waste management - energy.gov · waste management activities, under all alternatives, liquid...

DOE/EIS-0217

Savannah River Site

Waste Management

FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement

Volume I

July 1995

Department of Energy ● Savannah River Operations OffIce . Aiken, South Carolina

DOEIEIS-02I7July1995

COVER SHEET

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management, Savannah River Site, Aiken,South Carolina (DoE/EIS-021 7), TC

CONTACT: For additional information on this statement, write or call:

A. B. Gould, DirectorEnvironmental Compliance DivisionNEPA Compliance OfficerU.S. Department of EnergySavannah River Operations OfficeP. 0. Box 503 IAiken, South Carolina 29804.503 I Telephone: (800) 242-8269Attention: WMEIS email: [email protected]. com

For general information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act process, write or call:

Ms. Carol M. Bergstrom, DirectorOffice of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42)U.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SW.Washington, D.C. 20585Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756,

I TE

I TE

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this environmental impact statement is to help DOE decide how to I TE

manage over the next 30 years liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, mixed, hazardous,

and transuranic wastes generated during 40 years of past operations and on-going activities at Savannah I TE

River Site (SRS) in southwestern South Carolina. The wastes are currently stored at SRS. DOE seeks to

dispose of the wastes in a cost-effective manner that protects human health and tbe environment. 1n this

document, DOE assesses the cumulative environmental impacts of storing, treating, and disposing of the

wastes, examines the impacts of alternatives, and identifies measures available to reduce adverse ITEimpacts. Evahlat ionsof impacts on water qua] ity, air quality, ecological systems, land use, geologicresources, cultural resources, socioeccmomics, and the health and safety of onsite workers and the public

are included in the assessment.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: In preparit]g this Final EIS, DOE considered comments received by letter and

voice mail, and formal statements given at public hearings in Bamwell, South Carolina (February 21, TC

1995); Coh)mbia, South Carolina (February 22, 1995); North Augusta, South Carolina (February 23,

1995); Savannah, Georgia (February 28, 1995); Beaufort, South Caroii]la (March 1, 1995); and Hilton

Head, South Carolina (March 2, 1995). TC

DOE/EIS-0217JulyI995

FOREWORD

This environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates alternative approaches to and environmental

impacts of managing wastes at the Savannah River Site (SRS), The U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) primary mission at SRS from the 1950s until the end of the Cold War was to produce and

process nuclear materials to support defense programs, These activities generated five types of waste:

liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and hazardous

combined), and transuranic wastes, These wastes are still being generated by ongoing operations,

environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning of surplus facilities. Because

waste management alternatives would be implemented over several years, DOE may issue more than one

Record of Decision based on this EIS.

Four waste management alternatives are evaluated in this EIS, In addition to the no-action alternative,

which consists of continuing current management practices, this EIS examines one alternative for the

limited treatment of waste, another for the extensive treatment of waste, and a third (the preferred

alternative) that represents a moderate approach to waste treatment. The alternatives (except the no-

action alternative) are analyzed based on three forecasts of the amounts of wastes that DOE could be

required to manage over the next 30 years (1995 through 2024) at SRS. This EIS evaluates siting,

construction, and start-up or operation of specific waste management facilities at SRS over the next 10

years, as well as operational impacts for the 30-year forecast horizon. Ten years was selected because

that is approximately the time required to get a project approved, designed, and constructed. In addition,

current treatment processes may be superseded by more effective processes aa technology improves.

Accordingly, it is not appropriate to select technologies now for treatment processes that will not be

implemented in the next decade.

Assumptions and analyses in this EIS are generally consistent with those that are in or expected to be in

the Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DOE/EIS-0200), the Tritium Supply and Recycling

Programmatic EIS(DOE/EIS-O161 ), the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic EIS

(DOEfEIS-0236), the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS (DOE/EIS-0203), the

Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent

Nuclear Fuel EIS (DOEiEIS-02 18), the Long- Ternl Storage and Disposition of Weapons- Useable Fissile

Materials Prograrr?matic EIS (DOE/EIS-0229), the Urgent-Relief Acceptance of Foreign Research

Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-09 12), the Interim Management of

Nuclear Materials at SRS EIS (DOEIEIS-0220D), the F-Canyon PIutonium Solutions at SRS EIS

(DOEiEIS-02 19), the Defense Waste Processing Facility Supplemental EIS (DOEiEIS-0082S), tbe

TE

TCTE

“

DOEiEIS-0217July 1995

TCTE

Operations of the HB-Line Faciliy and Frarrze Waste Recove~ Process for Production of Pu-238 Oxide

(DOE/EA-0948), the Cantinued Operation of the Pan[ex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear

Weapon Carrponents EIS (DOEIE1S-0225), and the SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan for mixed waste.

DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the Federal Register on April 6, 1994

(59 FR16494). Thenotice announced apublic scoping period thatended on May31, 1994, andsolicited

comments andsuggestions onthescope of the EIS. DOEheld scoping meetings during this period in

Savannah, Georgia, and North Augusta and Columbia, South Carolina, on May 12, 17, and 19, 1994,

respectively. During thescoping period, comments were received from individuals, orgmizations, and

government agencies. Comments received during telescoping period and DOEsresponses were used to

TEprepmean implementation planthat defined thescope andapproach oftllis EIS. The implementation

plan was issued by DOE in June 1994.

TEITranscriptsof b,pu lctestimol~y received during thescopil~g process, copies ofletiers andcomments, tie

implementation plan, and reference materials cited in this EIS are available for review in the DOE Public

Reading Room, located at the University of South Carolina-Aiken Campus, Gregg-Graniteville Library,

2nd Floor, University Parkway, Aiken, South Carolina [(803) 648-6851], and the Freedom of

Information Reading Room, Room IE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, Washington,

D.C. [(202) 586-6020].

DOE completed the draft of this EIS in January 1995, and on January 27, 1995, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the document in the Federal Register (60

FR5386). Thisnotice officially stafied tllepublic comment period onthedrafi EIS, which extended

through March 31, 1995, Publication ofthcdrafi EISprovided anoppotiunity forpublic comment onthe

nature and substances of the analyses included in the document.

TC

DOEhasconsidered comments itreceived during thecomment period inpreparing this final EIS. These

comments were received by letter, telephone, and formal statements made at public hearings held in

Bamwell, South Carolina (February21, 1995); Columbia, South Carolina (February 22, 1995); North

Augusta, South Carolina (February 23, 1995); Savannah, Georgia (February 28, 1995); Beaufoct, South

Carolina (March 1, 1995) ;and Hilton Head, South Carolina (March 2,1995). Comments and responses

to comments are in Appendix 1.

IChanges from the draft EIS are indicated in this final EIS by vectical bars in the margin. The bars aremarked TC for technical changes, TE for editorial changes, or, if the change was made in response to avi

DoWIS-0217July1995

public comment, the designated comment number as listed in Appendix I. Many of the technical

changes were the result of the availabili~ of updated information since publication of the draft EIS.

In May 1995, DOE announced its intention to revise the moderate treatment alternative to include

supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting), and incineration at an offsite

commercial treatment facility (60 FR 26417, May 17, 1995). The proposed change from the draft EIS

concerned the location of, but not the technology used in the treatment of about 40 percent of the

expected volume of low-level wastes at SRS. DOE provided an opportuni~ for public comment through

June 12, 1995, NO comments were received.

