CHAPTER 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Chapter 3 describes Savannah River Site baseline environmental
conditions. Chapter 4 describes the potential environmental
consequences to the SRS and the surrounding region of the four
alternatives under consideration. In addition to these impacts,
this chapter considers cumulative impacts, which include the
impacts of existing offsite (non-DOE) industrial facilities and
potential impacts of planned SRS facilities. This cumulative
impact assessment recognizes that possible environmental
impacts of SRS actions could occur in a regional as well as a
local context, and that conditions in the surrounding area could
increase or decrease offsite impacts of such actions.
Radiological impacts from the operation of the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, a two-unit commercial nuclear powerplant a
short distance across the Savannah River from the SRS, are minimal,
but DOE has factored them into the analysis. Radiological impacts of the
soon-to-be-discontinued operation of the Chem-Nuclear Services
facility, a commercial low-level waste disposal facility just
east of the SRS, are so miniscule that this assessment does not
include them.
In the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents listed
below DOE is evaluating a number of facilities that are existing,
planned, or under construction at the SRS.
- Proposed facilities and actions in the SRS Defense Waste
Processing Facility (DWPF) Supplemental eis
- Proposed facilities and actions in the SRS Waste Management
eis
- Proposed facilities and actions in the Interim Management of
Nuclear Materials eis
- Proposed facilities and actions in Appendix C (SRS Spent
Nuclear Fuel Management Program) of the Programmatic Spent
Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs Environmental Impact Statement
To the extent that data were available from these impact
assessments and were relevant, they have been included in the
cumulative impact analyses that follow.
DOE has not included a number of other planned facilities in this
cumulative impact analysis because decisions on these facilities
involve major unresolved DOE policy issues. For example, this analysis
does not consider DOE planning related to reconfiguring the
nation's weapons complex.
This cumulative analysis does not attempt to present quantitative
impacts for the Environmental Management Programmatic eis, the
Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel eis, or the
Programmatic eis for Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile
Materials.
Cumulative impacts have been determined for air quality, water
quality, occupational and public health, waste generation, and
socioeconomics. Contributions by the preferred alternative and
the other alternatives to the cumulative impacts of SRS
operations on regional ecosystems and the Savannah River
watershed (e.g., impacts on land use, surface water, groundwater,
and wildlife) were too small to characterize.
5.1 Public and Worker Health
Table 5-1 summarizes the cumulative health effects of routine SRS operations, including those projected for radioactive releases associated with the treatment of F-Canyon plutonium solutions. In addition, Table 5-1 lists the radiological doses to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual and the offsite population and potential cancer fatalities for the public and workers due to exposure to radiation. These cumulative impacts could result in an additional latent cancer fatality risk of 1.0 * 10-7 to that individual and in a total of 0.014 additional cancer fatality to the 80-kilometer (50-mile) population from releases of radioactivity. The treatment of plutonium solutions would account for about 1 percent of these health effects. The cumulative impact could result in 0.24 additional latent cancer fatality to onsite workers; the treatment of plutonium solutions would account for approximately 22 percent of these health effects.
5.2 Air Resources
Table 5-2 compares the estimated cumulative concentrations of nonradiological air pollutants from the SRS to Federal and state regulatory standards. The listed values are the maximum modeled concentrations that would occur at ground level at the Site boundary. The data demonstrate that total estimated concentrations of nonradiological air pollutants from the SRS, including those from the treatment of plutonium solutions, would be well below the regulatory standards at the Site boundary. Table 5-1. Estimated maximum annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population and facility workers. Table 5-2. Estimated maximum nonradiological cummulative ground- level concentrations of criteria an toxic pollutants (micrograms per cubic meter) at the SRS boundary.a DOE also evaluated the cumulative impacts of airborne radioactive releases in terms of dose to a maximally exposed individual at the Site boundary. DOE has included the impacts of the two-unit Plant Vogtle in this cumulative total. The radiological emissions of the Chem-Nuclear low-level waste disposal facility just east of the SRS are very low and are not included. Table 5-3 lists the results of this analysis, using the 1993 emissions (1991 for Plant Vogtle) as the SRS baseline. The highest cumulative dose to the maximally exposed member of the public would be 0.00052 rem (0.52 millirem) per year, well below the regulatory standard (40 CFR Part 61) of 10 millirem per year. Summing the doses to maximally exposed individuals for the five actions or facilities listed in Table 5-3 is a conservative approach because it assumes that the maximally exposed individual would be the same person for each facility or action. Physically, the difference in the geographic locations of the facilities would make it impossible for the maximally exposed individual to be the same person for each facility or action. Therefore, the total reported dose is a conservative overestimate of the cumulative dose to any individual. Table 5-3. Estimated annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population from airborne releases. The highest calculated annual collective dose to the offsite population from airborne emissions would be 0.38 person-rem. Adding the annual collective dose from current and projected activities at the SRS, including treatment of plutonium solutions, operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility, and management of spent nuclear fuel, would yield a maximum annual cumulative dose of 24.1 person-rem from airborne sources, 1.5 percent of which would be attributable to the treatment of plutonium solutions. This annual dose would translate to 0.014 latent cancer fatality in the population within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the SRS.
