Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

SUMMARY

S.1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) primary mission at the Savannah RiverSavannah River Site (SRS) from the 1950s until the recent end of the Cold War was tothe producteion and processing of nuclear materials to support defense programs. The end of the Cold War has led the United States to a reduce tion in the size of its the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Many of the more than 120 facilities across the country, including SRS, that DOE used to manufacture, assemble, and maintain the former arsenal -- referred to as the nuclear weapons complex -- are no longer needed for these activities and could be used for other purposes. Many of these facilities can be decontaminated and converted to new uses through decontamination processes; others must be decommissioned. In addition, the wastes generated during the Cold War must be cleaned up in a safe and cost-effective manner. DOE must also manage wastes that might be generated in the future by ongoing operations, including new defense facilities that mightmay be located at SRS. Finally, SRS must be brought into compliance with the environmental requirements enacted during the last 25 years.

DOE prepared this environmental impact statement (eis) on alternative strategies for managing wastes at the SRS (Figure S-1). This eis presents evaluates the effects of managing liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and hazardous), and transuranic wasteTransuranic wastes at SRS. It describes alternatives that DOE could implement to manage these wastes, [with the exception of alternatives for managing liquid high-level radioactive waste, which were addressed in the recently issued Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste Processing FacilityDefense Waste Processing Facility; (DOE/eis-0082S)]. It does not consider sanitary wasteSanitary wastes or foreign and domestic spent nuclear fuel (both foreign and domestic). In addition, this eis describes studies that were performed to define and evaluate the alternatives fully.

Tables S-1 and S-2 present summary comparisons of the characteristics and impacts of the alternatives considered. The tables include the no-action alternative, which would be to continue ongoing activities and implement only activities that have already been evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and three action alternatives. The action alternatives are based on strategies to provide limited (alternative A), moderate (alternative B), and extensive (alternative C) treatment configurations, all of which would protect human health and the environment, meet applicable storage and disposal requirements, and use reasonable storage, treatment, and disposal technologies. This summary describes the alternatives and the basis for DOE to identify the moderate treatment configuration alternative as its preferred alternative.

Figure S-1. A map of the SRS in South Carolina and surrounding local area.

This eis provides information on the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the specific treatment, storage, and disposal facilities proposed in each management alternative. The eis is based on current waste inventories; present and anticipated sources of new wastes; and existing and anticipated waste management facilities. The evaluations in this eis are intended to be consistent with those in or expected to appear in the WasteEnvironmental Management Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0200), the TritiumTritium Supply and RecyclingRecycling Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0161; revised Notice of Intent published in Federal Register on July 23, 1993), the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic eis (DOE/eis-0236), thethe Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management andand Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs eis (DOE/eis-0203; Notice of Intent published in Federal Register on October 5, 1992, Draft eis approved on June 3, 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-0220), 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 Site Treatment Plan for mixed wasteMixed waste. DOE will use these evaluations to makein making decisions on waste management. Because management alternatives would be implemented over the next decade, DOE may issue more than one Record of Decision following completion of this eis.

In preparing this eis, DOE considered the comments it received from organizations and individuals during the scoping process that extended from April 6 through May 31, 1994. The scoping process and plans for preparing this eis were described in the Implementation Plan Savannah River Site Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, which DOE issued in June 1994. DOE also considered comments it received on the draft eis issued in January 1995 during a public comment period that extended from January 27, 1995, to March 31, 1995.

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 fcility (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.

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-10612) 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 are 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 NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.1).

DOE has identified the moderate treatment configuration, alternative B, as its preferred alternative based on the careful consideration of beneficial and adverse environmental impacts, regulatory commitments, and other relevant factors. The moderate treatment configuration would provide a balanced mix of technologies that includes extensive treatment of those waste types that have the greatest potential to adversely affect humans or the environment because of their mobility or toxicity if left untreated (such as wastes containing plutonium-238), or that would remain dangerously radioactive far into the future (such as wastes containing transuranics). It would provide less extensive treatment of wastes that do not pose great threats to humans or the environment, or that will not remain dangerously radioactive far into the future (such as non-alpha low-level waste).

