• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

CHAPTER 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This chapter considers cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of existing offsite (non-DOE) industrial facilities and potential impacts of planned Savannah River Site facilities. Radiological impacts from the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, a two-unit commercial nuclear powerplant approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southwest of the center of the SRS near Waynesboro, Georgia, are minimal, but DOE has factored them into the analysis. Radiological impacts of operation of the Chem-Nuclear Services facility, a commercial low-level waste disposal facility just east of the SRS, are so small that this assessment does not include them (SCDHEC 1992).

In addition to the interim management of nuclear materials, DOE has recently prepared other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation relating to the Savannah River Site, including the following:

• Appendix C of the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1994a)
• The SRS Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Supplemental EIS (DOE 1994b)
• The F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1994c)
• The SRS Waste Management EIS (DOE 1995)

To the extent that data from these impact assessments were available and relevant, DOE has included them in the cumulative impact analyses that follow.

DOE did not include a number of other facilities in this cumulative impact analysis because decisions on these facilities involve major unresolved DOE policy issues. Because of these unresolved issues, any attempt to analyze corresponding impacts would involve an unacceptable level of speculation and uncertainty. For example, this assessment does not consider DOE planning related to reconfiguring the nation's weapons complex, including a new source for tritium production. In addition, this assessment does not attempt to present quantitative impacts for other NEPA documents that DOE is preparing, including the Environmental Management Programmatic EIS, the Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS, or the Programmatic EIS for Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials. If more complete or more definitive information becomes available before the preparation of the final version of this EIS, DOE will incorporate it.

DOE has analyzed cumulative impacts for public and worker health, air resources, water resources, waste generation, and utilities. The contributions of the Comparative Alternatives Scenario to the cumulative impacts of SRS operations on regional ecosystems and the Savannah River watershed (e.g., impacts on land use, surface water, and groundwater) were too small to characterize and are not included. Activities supporting the various management alternatives would take place inside secure fenced areas that were converted to industrial use more than 40 years ago. DOE anticipates no incremental impacts on ecological resources.

5.1 Public and Worker Health

Table 5-1 summarizes the cumulative health effects of routine SRS operations. Current SRS project impacts are based on 1993 data. Other impacts resulting from proposed DOE actions are presented in the applicable environmental impact statement listed on page 5-1. This table lists, in addition to estimated radiological doses to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual and the offsite population, 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 0.0000011 per year to that individual and in a total of 0.04 additional cancer fatality per year to the 80-kilometer (50-mile) population from releases of radioactivity. The interim management of the nuclear materials evaluated in this EIS would account for about 50 percent of these health effects. The cumulative impact could result in an additional latent cancer fatality risk of 0.32 to the onsite workers; the interim management of nuclear materials would account for approximately 16 percent of this risk.

Table 5-1. Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population and facility workers.

^a Sources: Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey (1994); DOE (1994a,b,c; 1995); NRC (1994).
^b Collective dose to the 80-kilometer population for atmospheric releases and to the downstream users of the Savannah River for liquid releases.
^c Dose in rem.
^d Probability of fatal cancer.
^e Dose in person-rem.
^f Incidence of excess fatal cancers.
^g Average annual values from the Comparative Alternatives Scenario described in Chapter 4.
^h NA = not applicable.

Virtually all (more than 97 percent) of the total collective dose to the offsite population resulting from the interim management of nuclear materials would be from airborne sources. Similarly, more than 99 percent of the cumulative dose to the offsite population would be from airborne sources.

5.2 Air Resources

Table 5-2 compares the cumulative concentrations of nonradiological air pollutants from the SRS, including those for the Comparative Alternatives Scenario, to Federal and state regulatory standards. The listed values are the maximum modeled concentrations that could 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 interim management of nuclear materials, would be well below the regulatory standards at the Site boundary.

Table 5-2. Estimated maximum nonradiological cumulative ground-level concentrations of criteria and toxic pollutants (micrograms per cubic meter) at the SRS boundary.

^a Sources: Hunter (1994); DOE (1994a).
^b Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of the regulatory standard.
^c All SRS sources including the Defense Waste Processing Facility, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, Spent Nuclear Fuel management, the stabilization of plutonium solutions in F-Canyon, and the SRS Waste Management EIS.
^d Cumulative concentration includes the baseline concentration and the projected concentration from the Comparative Alternatives Scenario discussed in Chapter 4.

DOE also evaluated the cumulative impacts of airborne radioactive releases in terms of dose to a maximally exposed individual at the SRS boundary. DOE has included the impacts of the two-unit Plant Vogtle in this cumulative total (NRC 1994). The radiological emissions from the operation of the Chem-Nuclear low-level waste disposal facility just east of the SRS are very low, and are not included (SCDHEC 1992). Table 5-3 lists the results of this analysis, using 1993 emissions (1991 for Plant Vogtle) as the SRS baseline. The highest cumulative dose to the maximally exposed member of the public would be 0.0017 rem (or 1.7 millirem) per year, well below the regulatory standard of 10 millirem per year for the SRS (40 CFR Part 61). Summing the doses to maximally exposed individuals for the six actions or facilities listed in Table 5-3 is an extremely conservative approach because it assumes that the maximally exposed individuals would occupy the same location over the same time period, which is a physical impossibility.