The proposed low-level waste volume reduction initiative is included in this final EIS, and as announced

in the May 1995 Federa/ Register notice, it is subject to competitive procurement practices under

procedures described ill DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR 1021,216). A Request for

Proposals was sent to a selected group of 47 potential bidders on May 22, 1995 with a closing date of

July 20, 1995, Work under any contract awarded would begin no earlier than the start of fiscal year

1996.

In June 1995, DOE published a draft of the Environmental Assessment for the Off-Site Volume Reduction

of Low-Level Radioactive Wastefrom the Savannah River Site (DOEIEA- 1061) for proapproval 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 facili~ 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 temr (prior to the start of fiscal year of 1996). Because the impacts of the proposed action

would be very small and the proposed action would not limit the selection of alternatives under

consideration, this proposed volume reduction action qualifies as an interim action under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506, 1).

DOE prepared this EIS in accordance with the provisions of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (1OCFR 1021). This EIS

identities the methods used in the analyses and the sources of information, In addition, it incorporates,

directly or by reference, information from other ongoing studies. The document is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 provides background information, sets forth the pu~ose and need for action, and describes

related actions evaluated in other NEPA analyses.

rc

TE

[ TE

vii

DOEiEIS-0217July I995

TC ] Chapter2describesthea*ternatives, identifies the preferred alternative, and provides a summary

comparison of the environmental impacts of each alternative.

TE I Chapter 3 describes the environment at SRS potentially affected by tbe alternatives addressed.

Chapter 4 provides a detailed assessment of tbe potential environmental impacts of the alternatives.TE

It also assesses unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible or irretrievable commitments of

resources, and cumulative impacts.

Chapter 5 identifies regulatory requirements and evaluates their applicability to the alternatives

considered.

Appendix A provides waste forecasts (i.e., estimates of the expected, minimum, and maximum

amounts of waste that could be managed over the 3O-year analysis period at SRS).

Appendix B describes existing and proposed facilities that would be needed to implement the

alternatives.

Appendix C describes the cost methodology and its appl ication in estimating costs for facilities and

processes to treat, store, and dispose of wastes.

Appendix D discusses elnerging or innovative waste management technologies that were considered

but rejected for use on SRS wastes. The technologies are in bench, pilot, or demonstration stages of

de~,elopment and are not likely to be available for implementation in the next decade, but might be

suitable for implementation at some time during the 30-year period addressed in this EIS.

Appendix E furnishes a compilation of supplemental technical data used to prepare this EIS.

Appendix F describes accident scenarios related to the facilities that could be used to manage waste

at SRS. It summarizes the potential consequences and risks to workers, the public, and the

environment from tbe alternatives discussed in Chapter 2.

Appendix G is a compilation of the appendixes included in the Federal Facility Agreement and

provides information on the commitments made by SRS to regulatory agencies to manage wastes and

spills.

VIII

DoEmIs-0217July 1995

Appendix H compares DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission low-level waste requirements.

Appendix I contains copies of letters and hearing transcripts from the public comment period, and

DOE’s responses to those comments.

Appendix J is a copy of the Protected Species Survey prepared in April 1995 in support of the drafi

EIS and agency confirmation that endangered species will not be impacted, I

ix

DOE/EIS-0217July 1995

VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-

FOREWO~ ................................................................................................................ F-v

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. s- I

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................... l-l

1-12References ....................................................................................................................

2-l2 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .

2.1 Waste Forecasts ........................................................................................ 2-9

2-92-16

2.1,2.1 Radiological Propefiies ...................................................................2.1.2.2 Physical and Chemical Characteristics . . .. .... .. . . ....2.1.2.3 Hmardous Contaminants ................................................................

2-162-172-18

2.1.3 Expected Waste Forecast ............................................................................. 2-19

2.1.3.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts2.1.3.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning2.1.3.3 Environmental Restoration .............................................................

2-232-262-29

2-302.1.4 Minimum Waste Forecast ... . .... .. .. ... . .. .. . . .. .... . . .. . ...

2.1.4.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts2. I.4.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning .. .. .. . .. ... . .2.1,4.3 Environmental Restoration .............................................................

2-302-3 I2-34

2.1.5 Maximum Waste Forecast ............................................................................... 2-35

2.1.5.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts2.1.5.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning2.1.5.3 Environmental Restoration . . .. .. ... . .. . .. .... . .. ..

2-352-362-39

2.2 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-41

2.2.1 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization ...................................... 2-41

2.2,1,1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 2-41

x

DoE/’EIs-o217July 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

2.2.1.2 Annual Reductions in the Generation of Waste ..............................2.2.1.3 Waste Minimization Goals .............................................................2,2.1.4 Waste Minimization Practices and Initiatives ...... . . ..

2.2.2 High-Level Waste ............................................................................................

2.2.2, I Continue Receiving and Storing of Liquid High-Level Waste inthe F- and H-Area Tank Farms .......................................................

2.2.2.2 Waste Removal ...............................................................................2.2.2.3 Continue Operating Existing High-Level Waste Evaporators, .......2.2,2,4 Continue Operating the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility.2,2,2.5 Continue Constructing and Begin Operating the Replacement

High-Level Waste Evaporator .........................................................2.2,2.6 Complete Construction and Begin Operating the New Waste

Transfer Facili& ..............................................................................

2.2,3 Low-Level Waste ............................................................................................

2.2.3.1 Disposal of Low-Activity Waste .....................................................2.2.3.2 Disposal of Intermediate-Activity Waste,..., ...................................2.2.3.3 Storage of Long-Lived Waste .........................................................2.2.3.4 Storage of Naval Hardware Waste ..................................................

2.2.6 Transuranic and Alpha Waste .........................................................................

2.2,7 Summary of the No-Action Alternative for All Waste Types ... ...... ... ...

2-422-422-43

2-432-47

2-49

2-512-522-532-53

2-53

2-54

2-54

2-562-582-592-59

2-602-62

2-642-652-67

2-68

2-682-71

2-71

2-762-762-77

xi

DoE/EIs-02 I7July 1995


m

2.3 Screening and Selecting Waste Management Technologies ........................................

2.3.1 Screening Process for Low-Level and Transuranic Waste . . . ..

2.3.1.1 Identification of Possible Technologies ..........................................2.3.1.2 Selection of Potential and Reasonable Technologies for

Low-Level Waste ............................................................................2.3.1.3 Selection of Potential and Reasonable Technologies for

Transuranic Waste ...........................................................................

2.3.2 Screening Process for Mixed and Hazardous Wastes ..,.,,.

2.3.2.1 Options Analysis in the Site Treatment Plan ..................................2.3.2.2 Selection of Reasonable Technologies for Mixed and

Hazardous Wastes ...........................................................................

2.3.3 System Evaluation/Optimization for the Action Alternatives . ... .. . .2.3.4 NEPA Analysis for Facilities Considered in the SRS Waste

Management EIS .............................................................................................

2.4 Alternative A - Limited Treatment Configuration .......................................................

2.4,1 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization ...........................................