DOE bases its preference of alternative B on the following environmental impacts, regulatory commitments, and other factors:

Mixed waste technology selections are compatible with the site treatment plan. When a waste in the eis 30-year forecast was also included in the site treatment plan 5-year forecast, alternative B uses the same technology as that identified as the preferred treatment by the proposed site treatment plan.
Mixed waste technology selections are consistent with DOE's commitments under the Land Disposal Restrictions Federal Facility Compliance Agreement with EPA.
Transuranic waste technology selections are compatible with what the final Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria are expected to require. Treatment is provided only for those transuranic wastes that do not conform to the shipping requirements (i.e., plutonium-238 and higher activity plutonium-239). All other SRS transuranic wastes are expected to meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria after repackaging and characterization/certification.
Hazardous wastes are treated onsite subject to availability of treatment capacity and compatibility with technologies required to manage mixed waste.
Alternative B provides the best volume reduction for low-activity waste (75 percent reduction in alternative B compared to 22 percent for alternative A and 70 percent for alternative C), and it conserves space in low-activity waste vaults, reduces the total number of low-activity waste vaults, and thus avoids expenditures of land and money which is important since funds to construct additional vaults are unavailable.
Alternative B also results in the fewest number of additional transuranic and alpha waste pads, low-activity waste vaults, shallow land disposal trenches, and RCRA-permitted vaults.
Alternative B results in the least construction-related air emissions.
Alternative B employs less thermal treatment (technologies generally resulting in higher air emissions) than alternative C, resulting in smaller radiological air impacts than would occur in alternative C (e.g., fewer involved worker latent cancers fatalities and lower maximally exposed offsite individual fatal cancer probability), smaller offsite maximally exposed individuals dose).

In summary, DOE believes that alternative B provides the preferred configuration of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for the SRS. It requires the fewest number of additional acres for waste management facilities and maintains technology selection flexibilities that are not shared by alternatives based on strategies to provide limited (alternative A) or extensive (alternative C) treatment configurations.

Different wastes and volumes are proposed for treatment in the Consolidated IncinerationIncineration FacilityConsolidated Incineration Facility underfor alternatives A, B, and C. Under the no-action alternative, the Consolidated Incineration Facility would not operate and the wastes that could have been treated in it would be stored, sent offsite for treatment, or compacted and then disposed of in vaults. In the limited-treatment configuration (alternative A), the Consolidated Incineration Facility would burn certain mixed wastes (including mixed waste identified in the site treatment planSite treatment plan) and those hazardous wasteHazardous wastes for which incineration is the best demonstrated available or EPA-specified technology. In the moderate- treatment configuration (alternative B) the Consolidated Incineration Facility would burn some low-level radioactive wastes in addition to the mixed and hazardous wastes proposed in alternative A. In the extensive-treatment configuration (alternative C), the Consolidated Incineration Facility would burn the same wastes proposed in alternative B and a portion of the alpha wasteAlpha waste, but only for approximately 10 years. After that period, two a non-vitrificationVitrification facilitiesy would treat those wastes, and the Consolidated Incineration Facility would no longer operate.

This eis was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." DOE's policy is to follow the letter and spirit of NEPA and to comply fully with the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) (DOE regulations at 10 CFR 1021, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures).

S.2 Background

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 in the United States. These activities resulted in the generation of the five types of waste discussed in this eis. SRS's present mission focuses on waste management, environmental restorationEnvironmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioningDecontamination and decommissioning of facilities that are no longer needed to produce and process nuclear materials.

DOE is responding to several needs and issues in proposing a waste management strategy for SRS and preparing this eis. In addition to the examination of alternative strategies for waste management at SRS, this eis presents the results of other analyses of waste management.