5.3 Water Resources
Table 5-4 summarizes the estimated cumulative radiological doses from exposure to waterborne sources downstream of the SRS. The two major sources of radioactive liquid effluents from the Site would be process cooling water and steam condensate that could contain small quantities of radionuclides released to SRS streams that are tributaries of the Savannah River. Exposure pathways considered in this analysis include drinking water, fish ingestion, shoreline exposure, swimming, and boating. The ingestion of fish containing cesium-137 would contribute most of the exposure to both the maximally exposed individual and the offsite population. Plutonium and uranium isotopes ingested with drinking water would be secondary contributors. Table 5-4. Estimated annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population from liquid releases. The estimated annual dose to the maximally exposed individual from all actions would be 0.00041 rem, of which the treatment of plutonium solutions would represent much less than 1 percent. The estimated maximum annual collective dose to the population would be 3.9 person-rem, with the dose from treatment of plutonium solutions representing much less than 1 percent of the total dose. This cumulative dose could result in 0.0020 latent cancer fatalities in the exposed population.
5.4 Waste Generation
Table 5-5 lists maximum cumulative volumes of radioactive waste and mixed waste generated by the SRS for the listed projected activities. Existing operational values are based on the SRS 30-year waste forecast (WSRC 1994b) and Appendix C to the Draft Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel eis (DOE 1994a). Table 5-5. Maximum estimated cumulative waste generation from SRS operations, 1995 to 2004. This analysis does not include environmental restoration and decontamination and decommissioning activities, which are likely to become an increasingly important part of the DOE mission in the future. Such activities, which are likely to produce large quantities of low-level radioactive waste, hazardous, and mixed waste, will undergo appropriate NEPA evaluation.
5.5 Socioeconomics
DOE expects proposed Defense Waste Processing Facility construction activities (including planned modifications and completion of support facilities) to create approximately 270 direct construction jobs during the peak years, 1999 and 2000 (DOE 1994d). No new operations jobs are likely to result from the DWPF coming on line. Indirect (non-SRS) employment from the construction and operation of the DWPF should peak between 1999 and 2000, with approximately 110 new jobs created per year in the six-county area around SRS. Depending on the management alternative and sites selected, spent nuclear fuel activities at the SRS could require as many as 2,700 construction workers (DOE 1994c). Operations employment is not likely to increase as a result of spent nuclear fuel management activities. The nuclear materials management issues DOE is addressing in the related Interim Management of Nuclear Materials eis are not likely to create any new jobs at the SRS or to affect the regional economy in any substantive way. The construction of the Consolidated Incineration Facility could require as many as 175 workers (peak year), most of whom would come from the existing SRS workforce. The construction of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator could require as many as 70 workers in a given year (WSRC 1994b). DOE does not expect additional employment to result from the operation of either facility. DOE has not determined the workforce requirements associated with other SRS Waste Management eis projects under consideration, but they should have minimal additional impacts on the economy of the region. The construction of Phase 1 of the Savannah River Research Campus, being built just outside the Site boundary, could require 150 workers. Once completed, in early 1995, the campus could employ an estimated 200 people (Saccone 1994). These additional jobs would have a minimal impact on socioeconomic resources in the region. DOE believes that there would be no net increase in construction jobs or operation jobs associated with the implementation of any of the plutonium solution stabilization alternatives. The Processing to Plutonium Oxide Alternative would require the construction of a new Actinide Packaging Facility (or expansion of an existing facility) to convert low-fired oxide to high-fired (completely oxidized) oxide and to package the oxide in an inert atmosphere. The development of this facility could require as many as 150 construction workers in a given year. However, all construction jobs and operations jobs probably would be filled though the reassignment of existing SRS workers (e.g., transfer of workers from FB-Line to the new facility). Therefore, DOE does not anticipate measurable impacts to regional socioeconomic resources from changes in SRS employment levels. The maximum potential change in employment associated with the proposed action and alternatives, construction and proposed operation of DWPF facilities, new waste management facilities, new spent nuclear fuel management activities, and the Savannah River Research Campus would occur around 2002, when approximately 3,000 (mostly construction) jobs would be created. This compares to a predicted regional labor force of 261,234 in 2002. This small increase, roughly 1 percent, in direct employment resulting from all these projects would have temporary impacts on the six-county region of influence.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