2.4.1. I Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Expected WasteForecast ...........................................................................................

2.4,1.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Minimum andMaximum Waste Forecasts .............................................................

2.4.2 High-Level Waste Expected, Minimum, and Maximum Forecast.., ...............2.4.3 Low-Level Waste ............................................................................................

2.4.3.1 Low-Level Waste Expected Waste Forecast . ..... .. . . .2,4.3,2 Low-Level Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts .

2.4,4 Hazardous Waste Expected, Minimum, and Maximum Waste Forecasts ......2,4.S Mixed Waste ....................................................................................................

2.4.5. I Mixed Waste Expected Waste Forecast.,,..,, ...................................

2.4.5. I.1 Containerized Storage ..................................................2.4.5,1.2 Treatment and/or Tank Storage .,.,...............................2.4.5 .1.3 Disposal .......................................................................

@

2-80

2-8 I

2-81

2-84

2-88

2-92

2-93

2-95

2-100

2-106

2-111

2-112

2-112

2-113

2-1132-114

2-1142-117

2-1172-120

2-120

2-1222-1232-125

xii

DoE/EIs-021 7,..,.. ,.n=


2.4.5.2 Mixed Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts, ..............

2.4.6 Transuranic and Alpha Waste .. .. ... . . .. ... .... .. ... ... .. . ... ... .. .

2.4.6,1 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Expected Waste Forecast,,,..,, .........

2.4.6.2 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Minimum Waste Forecast ..............2,4,6,3 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Maximum Waste Forecast,..,, .........

2,4,7 Summary of Alternative A for All Waste Types.., ..........................................

2,5 Alternative C - Extensive Treatment Configuration ....................................................

2.5.1

2.5.22.5,3

2,5,4

2.5.5

Pollution PreventiotiWaste Minimimtion ......................................................

2.5,1,1 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Expected WasteForecast .. . .... . . .. . . . .. ... ... ... .. . . ... ... ....... .... ..

2.5.1.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Minimum andMaximum Waste Forecasts .............................................................

High-Level Waste Expected, Minimum, and Maximum Waste ForecastsLow-Level Waste ............................................................................................

2.5,3,1 Low-Level Waste Expected Waste Forecast . ....... ... . . . . .. ..2.5.3.2 Low-Level Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts

Hazardous Waste .............................................................................................

2.5.4.1 Hazardous Waste Expected Waste Forecast ..,.,..,.....,,.,........,......,,.2,5,4,2 Hazardous Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts ,,...,.,

Mixed Waste ....................................................................................................

2.5,5,1 Mixed Waste Expected Waste Forecast ..........................................

2.5.5 ,1,1 Containerized Storage ..................................................2,5.5 ,1.2 Treatment and/or Tank Storage ...................................2.5.5 .1.3 Disposal .......................................................................

2.5.5,2 Mixed Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts...,.,.,, ......

,Uly 177,

w

2-126

2-127

2-127

2-1292-1292-131

2-1322-133

2-134

2-140

2-141

2-142

2-144

2-1442-145

2-1452-148

2-149

2-1492-152

2-153

2-153

2-1552-1562-158

2-159

X111

DoE/E1s-02 17July 1995


-

2.5,6 Transuranic and Alpha Waste .........................................................................

2.5.6.1 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Expected Waste Forecast ................

2.5.6.1.1 StOrage.........................................................................2.5.6 ,1.2 Treatment .....................................................................2.5.6.1.3 Disposal .......................................................................

2.5.6.2 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Minimum Waste Forecast2.5.6.3 Transuranic and Alpha Waste Maximum Waste Forecast...,., ........

2.5.7 Summary of Alternative C for All Waste Types .............................................

2.6 Alternative B - Moderate Treatment Configuration and DOES PreferredAlternative ....................................................................................................................

2.6.1

2.6.22,6.3

2.6.4

2.6,5

Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization ......................................................

2.6. I.1 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Expected WasteForecast ...........................................................................................

2.6.1.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minim ization Minimum andMaximum Waste Forecasts .............................................................

High-Level Waste Expected, Minimum, and Maximum Waste ForecastsLow-Level Waste ............................................................................................

2.6,3. I Low-Level Waste Expected Waste Forecast . .. . . .2.6.3.2 Low-Level Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts..

Hazardous Waste .............................................................................................

2,6.4,1 Hazardous Waste Expected Waste Forecast ...................................2.6.4.2 Hazardous Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts..

Mixed Waste ....................................................................................................

2,6.5.1 Mixed Waste Expected Waste Forecast ..........................................

2.6.5.1.1 Containerized Storage ..................................................2.6.5.1.2 Treatment and/or Tank Storage ...................................2.6.5. I.3 Disposal .......................................................................

2.6.5.2 Mixed Waste Minimum and Maximum Waste Forecasts.., ............

&

2-159

2-159

2-1612-1622-163

2-1642-164

2-165

2-172

2-173

2-173

2- I74

2-1752-176

2-1762-181

2-182

2-1822-184

2-184

2-184

2-1862-1872-188

2-189

xiv


----- ----..--..—. . .1 ABLM UE UUN’1’EN”l’S (continued)

*

2.7

2.8

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

&

2-191

2-191

2- I932-1932-194

2-1952-196

2-196

2-203

2-227

3-1

3-1

3-4

3-43-63-6

3-7

3-73-9

3-II3-13

3-14

3-143-15

xv

DoE/EIs-02 I7July 199S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3-21

3-21

3-223-233-23

3-25

3-253-26

3-28

3-283-283-283-293-29

3-29

3-323-333-363-37

3-39

3-40

3-403-423-423-433-44

3-50

3-503-51

3-51

xvi



3,11 Traffic and Transpotiation ............................................................................................

3.11.3 Noise ................................................................................................................

3.12 Occupational and Public Radiological Health and Safe& ............................................

3.12.1 Public Radiological Health ..............................................................................

3.12.1,1 Sources of Environmental Radiation ..............................................3.12,1.2 Radiation Levels in the Vicinity of SIR S...........,,,,,..............,,,,.,,.3.12.1.3 Radiation Levels in E-, F-, H-, S-, and Z-Areas . ... .. ... .. ...

3.12.2 Worker Radiation Exposure ............................................................................

3.12.2,1 Sources of Radiation Exposure to Workers at SRS . .. .. .3.12,2.2 Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidelines ... .. ... ... ..3,12.2.3 SRS Worker Dose ...........................................................................3.12.2,4 Worker Risk ....................................................................................

3.12.3 Worker Nonradiological Safety and Health .............................................

3.13 Waste and Materials .....................................................................................................

3,14 Decontamination and Decommissioning ......................................................................

3.14. I Decontamination and Decommissioning Programs ........................................

3.14. I. I Asbestos Abatement Program .........................................................3.14.1.2 Decommissioning Program for Higher Risk Facilities ...................3.14.1.3 Decommissioning Program for Nuclear Reactor Facilities

&

3-52

3-523-52

3-523-52

3-56

3-56

3-56

3-563-593-61

3-62

3-623-633-633-64

3-64

3-66

3-753-753-803-813-813-85

3-85

3-85

3-873-873-88

xvii



3.14.1.4 Decommissioning Program for High-Level Waste StorageTanks ..............................................................................................