The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Public Law 102-386, October 6, 1992), requires DOE to prepare a site treatment planSite treatment plan for SRS that sets forth options for treating mixed wasteMixed wastes currently in storage or that will be generated over the next 5Êyears. This eis analyzes the environmental impacts of the facilities that could be used tofor treating mixed wastes according to the options presented in SRS's plan; the DOE Waste Management Pprogrammatic eis on waste management also examines the possible impacts of treating mixed wastes at SRS and elsewhere. The alternatives evaluated here and others are consistent with the options presented in the site treatment plan. However, the plan is limited to options for treating mixed wastes currently in storage or generated during the next 5 years. This eis evaluates alternatives for managing mixed and other types of wastes using existing and new facilities that would be available during the next 10 years. Thise eis also establishes a baseline for assessing options for waste managementement of for the period beyond that of the site treatment plan. For example, this eis examines options for storing, treating, and disposing of low-level radioactive and hazardous wasteHazardous wastes that are not mixed waste and which, are therefore, are not addressed in the site treatment plan.

On October 22, 1993, DOE stated that it would prepare this eis on waste management strategies for SRS and identified some of the elements that would be evaluated. DOE committed to evaluate in this eis both the facilities that might be used to treat mixed wastes, as required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, and the operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility. (DOE prepared an environmental assessment [(DOE/ea-0400]) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact [(Federal Register, December 24, 1992]) on the Consolidated Incineration Facility, which is currently under construction.) The proposed treatments of mixed waste would be taken into account in formulating the alternatives for thisthis eis. DOE stated that it wouldwould evaluate the Consolidated Incineration Facility and other alternatives (e.g., compaction) for reducing the volume of low-level waste. The cost analysis of potential alternatives would be based on life-cycle costs (i.e., construction, operation, and decommissioning) of facilities so that the costs of the Consolidated Incineration Facility would be calculated on a consistent basis for comparison to the conceptual facilities for which detailed facility designs have not been developed. The incinerator's construction would would continue on schedule, but trial burns would would be deferred until this eis completion of this eis and issuance of is completed and DOE decides on how or whether to use the Consolidated Incineration Facility.

This eis is intended to meet DOE's commitments to the public to re-examine the environmental impacts of operating the Consoidated Incineration Facility; it also provides a basis for future DOE decisions on operation of that facility.

This eis incorporates the preferred options proposed in the SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan for mixed waste and evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from management activities for liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes at SRS over the next 30 years. This eis includes an assessment of the cumulative impacts of waste management and other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities at SRS in Section 4.15.

S.3 Purpose and Need for Agency Action

The end of the Cold War has reduced the size of the nuclear arsenal needed to maintain an effective deterrent and keep the peace. Many of the more than 120 facilities across the country that DOE used to manufacture, assemble, and maintain its nuclearthe former arsenal - referred to as the nuclear weapons complex - are no longer needed for these activities and could be used for other purposes. In addition, the wastes generated during the Cold War must be cleaned up in a safe and cost-effective manner. Furthermore, SRS facilities must be brought into compliance with the many environmental requirements enacted since since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created and environmental regulations were enacted since 1970.

In order to convert a number of facilities to other uses and clean-up the Cold War's legacy at SRS, DOE needs to develop a strategy for managing existing future wastes. The purpose of the alternatives evaluated in this eis is to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, and to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance in a cost-effective manner. This eis evaluates the potential environmental impacts of alternative strategies for minimizing, treating, storing, and disposing of radioactive and hazardous wasteHazardous wastes at SRS.

To evaluate strategies for managing wastes, DOE must predict the amount of waste it will manage at SRS from operations, decontamination and decommissioning, and environmental restoration. Although the defense mission at SRS has been reduced, continuing and new operations will generate some wastes. In some cases, the amounts of wastes that will be generated can only be estimated approximately because final decisions about some operations have not been made. For example, processing high-level waste into borosilicate glass, as described in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste Processing FacilityDefense Waste Processing Facility, and the interim management of nuclear materials would generate secondary wastes. Estimates of these wastes have been included in the waste forecasts.

It is also difficult to predict the amounts of wastes requiring management because DOE does not know the extent of decontamination and decommissioning or environmental restoration that will take place at SRS. At present, DOE cannot identify all of the facilities that will become surplus, or predict when a particular facility will no longer be needed to maintain the nuclear arsenal. Thus, DOE does not have a complete schedule of the facilities it will eventually decontaminate and decommission. In addition, DOE cannot identify at this time all of the contaminated areas at SRS that will require restoration. As a result of these uncertainties about the amounts of wastes that will be generated, DOE has estimated a range of waste quantities it could generate at SRS during the restoration of contaminated areas and the decontamination and decommissioning of surplus facilities. The maximum and minimum forecasts of the wastes generated by restoration and decontamination and decommissioning were used in the analyses presented in this eis.