Adding the population doses from current and projected activities at the SRS, including stabilization of plutonium solutions, operation of the proposed Defense Waste Processing Facility, and management of spent nuclear fuel, would yield a total annual cumulative dose of 77 person-rem from airborne sources, 52 percent of which would be attributable to the interim management of nuclear materials. This translates into 0.04 latent cancer fatality per year in the population living within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the SRS. For comparison, 145,700 deaths from cancer due to all causes would be likely in the same population over their lifetimes.

Table 5-3. Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population from airborne releases.

^a Sources: Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey (1994); DOE (1994a,b,c; 1995); NRC (1994).
^b Dose in rem.
^c Probability of fatal cancer.
^d Dose in person-rem.
^e Incidence of excess fatal cancers.
^f Average annual values from the Comparative Alternatives Scenario in Chapter 4.
^g Based on maximum annual releases.

Environmental restoration, decontamination and decommissioning, and waste management activities and facilities that DOE is assessing in the SRS Waste Management EIS (DOE 1995) would add variable but small increments to airborne emissions of radioactive and nonradioactive materials.

5.3 Water Resources

Table 5-4 summarizes the estimated cumulative radiological doses to human receptors from exposure to waterborne sources downstream from the Savannah River Site. Liquid effluents from the Site could contain small quantities of radionuclides that are released to SRS streams that are tributaries of the Savannah River. Exposure pathways considered in this analysis included 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 average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsite population from liquid releases.

^a Sources: Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey (1994); DOE (1994a,b,c; 1995); NRC (1994).
^b Dose in rem.
^c Probability of fatal cancer.
^d Dose in person-rem.
^e Incidence of increase fatal cancers.
^f Average annual values from the Comparative Alternatives Scenario in Chapter 4.
^g NA = not applicable.

The highest cumulative dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from liquid releases would be 0.00043 rem (or 0.43 millirem) per year, well below the regulatory standard of 4 millirem per year (40 CFR Part 141). Adding the population doses from current and projected activities at the SRS, including the stabilization of plutonium solutions, operation of the proposed Defense Waste Processing Facility, and management of spent nuclear fuel, would yield a total annual cumulative dose of 4.0 person-rem from liquid sources, approximately 2 percent of which would be attributable to the interim management of nuclear materials. This translates into 0.002 latent cancer fatality per year in the population living within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the SRS. For comparison, 145,700 deaths from cancer due to all causes would be likely in the same population over their lifetimes.

5.4 Waste Generation

Table 5-5 lists cumulative volumes of high-level radioactive waste, low-level waste, saltstone, transuranic waste, and hazardous and mixed wastes generated by the SRS. The values for current SRS operations are based on the SRS 30-year waste forecast (WSRC 1994), the SRS Waste Management EIS (DOE 1995), Appendix C to the Draft Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management EIS (DOE 1994a), and the F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions EIS (DOE 1994c).

Table 5-5. Estimated cumulative waste generation from SRS operations.

a Average annual values based on waste forecast from 1995 to 2004.
^b To convert cubic meters to cubic yards, multiply by 1.3079.
^c Includes proposed Defense Waste Processing Facility, Spent Nuclear Fuel management (low-level waste, high-level waste, and transuranic waste only), Stabilization of Plutonium Solutions in F-Canyon, including decontamination necessary to support facility modifications.

5.5 Utilities and Energy

Table 5-6 lists the cumulative consumption of electricity and water (surface water and groundwater) by the Comparative Alternatives Scenario along with activities associated with the stabilization of plutonium solutions, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, the management of spent nuclear fuel, and current SRS operations. The SRS Waste Management EIS (DOE 1995) does not present estimates of electricity or water usage for the facilities considered in that EIS. As noted in Table 5-6, the interim management of the nuclear materials evaluated in this EIS would account for approximately 13.6 percent of the electricity usage and 0.004 percent of the water usage.

Table 5-6. Estimated average annual cumulative utility consumption.a

^a Sources: Arnett, Karapatakis, and Mamatey (1994); DOE (1994a,b,c; 1995); NRC (1994).
^b Includes both groundwater and surface-water usage.
^c Based on Comparative Alternatives Scenario described in Chapter 4.
^d NR = not reported.

REFERENCES

Arnett, M. W., L. K. Karapatakis, and A.R. Mamatey, 1994, Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 1993, WSRC-TR-94-075, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994a, Draft Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, Appendix C, Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Program, DOE/EIS-0203, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994b, Defense Waste Processing Facility Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0082-S, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994c, F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0219, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995, Draft Savannah River Site Waste Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0217D, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

Hunter, C. H., 1994a, "Air Dispersion Modeling for the SRS Interim Management of Nuclear Materials Environmental Impact (EIS) - Nonradiological Emissions" (Preliminary Draft), memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

NRC (National Regulatory Commission), 1994, Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 1991, NUREG/CR-2850, Washington, D.C.

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 1992, South Carolina Nuclear Facility Monitoring - Annual Report 1992, Columbia, South Carolina.

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994, Thirty-Year Solid Waste Generation Forecast for Facilities at SRS, Revision 3, WSRC-RP-94-532, Aiken, South Carolina.