3.14.1.5 Decommissioning Program for Separations Facilities .. . . .3,14.1.6 Decommissioning Program for Waste Handling Facilities3,14.1.7 Decommissioning Program for Miscellaneous Facilities

3.14.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning Waste Generation .................

3.15 Environmental Restoration .....................................................................................

3.15.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality ...................................................................3.15.2 Hazardous and Mixed Waste Sites ..................................................................

3.15.2.1 Acid/Caustic Basins ........................................................................3.15.2.2 Burning/Rubble Pits ........................................................................3.15.2.3 Coal Pile Runoff Containment Basins ............................................3.15.2.4 Disassembly Basins .........................................................................3.15.2.5 Reactor Seepage Basins ..................................................................3.15.2.6 Sewage Sludge Application Sites ....................................................

3.15.3 Burial Ground Complex ..............................................................................

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................

4. I.5.2.1 Nonradiological Air Emission Impacts .. ... . .. .4,1.5 ,2.2 Radiological Air Emission Impacts,,, ..........................

3-883-883-883-89

3-89

3-89

3-913-91

3-913-913-923-933-933-94

3-94

3-98

4-1

4-2

4-24-54-8

4-144-17

4-174-IS

4-194-2 I

4-224-28

XVIII

DoE/’EIs-o2I7July 1995


4.1.8 Socioeconomics ...............................................................................................

4.1.11 .2.1 Incident-Free Radiological Impacts4.1. I I ,2,2 Radiological Transportation Accident Impacts ...........4.I. 11.2.3 Nonradiological Transportation Accident Impacts

4,1,11.3 Noise ..........................................................................................

4.I.12 Occupational and Public Health ......................................................................

4.1.12.1 Occupational Health and Safe~ ......................................................

4.1.12,2 Public Health and Safe@ .................................................................

4.1.12 ,2.1 Radiological impacts ...................................................4,1.12 .2.2 Nonradiological Impacts .... . . . . .. .. ..... ...4.1.12,2,3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4.1.13 Facili~Accidents ............................................................................................

4,2 Alternative A, Limited Treatment Configuration ... .... .. .. . ... .... .. ....

4.2.1 Introduction .. . . . .. .... . .... .... .. ..... . ... .. .. ... . . .. .. . .. .

&

4-28

4-304-30

4-304-344-34

4-354-37

4-394-414-42

4-43

4-43

4-44

4-444-474-47

4-47

4-474-514-52

4-57

4-574-61

4-69

4-69

xix

DoE/EIs-021 7July 1995


-

4.2.2 Geologic Resources .........................................................................................

4.2,2.1 Geologic Resources – Expected Waste Forecast4.2.2.2 Geologic Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast ...........................4.2.2.3 Geologic Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast

4.2.3 Groundwater Resources ...................................................................................

4.2.3.1 Groundwater Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ......................4.2.3.2 Groundwater Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast .....................4.2.3.3 Grormdwater Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ....................

4.2.4 Surface Water Resources .................................................................................

4.2.4.1 Surface Water Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ................4.2.4.2 Surface Water Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast ...................4.2.4.3 Surface Water Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ..................

4.2.5 Air Resources ..................................................................................................

4.2.5.1

4.2.5.2

4,2,5.3

Air Resources–Expected Waste Forecast .. . . . ... . . .

4.2.5.1.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.2,5 .1.2 Operations ....................................................................

Air Resources–Minimum Waste Forecast . . . . . .. .

4.2.5 .2.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.2.5 .2.2 Operations ....................................................................

Air Resources–Maximum Waste Forecast ....................................

4,2,5 .3.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4,2,5 ,3.2 Operations ....................................................................

4.2.6 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................

4.2.6. I Ecological Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ..........................4.2.6.2 Ecological Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast . . .. . .4.2.6,3 Ecological Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ........................

&

4-70

4-704-714-71

4-76

4-764-774-78

4-79

4-794-804-81

4-82

4-82

4-824-82

4-87

4-874-87

4-88

4-884-88

4-89

4-894-904-90

xx

? DoE/EIs-02 I7


4.2.7 Land Use .....................................................................................................

4.2.7. I Land Use– Expected Waste Forecast .............................................4,2,7.2 Land Use - Minimum Waste Forecast ............................................4.2.7.3 Land Use– Maximum Waste Forecast ...........................................

4,2,8 Socioeconomics ..........................................................................................

4.2,8,1 Socioeconomics– Expected Waste Forecast,., ...............................

4.2,8.2 Socioecmromics –Minimum Waste Forecast,,, ..............................

4.2.8,3 Socioeconomics –Maximum Waste Forecast ................................

4.2.9 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................

4.2,9.1 Cultural Resources– Expected Waste Forecast ..............................4,2.9.2 Cultural Resources–Minimum Waste Forecast . . . .. .4.2.9,3 Cultural Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ............................

4.2,10 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources – Expected, Minimum, and MaximumWaste Forecasts ...............................................................................................

4.2,11 Traffic and Transpofiation ...............................................................................

4,2,11.1 Traffic ..............................................................................................

4.2.11,1,1 Traffic– Expected Waste Forecast,,,, ..........................4.2.11 .1,2 Traffic– Minimum Waste Forecast ... .... . .. .4.2,11.1.3 Traffic –Maximum Waste Forecast..,,,, ......................

4.2,11.2 Transportation . . .. .. ... .. ..... ... . ... .. .. .. .

4.2,11 .2.1 Transportation – Expected Waste Forecast4.2.11 .2.2 Transportation – Minimum Waste Forecast ................4.2.11 .2.3 Transportation – Maximum Waste Forecast

. . . . . .luly 1YY3

*

4-91

4-914-924-92

4-92

4-93

4-934-93

4-93

4-934-94

4-95

4-954-95

4-98

4-984-994-99

4- I004-100

4-1oo

4-1004- I024-102

4-103

4- I034-1054-106

xxi



4.2.12 Occupational and Public Healtb ................................................................. 4-108

4.2.12.1 Occupational and Public Health – Expected Waste Forecast 4-109

4.2.12.1.1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4,2.12 .1.2 Public Health and Safety . . . .. .. .... . .. .. ..4,2.12.1.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4-1094-1114-113

4.2.12,2 Occupational and Public Health – Minimum Waste Forecast 4-113

4.2.12.2.1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4,2,12 .2.2 Public Health and Safety . . ... .. . ... ...4,2.12 .2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4-1164-1164-117

4.2.12.3 Occupational and Public Health – Maximum Waste Forecast ....... 4-117

4-1174-1194-119

4.2.12 .3,1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4,2.12 .3.2 Public Health and Safety ... . .. ... . .. . . . . ..4.2.12,3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4.2.13 Facility Accidents ............................................................................................ 4-119

4.2.13.1 Facility Accidents– Expected Waste Forecast ...............................4.2.13.2 Facility Accidents–Minimum Waste Forecast ..............................4~,133 Facility Accidents– Maximum Waste Forecast .,,,...,.............,,,,,,..