In addition to wastes that have been or will be generated at SRS, SRS may receive and manage wastes from other DOE facilities. Estimating the amounts of wastes to be received from other facilities in the future is even more difficult than predicting the amounts of wastes that will be generated at SRS. The amounts of offsite waste sent to SRS will depend on activities at other DOE facilities involving ongoing operations, waste management, environmental restoration, and decommissioning. These activities in turn depend on NEPA reviews DOE is conducting on: (1) the future needs of the nuclear weapons complex; (2) the possible consolidation of nuclear materials and wastes at certain facilities; and (3) the locations of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in the DOE complex. For purposes of this eis, DOE has assumed that the wastes SRS will receive from other sites will fall somewhere between the amounts it now receives (included in the expected forecast) and a maximum estimate which includes all wastes that have been identified to date as possible candidates for treatment, storage, or disposal at SRS (included in the maximum forecast).

S.4 Proposed Action

DOE needs to develop a strategy to manage radioactive and hazardous wastes at SRS now and in the future. DOE proposes to select and implement a waste management strategy for SRS that protects human health, complies with environmental regulations, minimizes waste generation, utilizes effective and commercially available technologies for near-term management needs, and is cost effective. There are numerous technologies available to treat wastes like those generated and stored at SRS. DOE conducted a thorough evaluation process to determine the best available technologies for specific SRS wastes. The abilities of emerging technologies to decontaminate, reduce the volume of, or stabilize SRS wastes groups were evaluated against three general criteria: their ability to treat SRS wastes and meet regulatory requirements; their safety and environmental risks; and their cost compared to competitive technologies. The technology evaluation process is illustrated in Figure S-2. (Figure S-2 is a general representation of the process by which specific technologies may be selected over time as new technologies become available or as waste management issues become apparent. It is not intended to illustrate the structure of this eis (references in the figure to this eis are intended to show where this document serves as a useful planning baseline.). Candidate technologies selected for evaluationto treat SRS wastes include waste minimization, compaction, incineration, vitrification, and macroencapsulation, and containment. Facilities that use these technologies and were selected as part of one or more of the action alternatives include:

Consolidated Incineration Facility
Transuranic waste characterization/certification facility
Containment building for the treatment of hazardous and mixed wastes
Alpha and non-alpha vitrification facilities
Offsite supercompactor
Soil sort facility

Other management facilities and treatments evaluated in the alternatives are listed in Table S-1. The strategy DOE would select must address minimization, treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes at SRS. This eis evaluates the environmental impacts of three potential action alternatives, in addition to the of no-action alternative required by NEPA.

Figure S-2. Process for evaluating waste management technologies

S.5 Alternatives

In this eis, the no-action alternative is defined as the continuation of current management practices and includes building additional facilities to store newly generated waste, as has been done in the past. The no-action alternative is presented first because its implementation would continue current practices for treatment and storage of liquid high-level radioactive (including operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility), mixed, and transuranic waste; disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and offsite treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.

The no-action alternative would not meet the need for DOE action. It would leave transuranic and mixed wastes untreated, in storage, and in forms not suitable for disposal. It could also cause DOE to violate some regulatory requirements and agreements. The no-action alternative provides a baseline against which the environmental impacts of the action alternatives can be compared. Because it is a baseline and represents a continuation of current practices, its impacts were evaluated using the expected 30-year waste forecast.

