative.

Table F-13. Mixed-waste facilities identified by alternative.

Table F-14. List of potential Accidents associated with the management of mixed waste.

Table F-15. Representative bounding radiological accidents for the no-action alternative for mixed wastes.

Table F-16. Representative bounding radiological accidents for mixed wastes under alternative B.

Table F-17. Mixed/hazardous waste chemical hazards analysis results.

Table F-18. Chemical hazards Accidents analysis results for the Organic Waste Storage Tank.

Table F-19. Chemical hazards analysis results for the 341-M facility.

Table F-20. Transuranic and alpha waste facilities identified by alternative.

Table F-21. List of potential accidents associated with the management of transuranic waste.

Table F-22. Representative bounding radiological accidents for transuranic waste under the no-action alternative.

Table F-23. Representative bounding radiological accidents for transuranic waste under alternative B.

Table F-24. Representative bounding radiological accidents for transuranic waste under alternative C.

Table F-25. Transuranic and alpha waste storage pads chemical hazards analysis results.

Table F-26. Conservative estimate of risk from seismic accidents.

Table H-1. Low-level radioactive waste regulations: DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.

Table I-1. Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Table 1. Plant and Animal Species that potentially occur on SRS and are protected under the ESA of 1973

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

LIST OF TABLES