4-1214-1294-130

4.3 Alternative C–Extensive Treatment Configuration .............................................. 4-131

4-1314-132

4-1324-1334-133

4.3,2.1 Geologic Resources –Expected Waste Forecast ............................4,3.2.2 Geologic Resources–Minimum Waste Forecast ...........................4.3.2.3 Geologic Resources–Maximum Waste Forecast

4.3,3 Groundwater Resources ................................................................................... 4-138

4.3.3,1 Groundwater Resources – Expected Waste Forecast, .....................4.3,3.2 Groundwater Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast.., ..................4.3.3.3 Groundwater Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ....................

4-1384-1394- I40

xxii

DoE/’Els-o2l 7July 1995


4.3.4 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................... 4-141

4.3.4.1 Surface Water–Expected Waste Forecast4.3.4.2 Surface Water–Minimum Waste Forecast .,.,,...............................4.3.4.3 Surface Water–Maximum Waste Forecast . . . . . ..................

4-1414-1424-142

4.3,5 Air Resources .................................................................................................. 4-143

4.3.5.1 Air Resources –Expected Waste Forecast ... . .. .. .. 4-143

4-1434-143

4.3.5.2 Air Resources–Minimum Waste Forecast .... . . .. .. . . 4-148

4-1484-148

4.3,5.3 Air Resources –Maximum Waste Forecast, ................................... 4-149

4- I494-149

4.3.6 Ecological Resources ....................................................................................... 4-150

4.3.6.1 Ecological Resources – Expected Wa,ste Forecast ..........................4.3.6.2 Ecological Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast ... . .. . . .4.3.6.3 Ecological Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ...,,,,,...,,,.,.....,,.

4-1504-1514-151

4.3.7 Land Use.......................................................................................................... 4-151

4.3.7.1 Land Use – Expected Waste Forecast .............................................4.3.7.2 Land Use –Minimum Waste Forecast ............................................4.3,7.3 Land Use–Maximum Waste Forecast ...........................................

4-1514-1524-152

4.3.8 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 4-153

4.3,8. I Socioeconomics– Expected Waste Forecast .................................. 4-153

4-1534-153

XXIII

DoE/EIs-02 17July 1995


4,3.8.2 Socioeconomics– Minimum Waste Forecast ................................. 4-156

4-1564-156

4-1564.3.8.3 Socioeconomic –Maximum Waste Forecast . . . .. . .

4-1564-157

4.3.9 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 4-157

4-1594-1594-160

4.3.9.1 Cultural Resources– Expected Waste Forecast ..............................4.3.9.2 Cultural Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast . . . .. .. . ...4,3.9.3 Cultural Resources –Maximum Waste Forecast ............................

4,3.10 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources – Expected, Minimum, and MaximumWaste Forecast .................................................................................................

4.3.11 Traffic and Transpofiation ...............................................................................4-1604-161

4-1614.3.11.1 Traffic ..............................................................................................

4-1614-1614-163

4.3.11 .1.1 Traffic – Expected Waste Forecast ..............................4.3.11 .1.2 Traffic – Minimum Waste Forecast . . ... ... . ..4.3,11 ,1.3 Traffic –Maximum Waste Forecast ............................

4-1634.3,11.2 Transportation ...........................................................................

4,3,11 .2.1 Transportation – Expected Waste Forecast .. . . . .4.3.11 .2.2 Transportation – Minimum Waste Forecast ................4.3. I 1.2.3 Transportation – Maximum Waste Forecast

4-1644-1664-167

4.3,12 Occupational and Public Heaith ...................................................................... 4-169

4-1704.3.12.1 Occupational and Public Health – Expected Waste Forecast..

4.3.12.1.1 Occupational Health and Safe~ ..................................4,3,12. I.2 Public Health and Safety .............................................4,3,12,1,3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4-1704-1724-174

xxiv



4.3.12.2 Occupational and Public Health – Minimum Waste Forecast ..,.....

4.3.12 .2.1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4.3.12 .2.2 Public Health and Safety .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ..4.3.12.2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4,3.12.3 Occupational and Public Health – Maximum Waste Forecast . .

4.3,12 .3,1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4.3,12 .3.2 Public Health and Safety ... . . .. . ................4.3.12.3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4.3,13 Facili& Accidents ............................................................................................

4.3.13.1 Facility Accidents –Expected Waste Forecast ...............................4,3.13,2 Facility Accidents –Minimum Waste Forecast ..............................4.3.13.3 Facility Accidents –Maximum Waste Forecast

4.4 Alternative B – Moderate Treatment Configuration and DOES PreferredTreatment Alternative ...................................................................................................

4.4,14,4.2

4.4,3

4.4.4

Introduction .....................................................................................................Geologic Resources .........................................................................................

4,4.2.1 Geologic Resources – Expected Waste Forecast . . . . .... .. . .4.4.2.2 Geologic Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast ...........................4.4.2.3 Geologic Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast .. .. ... . ...

Groundwater Resources ...................................................................................

4,4.3.1 Groundwater Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ......................4.4,3.2 Groundwater Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast .....................4.4.3.3 Groundwater Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ....................

Surface Water Resources .................................................................................

4,4.4.1 Surface Water–Expected Waste Forecast ... . .... .. . ..4,4.4.2 Surface Water– Minimum Waste Forecast ....................................4,4.4.3 Surface Water– Maximum Waste Forecast .. . .. .. ... . ... .. .

*

4-174

4-1774-1774-178

4-178

4-1784-1804-181

4-181

4-1814-1904-190

4-191

4-1914-193

4-1934-1984-198

4-198

4-1984-2004-20 I

4-202

4-2024-2034-203

xxv


. ———--.——. .—-. . . . .TABLE UN CON’IEN’1’S (contlnuea)

-

4.4.5

4.4.6

4.4.7

4.4.8

Air Resources ..................................................................................................

4.4.5.1 Air Resources–Expected Waste Forecast . . . . .

4.4.5 ,1.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.4.5 .1,2 Operations ....................................................................

4.4.5.2 Air Resources–Minimum Waste Forecast . . . . .

4.4.5,2.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.4.5 .2.2 Operations ....................................................................

4.4.5.3 Air Resources–Maximum Waste Forecast ....................................

4.4,5 .3.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.4.5 .3.2 Operations ....................................................................

Ecological Resources .......................................................................................

4.4.6.1 Ecological Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ..........................4.4.6.2 Ecological Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast . .. .. .4.4.6.3 Ecological Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast ........................

Land Use ..........................................................................................................

4.4,7.1 Land Use - Expected Waste Forecast .............................................4.4.7.2 Land Use– Minimum Waste Forecasl ............................................4.4.7.3 Land Use -Maximum Waste Forecast ...........................................

SOciOecOnOmics...............................................................................................

4.4.8,1 Socioeconomics– Expected Waste Forecast ..................................

4.4.8. I. I COnstructiOn.................................................................4.4.8 .1.2 Operations ....................................................................

4.4.8.2 Socioeconomics– Minimum Waste Forecast,., ..............................

4.4.8 .2.1 COnstructiOn.................................................................4.4.8 .2.2 Operations ....................................................................

@

4-204

4-204

4-2044-204

4-209

4-2094-209

4-210

4-2104-210

4-2 I I

4-2 I I4-2124-212

4-213

4-2134-2134-214

4-214

4-214

4-2144-216

4-216

4-2164-216

DOEIEIS-02I7July 199s


4.4.8.3 Socioeconomic – Maximum Waste Forecast ................................ 4-217

4-2174-217

4.4,9 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 4-220

4.4.9.1 Cultural Resources – Expected Waste Forecast ..............................4.4.9.2 Cultural Resources – Minimum Waste Forecast . .. . ...4.4.9.3 Cultural Resources – Maximum Waste Forecast., ..........................