Under the no-action alternative, additional storage and disposal facilities would be constructed (shown in Table S-1) and some treatment facilities currently under construction and planned facilities already evaluated under NEPA would be completed and, with the exception of the Consolidated Incineration Facility, operated. Planned facilities that would operate under the no-action alternative as well as in the three action alternatives include:

E-Area vaults for the disposal of low-level wastes
Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Vaults
M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility
Long-Lived Waste Storage Building
Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator
New Waste Transfer Facility

DOE would continue to implement pollution prevention and waste minimization activities, and would continue to prepare high-level wastes for vitrification in the Defense Waste Processing Facility, as described in the recently issued Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste Processing Facility. DOE would continue to compact low-level waste where appropriate, and dispose of it by shallow land disposal or in vaults, depending on waste characteristics; DOE would store long-lived wastes in a long-lived-waste storage building. Hazardous wastes wouldwould continue to be recycled for onsite use or sent offsite for treatment and disposal. Storage of mixed wastes would continue in storage buildings and tanks onsite; DOE would vitrify limited quantities of mixed waste would be vitrifiedcation onsite and would store the resulting treatment residues would be stored pending disposal in vaults; DOE would begin to ship radioactive polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) offsite for processing and return the residues to SRS for shallow land disposal. Transuranic and alpha wastes would continue to be stored on transuranic waste storage pads, the existing Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay Facility/Waste Certification Facility would assay and X-ray drums of transuranic and alpha waste to verify packaging and content, and newly-generated alpha waste would be disposed of in vaults. SRS would continue to receive low-level waste from the Naval Reactors Program.

This eis evaluates three action alternatives that would meet DOE's need to manage wastes in a safe and cost-effective manner. Five criteria were employed to identify the most desirable technologies: process parameters (including degree of volume reduction, secondary waste generated, and the efficiency of process decontamination and decommissioning); engineering parameters (including process maturity, availability, and ease of maintenance); environment, health, and safety factors (public and occupational risks, environmental risks, and transportation requirements); public acceptance (including regulatory permitting and schedule considerations); and cost. Although the five criteria were applied in all three alternatives, the value of each parameter was weighted differently among the alternatives. Alternatives A and C have one or more parameters skewed toward one extreme or another, while alternative B, the preferred alternative, is an attempt to attempts to balance the parameters. The following paragraphs briefly summarize these alternatives:

· Limited Treatment Configuration (Alternative A). This alternative consists of the siting, constructing, and operating of facilities (shown in Table S-1) and the implementating of management techniques that would minimize impacts from treatment processes while complying with existing regulations. For each of the wastes, the treatment provided would be the minimum needed to meet applicable standards and allow prompt storage and disposal. This would minimize both worker exposure from handling and processing wastes, and public exposure to effluents or emissions generated by treatment processes. The limited treatment processes under this alternative would produce a safe waste form, but not one that had undergone the most vigorous treatment available, so the volumes of wastes would be greater and the potential for impacts in the future from storage and disposal would be more likely than under the other action alternatives.

Under this alternative, low-level waste would only be treated by existing compactors at SRS, as appropriate, before storage in buildings or on storage pads or before disposal by shallow land disposal or in vaults. Hazardous wastes would be recycled, sent offsite for treatment and disposal, or together with appropriate mixed wastes, be treated in the Consolidated Incineration Facility with the resulting stabilized ash and blowdown residues disposed of in RCRA-permitted disposal facilities or shallow land disposal. Other mixed wastes would be treated to permit reuse, or sent offsite for treatment and the residue returned to SRS for disposal. Transuranic waste meeting waste acceptance criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant would be repackaged and stored on storage pads pending shipment to that site for disposal, and alpha wastes would be disposed of in onsite vaults.

· Moderate Treatment Configuration (Alternative B). The preferred alternative consists of siting, constructing, and operating facilities (shown in Table S-1), and implementating management techniques that would provide a mix of cost-effective waste management and treatment technologies selected to balance short- and long-term impacts.

Under this alternative, the volume of compatible low-level wastes would be reduced by onsite compactors and sent offsite for supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting), and incineration as part of the low-level waste offsite volume reduction initiative. The proposed offsite volume reduction initiative in this alternative was announced and public comments were solicited in the Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60 FR 26417); it represents a change from the draft to the final eis. Other low-level wastes would be disposed of without treatment, treated offsite for recycling or later disposal at SRS, or burned in the Consolidated Incineration Facility together with mixed and hazardous wastes. The resulting treatment residues would be disposed of in vaults or by shallow land disposall. Mixed soil and sludge wastes would be treated in a non-alpha vitrification facility (after 2006); other mixed wastes would be processed onsite or offsite for recycling or disposal. Hazardous wastes would generally be treated and disposed of offsite, or treated onsite for reuse or disposal. Transuranic wastes would be stored until 2008, when a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility and an alpha vitrification facility became available; these facilities would produce transuranic waste forms acceptable for transfer to the Waste Isolation Pilot PlantWaste Isolation Pilot Plant, and alpha waste forms acceptable for disposal in onsite disposal facilities.

The moderate treatment configuration would provide extensive treatment for those wastes that have the greatest potential to adversely affect humans or the environment and limited treatment for those wastes for which more extensive treatment would not appreciably decrease the associated impacts. This alternative draws on both the more extensive treatments proposed under alternative C and the limited treatments proposed under alternative A. For example, under alternative A, all transuranic wastes would be repackaged in accordance with the acceptance criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant while under alternative C all transuranic wastes would be vitrified. Under alternative B, DOE proposes that only plutonium-238 and the high-activity portions of the plutonium-239 transuranic wastes be vitrified and the remainder of the plutonium-239 wastes be repackaged.

· Extensive Treatment Configuration (Alternative C). This alternative consists of siting, constructing, and operating of facilities (shown in Table S-1) and implementing management techniques that would minimize environmental impacts from storage and disposal by extensive treatment of wastes to reduce their volume and toxicity and to create stable, migration-resistant waste forms. This alternative would, however, be more likely than other alternatives to increase short-term impacts because more treatment facilities would be built and there would be more exposure to radiological emissions from more intensive treatment and increased handling.

Under this alternative, DOE would incinerate low-activity and tritiated low-level waste would be incinerated in the Consolidated Incineration Facility until 2006, when a non-alpha vitrification facility would begin operating. DOE would store or compact onsite, other low-level waste, or treated offsite for recycling or later disposal at SRS. DOE would burn mixed waste in the Consolidated Incineration Facility, as appropriate, until a non-alpha vitrification facility became available, or otherwise treat it onsite (offsite for PCBs and lead) to allow reuse or disposal. Hazardous wastes would also be burned in the Consolidated Incineration Facility until a non-alpha vitrification facility became available, or otherwise treated onsite (offsite for PCBs) for reuse or disposal.. Transuranic wastes would be characterized and repackaged according to their alpha radioactivity, converted into glass in an alpha vitrification facility, and stored pending disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE would burn alpha waste in the Consolidated Incineration Facility until 2006; after 2006, DOE would vitrify it, and dispose of it by shallow land disposal or in low-level waste or RCRA-permitted vaults..

DOE evaluated a wide variety of operational scenarios for the Consolidated Incineration Facility, from no operation to treatment of hazardous, mixed, low-level radioactive, and alpha wastes. DOE believes that the Consolidated Incineration Facility could play a vital role in an integrated waste management configuration for SRS. DOE also evaluated alternative configurations for reducing the volume of low-level waste. Application of compaction varies from operating the existing SRS compactors to sending low-level waste to a supercompactor at another location. DOE believes that both compaction and incineration are viable components of an integrated waste management configuration.

Three forecasts of waste volumes were developed for each alternative based on the expected, minimum, and maximum amounts of wastes SRS might need to manage. Because the no-action alternative does not satisfy the need for action, DOE evaluated the no-action alternative only with the expected waste forecast. The intent of the minimum and maximum forecasts was to identify how waste management activities might change with changes in the amounts of waste, and to identify the differing impacts of the waste management activities. Under all alternatives, liquid high-level wastes would be managed as described for in the no-action alternative, although the volumes to be managed would vary between the three waste forecasts.

S.6 Affected Environment

SRS encompasses approximately 800 square kilometers (300 square miles) within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and includes portions of Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina. Four population centers - Augusta, Georgia; and Aiken, Barnwell, and North Augusta, South Carolina - are within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of SRS. Three small South Carolina towns - Jackson, New Ellenton, and Snelling - are immediately adjacent to the SRS boundary on the northwest, north, and east, respectively (Figure S-1). Approximately 69 percent of the SRS land is upland forest, approximately 22 percent is water and wetlands, and about 9 percent is developed. Land within E-Area (the proposed location of most of the waste management facilities; see Figure S-3) is classified as developed land. Table S-2 presents the acreages required for the additional facilities proposed for the alternatives.