4-2204-2204-221

4,4.10 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources – Expected, Minimum, and MaximumWaste Forecasts ............................................................................................... 4-221

4.4.11 Traffic and Transpo~tion ............................................................................... 4-222

4.4,1 I.1 Traffic ......................................................................................... 4-222

4.4.11,1.1 Traffic –Expected Waste Forecast.., ...........................4.4.11 .1.2 Traffic –Minimum Waste Forecast ... . .. . ...4.4.11 .1.3 Traffic-Maximum Waste Forecast, ...........................

4-2234-2244-224

4.4,11.2 Transportation . .. .. ...... .. ... . .. ......... ............... .. .. .. 4-224

4.4.11 ,2.1 Transportation – Expected Waste Forecast .. .. ..4.4.11 .2.2 Transportation – Minimum Waste Forecast ................4.4.11 .2,3 Transportation – Maximum Waste Forecast .,,,,,...,,,,,.

4-2254-2274-229

4.4.12 Occupational and Public Health ...................................................................... 4-231

4.4.12.1 Occupational and Public Health – Expected Waste Forecast 4-232

4.4.12 ,1.1 Occupational Health and Safety,,,, ..............................4,4.12 .1,2 Public Health and Safety . ... .. . ... . . . ....4.4.12.1.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4-2324-2344-236

4.4.12.2 Occupational and Public Health – Minimum Waste Forecast,, ...... 4-239

4.4.12 .2.1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4.4.12 ,2.2 Public Health and Safe@ ...,.,,,....,,,......,,.,,...,.,,.......,,,..4.4.12 .2.3 Environmental Justice Assessment,, ............................

4-2394-2394-240

xxvii

DoE/Els-021 7July 1995


4.4,12.3 Occupational and Public Health – Maximum Waste Forecast

4.4.12 .3.1 Occupational Health and Safety ..................................4.4.12 .3.2 Public Health and Safety .4.4.12.3.3 Environmental Justice Assessment ..............................

4.4.13 Facility Accidents .................................................................................

4,4.13.1 Facility Accidents– Expected Waste Forecast ...............................4.4.13.2 Facility Accidents–Minimum Waste Forecast ..............................4.4.13.3 Facility Accidents– Maximum Waste Forecast

4.4.14 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts And Irreversible Or IrretrievableCommitment of Resources Under Alternative B

4.4.14.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . ... . .. . .. . . ..

4.4.14 .1.1 Expected Waste Forecast .............................................4.4.14.1.2 Minimum Waste Forecast ............................................4.4.14 .1.3 Maximum Waste Forecast ...........................................

4.4.14,2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

4.4.14 ,2,1 Expected Waste Forecast .............................................4.4,14 .2.2 Minimum Waste Forecast ............................................4.4.14 ,2,3 Maximum Waste Forecast ...........................................

4,4.1S Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Alternative B, ........................................

4.4.15,1 Existing Facilities ............................................................................

4.4.15.1.1 Savannah River Technology Center ............................4,4,15.1.2 F- and H-Area Separation Facilities ............................4.4.15 ,1.3 Reactors . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .4.4,15 ,1.4 Replacement Tritium Facility ......................................4.4.15,1,5 F/H-Area Effluent and Treatment Facility ..................4.4.15. I.6 Offsite Facilities . . . . .. . . . . ..

4,4,15.2 New and Proposed Facilities or Programs, .....................................

4,4.15.2.1 Defense Waste Processing Facility4.4.15 .2,2 F-Area Plutonium Solutions ........................................4.4.15.2,3 Interim Management of Nuclear Materials .................

4-240

4-2404-2424-243

4-243

4-2434-2524-252

4-252

4-253

4-2534-2544-255

4-255

4-2554-2564-257

4.X57

4-257

4-2574-2584-2584-2584-2584-259

4-259

4-2594-2604-260

DoE/E1s-0217. ,.-.


4.4.15.2.4 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Managementand Idaho National Engineering LaboratoryEnvironmental Restoration and WasteManagement Programs ................................................

4.4,15.3 Moderate Treatment Configuration Alternative .. . . ..4.4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................

4.4.15 .4,1 Groundwater Resources ...............................................4.4.15 .4.2 Surface Water Resources .............................................4,4.15 .4.3 Air Resources ..............................................................4.4.15 .4.4 Land Use ......................................................................4,4.15 .4.5 SOciOecOnOmics...........................................................4.4.15 .4,6 Transpofiation ..............................................................4,4.15,4.7 Occupational and Public Health .. .... .. .. ..

4.5 Environmental Restoration and Decontamination and Decommissioning ,,.,...,,., ..

4.6 Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................

5 FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REQUI~MENTS..,,

5.1 No-Action Alternative ..................................................................................................

5,1,15,1.25.1,3

5.1,45.1.55.1,65.1.75.1.85,1.95.I.1O5.1.11

5.1,12

5.1,13

National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................Atomic Energy Act ..........................................................................................Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act .....................................................................................................Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act .. .. .... ... .. .Resource Conservation and RecoveW Act ......................................................Federal Facility Compliance Act .....................................................................Clean Water Act ..............................................................................................Safe Drinking Water Act .................................................................................Clean Air Act ...................................................................................................Endangered Species Act and Other Statutes ...................................................Executive Orders 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988(Floodplain Management) ...............................................................................Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice in Minority andLow.lncome Populations) ...............................................................................Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................

July 1YYJ

k

4-260

4-2614-261

4-2624-2634-2634-2634-2654-2654-266

4-270

4-271

4-272

5-)

5-l

5-l5-4

5-55-55-65-85-85-9

5-105-11

5-11

5-125-12

DoE/sls-02 I7July 1995


5-135.2 Other Alternatives ...............................................................................................

5-135-155-15

5-165,3 References .................................................................................................................

LP- 1LIST OF P~PA~RS ...............................................................................................................

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .......................

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................

DISTRIBUTION LIST ...............................................................................................................

AA- I

GL- I

DL- 1

DL-2A. United States Congress ......................................................................................................

DL-2DL-2DL-2DL-3

A.1 Senators from Affected and Adjoining States ........................................................A.2 United States Senate Committees ..........................................................................A.3 Representatives from Affected and Adjoining States ............................................A,4 United States House of Representatives Commifiees ............................................

DL-3

DL-6C. State of South Carolina .......................................................................................................

DL-6DL-7

cl State Offices and Legislature .................................................................................C.2 State and Local Agencies and Officials .................................................................

DL-8

DL-8DL-9

D. 1 State Offices and Legislature .................................................................................D.2 State and Local Agencies and Officials .................................................................

DL-9

DL-9

DL-9G. Native American Groups ................................................................................................

DL-1OH. Citizens Advisory Board Members .....................................................................................