S.7 Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts of waste management activities, including the construction and operation of new facilities. This eis examines impacts to natural resources such as air, water, and plants and animals, and to human resources, such as the health of workers and the public, and the social and economic structure of nearby communities. For many parameters, existing environmental conditions are not expected to change.

The evaluation of the environmental impacts of the alternatives considered in this eis, which bound both the full range of reasonable waste management strategies and the quantities of waste that might be managed at SRS, indicates that many impacts would be very small. Furthermore, the differences in impacts among management alternatives are small for the same waste forecast. The major determinant of potential impacts is the amount of waste SRS would be called on to manage. In other words, differences in waste forecasts are more significant than differences in management strategies with regard to potential environmental impacts. The amount of waste SRS will manage depends largely on the extent of environmental restoration and facility decontamination and decommissioning undertaken at SRS in the future. The receipt of wastes from other facilities and ongoing operations at SRS make much smaller contributions to waste volume.

Figure S-3. SRS Areas and Facilities.

In eight resource categories -- socioeconomics, groundwater, surface water, air, traffic, transportation, occupational health, and public health -- there would be very small impacts. Cleared and uncleared land would be disturbed to build new facilities, which would impact ecological resources, would limit future land-use options, and might impact geologic (soils) and cultural resources. Additional conclusions from the analyses are summarized below and in Table S-2:

Impacts and benefits of alternative ways to reduce the volume of low-level waste were evaluated. Under alternative A and the no-action alternative, low-level wastes would be compacted, resulting in a 22 percent reduction in the disposal volume. The size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding and melting), supercompaction, and incineration proposed in alternative B would reduce the volume by 75 percent although with an increased (but still small) impact on the health risks to remote populations. Soil sorting and vitrification proposed in alternative C would reduce the volume of low-level waste by 70 percent.
Construction and operation of facilities would be required for each alternative. In general, waste treatment by facilities proposed in the alternative involving extensive treatment (alternative C) would produce higher operational impacts than those in the alternative involving limited treatment (alternative A) because more handling and processing of wastes generally produces more emissions and greater worker exposure.
Conversely, the limited-treatment alternative (alternative A) would require more disposal capacity and disposal facilities with more sophisticated methods of containment (i.e., more vaults and less shallow land disposal), because alternative A would not reduce or immobilize wastes to the degree that alternative C (extensive treatment configuration) would.
The moderate-treatment alternative (alternative B) uses options from alternative A and alternative C, depending on the type of waste and its characteristics and physical properties, to balance the trade-offs between extensive treatment (the basis of alternative C) and extensive disposal (the basis of alternative A). Variations in the implementation of alternative B would result in impacts that would fall somewhere between those from the less stable waste forms produced in alternative A and those from the greater operational emissions produced in alternative C. Immpacts would be very small for each of the alternatives.
The no-action alternative would require more storage facilities at the end of the 30-year period of analysis than any other alternative. Under the no-action alternative, mixed and transuranic wastes would not have been treated or disposed of during the 30-year period considered in this eis, which would increase the probability of potential environmental impacts, including accidents and worker radiological exposure, above those of the other alternatvies. The impacts would be deferred under the no-action alternative, not avoided. In addition, some impacts would be incurred during the 30-year storage period as a result of normal operations.
Although this eis does not establish the amount of waste that SRS would be required to manage in the future, it evaluates waste management requirements based on minimum, expected, and maximum forecasts. Managing the maximum amount of waste in any of the alternatives, would require clearing approximately 1,000 acres. It would be difficult to clear this much land in a heterogeneous landscape, such as occurs at SRS, without measurably affecting the ecological resources of the area. The loss of this much natural habitat would result in the loss of large numbers of individual animals. Although there are 733 square kilometers (181,000 acres) of forested land on SRS, committing 1,000 acres to waste management under the maximum waste forecast would more severely restrict future land-use options than managing the minimum or expected waste forecasts, which would require less land.
Under the various alternatives and wastes forecasts, tritium released to the Savannah River from groundwater beneath E-Area seeping into Upper Three Runs would reach its highest concentration in 70 to 237 years. However, the concentration would be very small and would remain well within drinking water standards under each alternative.
Groundwater impacts from shallow land and vault disposal would be very small. Exceedances of health-based standards that were identified in the draft eis would not occur for two reasons. First, after the draft eis was issued, DOE reevaluated the isotopic inventory of wastes and determined that curium-247 and -248 are not present at detectable concentrations in the wastes. Therefore, these radionuclides were removed from the waste inventories considered in the eis groundwater analysis. Second, the draft eis groundwater analysis did not account for the reduced mobility of the stabilized waste forms, such as ashcrete and glass, that might be placed in slit trenches under alternative A, B, or C. The analysis in this final eis instead assumes that the performance of stabilized waste forms would conform with the performance objectives of DOE Order 5820.2A.
Airborne emissions of nonradiological constituents would not increase appreciably over current emissions and would remain within applicable state and Federal standards for each alternative. Radiological emissions and the resulting doses to the public and workers would remain within EPA standards. Over the 30-year evaluation period, these emissions would increase the risk of a fatal cancer to the maximally exposed member of the public by less than 2 in 100 million for the no-action alternative to about 6 in 100,000 under alternative C - maximum forecast.
Under each alternative, additional commuter traffic and truck shipments on SRS and nearby roads would not exceed the capacity of these roads.
Risk to workers at SRS and the public from exposure to toxic chemicals resulting from accidents would be very small and similar for each alternative. All workers follow stringent Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements when handling toxic chemicals. Facilities where toxic chemicals are handled are some distance from the SRS boundaries, so the risk of exposure to the public is minimal.
Projected facility costs and manpower requirements differ between the draft and final eis. This is due to the following factors: a refinement of the parameters that determine operating manpower, building, and equipment costs; a correction to the scope of no-action alternative costs to make them consistent with the other alternative - waste forecast estimates; and new initiatives in alternative B that lowered facility costs for this alternative. In addition, the costing methodology bases construction manpower requirements on building and equipment costs; therefore, both operating and construction employment differ between draft and final eis. This, in turn, affects projections of socioeconomic and traffic impacts. The cost analysis was changed to be consistent with the Baseline Environmental Management Report developed by DOE to ensure consistent reporting or estimating future facility constructin and operaiton costs. This report is used to establish future budgetary requirements for theDOE complex. with the Baseline Environmental Management Report developed by DOE to ensure consistent reporting or estimating future facility construction and operation costs. This report is used to establish future budgetary requirements for the DOE complex.
Costs for implementationing of each alternative were estimated for comparison purposes. Because detailed designs have not been developed for all facilities, these estimates are only preliminary estimates approximations of the actual likely costs. However, since they were developed for all alternatives from a consistent set of assumptions, they provide a reasonable basis for comparisons. As shown in Table S-3, in terms of life-cycle costs, the implementation of the moderate treatment alternative for the minimum and expected waste forecasts would be equal to implementation of the limited treatment alternative and more costly than the extensive treatment alternative. Implementation of the limited treatment alternative for the maximum waste forecast would be somewhat more costly than implementation of the moderate treatment alternative, which in turn would cost more than the extensive treatment alternative.

Table S-2 summarizes and compares the potential environmental impacts of the four waste management alternatives; these impacts would result from land clearing and the construction and operation of new facilities. The table focuses on the expected waste forecast, but it also presents the minimum and maximum waste forecasts when this is important to fully appreciate the impacts. In general, the impacts vary in proportion to the amount of waste that DOE would handle, but even in the maximum waste forecast, they are very small.

Table S-3 presents the storage, treatment, disposal, and cost requirements for the four management alternatives (no-action, limited treatment configuration, moderate treatment configuration, and extensive treatment configuration) and the three waste forecasts (minimum, expected, and maximum).

Table S-1. Summary of new waste management facilities proposed for each alternative and waste forecast.

Table S-2. Summary comparison of environmental impacts of each alternative.

Table S-3. Treatment, storage, and disposal requirements for and cost of each alternative and waste forecast.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)