DoE/E1s-0217July 1995


VOLUME II

LIST OF APPENDIXES

A-

B–

c–

D-

E-

F–

G-

H-

I–

J–

Waste Forecasts

Facility Descriptions

Life-Cycle Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Costs

Innovative and Emerging Waste Management Treatment Technologies

Supplemental Data

Accident Analysis

SRS Federal Facility Agreement Appendixes

Alternative Approaches to Low-Level Waste Regulation

Public Comments and DOE Responses

Protected Species Suwey

xxx!


LIST OF TABLES

s- I

s-2s-3

1-12-12-22-32-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

2-8

2-9

2-1o

2-112-122-132-142-152-16

2-172-18

2-192-202-212-222-23

Summa~ of new waste management facilities proposed in each alternativeand waste forecast .......... ........................................................................................Summary comparison of environmental impacts of each alternativ e.......... ....Treatment, storage, and disposal requirements for and cost of eachalternative and waste forecast .................................................................................Major NEPA reviews related to SRS waste management as of June 1, 1995.........Changes in alternative configurations between the draft and final EIS . ... . .Major SRS facilities that would continue to operate beyond 2024 .........................Major SRS facilities that would continue to operate beyond 2024 .........................SRS facilities that will cease to operate for the expected, minimum, andmaximum waste forecasts during the analysis period (1995through 2024) ..........................................................................................................Decontamination and decommissioning of facilities during the analysis periodresulting in the expected waste forecast (1995 through 2024) ................................Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used todevelop forecastsof environmental restoration activities resulting in tbeexpected waste forecast ...........................................................................................Decontamination and decommissioning of facilities during the analysis periodresulting in the minimum waste forecast (1995 through 2024) . .. .. . ... .... . ..Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used todevelop forecasts of environmental restoration activities resulting in theminimum waste forecast ..........................................................................................Decontamination and decommissioning level of facilities during the analysisperiod resulting in the maximum waste forecast (1995 through 2024) .... .. .. ..Assumptions from the SRS Federal Facility Agreement that were used todevelop forecasts of environmental restoration activities resulting in themaximum waste fOrecast .........................................................................................Waste generated from 1990 through 1993 ..............................................................Waste minimization gOals.......................................................................................Waste minimization activities under the no-action alternative ..............................Possible technologies to manage low-level and transuranic waste . ... .Potential and reasonable technologies for low-level waste .....................................Example of scoring the incineration technology for intermediate-activityjob-control waste .....................................................................................................Potential and reasonable technologies for transuranic waste ..................................Waste Management EIS and SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan comparisonof treatment options for low-level mixed waste ......................................................System evaluation/Optimization criteria ..................................................................Treatability groups and proposed management facilities for each alternativeNEPA review of facilities in the SRS Waste Managemerrl EMS.,.,...,.......................Waste minimization activities for alternative A .....................................................Thirty-year liquid high-level waste volumes for the expected, minimum, andmaximum waste forecasts .......................................................................................

s-2 1s-22

S-271-52-5

2-1o2-21

2-22

2-28

2-30

2-3 I

2-34

2-39

2-392-422-432-442-832-85

2-892-90

2-962-1022-1042-1072-112

2-114

xxxii

DOE/EIS-0217July I995

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

2-24

2-25

2-26

2-27

2-282-29

2-30

2-31

2-32

2-332-34

2-35

2-36

2-372-383-1

3-23-33-4

3-53-6

3-7

3-83-93-1o

3-II

Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative A expectedwaste fOrecast ..........................................................................................................Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative A minimum andmaximum waste forecasts ........................................................ ..............................Mixed waste treatment options for alternative A minimum and maximumforecasts ...................................................................................................................Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative Aand the no-action alternative ...................................................................................Waste minimization activities for alternative C ......................................................Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative C minimum andmaximum waste forecasts .......................................................................................Hazardous waste treatment options for alternative C minimum and maximumwaste forecasts .........................................................................................................Mixed waste treatment options for alternative C minimum and maximumwaste forecasts .........................................................................................................Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative Cand the no-action alternative ...................................................................................Waste minimization activities under alternative B . ..... .... . ..... .. .. . ... .. .. .Low-level waste treatment and disposal options for alternative B minimumand maximum waste forecasts .................................................................................Mixed waste treatment options for alternative B minimum and maximumwaste forecasts .........................................................................................................Comparison of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under alternative Band the no-action alternative ...................................................................................Volume reductions achieved for low-level waste .. ... .. ...... ..... . .. . .... .. ..Comparison of the impacts of each alternative on environmental resources, .........Waste units associated with known or potential releases to the groundwaterat SRS ......................................................................................................................Water quality in the Savannah River upstream and downstream from SRS...Water quality in Upper Three Runs downstream from SRS discharges .................Average concentrations of gross alpha and nonvolatile beta radioactivitymeasured in air (1991 to 1993)................................................................................Atmospheric releases by source facility in 1993 ....................................................Estimated ambient concentration contributions of criteria air pollutants fromexisting SRS sources and sources planned for construction or operationthrough 1995 ...........................................................................................................SRS modeling results for toxic air pollutants that exceed 1 percent ofSCDHEC air quality standards ................................................................................Land cover of undeveloped areas of SRS .................................. ............................Threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species of SIR S,.,.....,..,..Forecast employment, population, and personal income data for the SRSsix-county region of influence .................................................................................Populating distribution in 1990 within an 80-kilometer radius (50 mile)of SRS ......................................................................................................................

2-116

2-117

2-127

2-1392-141

2-149

2-153

2-159

2-1712-173

2-182

2-191

2-2022-2032-207

3-113-163-18

3-263-27

3-30

3-313-323-38

3-42

3-46

Xxxll,



3-123-133-143-153-163-173-183-19

4- I

4-2

4-3

4-4

4-54-64-7

4-8

4-9

4-1o4-11

4-124-134-144-15

4-16

4-17

4-18

General racial characteristics of the population in the region of analysisPercentage of the population living in poverty in the region of analysis ................Traffic counts on major SRS roads .........................................................................Traffic counts on major SRS arteries during peak hours ........................................External radiation levels at SRS facilities ...............................................................Maximum measurements of radionuclides in soil for 1993 ....................................SRS annual individual and collective radiation doses .. . ... .. . . .. .... . ...Comparison of 1992 illness and injury incidence rates for SRS operationsto 199 I illness and injury incidence rates for general industry, themanufacturing industry, and the chemical indust~ ................................................Average increase over baseline of criteria pollutants at the SRS boundaryfrom construction-related activities under the no-action alternative, ......Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of criteria pollutants atthe SRS bounda~ from operation activities under the no-action alternativ e........Annual radiological doses to individuals and population within 80 kilometers(50 miles) of SRS from atmospheric releases under the no-action alternative ......Estimated construction and operations employment for the no-actionalternative ................................................................................................................Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours for the no-action alternativeProjected SRS hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck .. ... . .. . .Annual dose and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-freeonsite transport of radioactive material under the no-action alternativ e....,..... . .Annual accident probabilities, doses associated with those accidents andassociated excess latent cancer fatalities from high consequence (low probability)accidents involving the transport of radioactive materials under the no-actionaltematlve ................................................................................................................Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated with theno-action aitemative ................................................................................................Calculated maximum 8-hour average pollutant concentrations,., ...........................Radiological doses associated with the no-action alternative and resultinghealth effects to the public ......................................................................................Estimated probability of excess latent cancers in the SRS offsite populationAccident frequency categories ................................................................................Summary of representative bounding accidents for the no-action alternative .......Summary of chemical hazards associated with the no-action alternativeestimated to exceed ERPG-2 values ........................................................................Maximum SRS bounda~-line concentrations resulting from a year ofconstruction activities under alternative A..............................................................Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at theSRS boundary for alternative A – expected, minimum, and maximum wasteforecasts ...................................................................................................................Annual radiological doses to individuals and the population within80 kilometers (50 miles) of SRS from atmospheric pathways underalternative A ............................................................................................................

3-463-473-553-553-613-623-64

3-65

4-18

4-20

4-2 I

4-294-354-36

4-40

4-42

4-464-48

4-504-524-584-67

4-68

4-83

4-86

4-87

xxxi v

DoE/E1s-02I7July1995


m

4-19

4-20

4-2 I

4-224-23

4-24

4-25

4-26

4-27

4-28

4-29

4-30

4-31

4-32

4-33

4-34

4-354-364-37

4-38

4-39

Estimated construction and operations employment for alternative A –expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecast . . . . . . .. ...........Estimated new operations jobs required to support the alternative A –maximum waste fOrecast .........................................................................................Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative Amaximum waste fOrecast.........................................................................................Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours for alternative A ..... . . .... .SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck foralternative A ............................................................................................................Annual dose (percent change from the no-action alternative) and associatedexcess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial under alternative A -expected waste forecast, ........................................

Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of mixed waste under alternative A – expected waste forecast ...............Accident probabilities for offsite shipments for all alternatives andforecasts ...................................................................................................................Annual accident probability doses associated with an accident, and excesslatent cancer fatalities from an accident during offsite transport of mixedwaste under alternative A ........................................................................................Annual dose and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-freeoffsite transport of radioactive material for alternative A – minimum wasteforecast ....................................................................................................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsitetransport of mixed waste for alternative A – mmtmum waste forecast, ..........Annual dose and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-freeoffsite transport of radioactive material for alternative A – maximum wasteforecast ...................................................................................................................

Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of mixed waste for alternative A – maximum waste forecast, ............Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated withimplementation of alternative A..............................................................................Radiological doses associated with implementation of alternative A andresulting health effects to the public .......................................................................Estimated number of excess latent cancers in the offsite population fromnonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative A.......................................Comparison of risks under the no-action alternative and alternative A., ............Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative A ......................Summary of chemical hazards associated with alternative A estimated toexceed ERPG-2 values ............................................................................................Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations resulting from a year ofaverage construction activities under alternative C ................................................Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at theSRS boundary for alternative C – expected, minimum, and maximum wasteforecasts ...................................................................................................................

4-94

4-96

4-974-101

4-101

4-103

4-104

4-104

4-105

4-105

4-106

4-107

4-107

4-110

4-112

4-1144-1264-127

4-128

4-144

4-147

xxx”

DoE/Els-02 17July 1995


m

4-40

4-41

4-42

4-43

4-444-45

4-46

4-47

4-48

4-49

4-50

4-51

4-52

4-53

4-54

4-55

4-56

4-57

Annual radiological doses to individuals and population within 80 kilometers(50 miles) of SRS under alternative C ....................................................................Estimated construction and operations employment for the alternative C –minimum, expected, and maximum waste forecasts ...............................................Estimated new operations jobs required to support alternative C – maximumwaste forecast ..........................................................................................................Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative C –maximum waste fOrecast.........................................................................................Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative CSRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck underalternative C ............................................................................................................Dose (percent change from the no-action alternative) and associated excesslatent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial foraltemative C–expected waste forecast .... ..........................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative C – expected waste forecast ... ..Probability of an accident during 30 years of offsite transport of radioactivematerial for each waste forecast under alternative C, dose, and excess latentcancer fatalities from an accident ............................................................................Annual dose and associated excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-freeonsite transport of radioactive material under alternative C – minimum wasteforecast ....................................................................................................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material under alternative C – minimum wasteforecast ....................................................................................................................Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) and excesslatent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial foraltemative C–maximum waste forecast ............................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative C – maximum wasteforecast ....................................................................................................................Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated with theimplementation of alternative C ..............................................................................Radiological doses associated with the implementation of alternative C andresulting health effects to the public .......................................................................Estimated probability of excess latent cancers in the offsite population fromnonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative C.., ....................................Comparison of risks from accidents for the no-action alternativeand alternative C ......................................................................................................Summary of representative bounding accidents for alternative C ..........................

4-148

4-154

4-155

4-1584-162

4-162

4-164

4-165

4-165

4-166

4-167

4-168

4-168

4-171

4-173

4-175

4-1884-189

xxx. i

DoE/E1s-02I7July 1995


w

4-58

4-59

4-60

4-61

4-62

4-63

4-644-65

4-66

4-67

4-68

4-69

4-70

4-7 I

4-72

4-73

4-74

4-75

4-76

Maximum SRS bounda~-line concentrations resulting from a year ofaverage constmctinn activities under alternative B ................................................Changes in maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants at SRSboundary for alternative B – expected, minimum, and maximum wasteforecasts ...................................................................................................................Annual radiological doses to individuals and population within 80 kilometers(50 miles) of SRS from atmospheric pathways under alternative B .......................Estimated cnnstmction and operations employment for alternative B –mlnlmum, expected, and maximum waste forecasts ...............................................Estimated new operations jobs required to support alternative B – maximumwaste fOrecast ..........................................................................................................Changes in employment, population, and personal income for alternative B –maxtmum waste fOrecast .........................................................................................Number of vehicles per hour during peak hours under alternative B .....................SRS daily hazardous and radioactive waste shipments by truck underalternative B ............................................................................................................Annual dose (percent change from the no-action alternative) and excesslatent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial under alternative B –expected waste forecast ..........................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material under alternative B – expected wasteforecast ....................................................................................................................Probability of an accident during 30 years of offsite transport of radioactivematerial for each waste forecast under alternative B, dose, and excess latentcancer fatailtles from an accident ............................................................................Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) andexcess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial for alternative B–minimum waste forecast .............................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative B - minimum waste forecast .......Annual dose (percent change from the expected waste forecast) andexcess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free onsite transport of radioactivematerial foraltemative B – maximum waste forecast ............................................Annual dose and excess latent cancer fatalities from incident-free offsitetransport of radioactive material for alternative B – maximum waste forecast,,.,,,Worker radiological doses and resulting health effects associated withimplementation of alternative B ..............................................................................Radiological doses associated with implementation of alternative B andresulting health effects to the public .......................................................................Estimated number of excess latent cancers in the offsite population fromnonradiological carcinogens emitted under alternative B .......................................Comparison of risks from accidents under the no-action alternativeand alternative B ......................................................................................................

4-205

4-208

4-209

4-215

4-218

4-2194-222

4-223

4-225

4-226

4-227

4-228

4-228

4-229

4-230

4-233

4-235

4-237

4-250

xxxvii



4-77 Summary of representative bounding accidents under alternative B 4-2514-78 Cumulative maximum SRS bounda~-line ground-level concentrations for

criteria pollutants ..................................................................................................... 4-2644-79 Estimated annual average radiological doses and potential health effects from

transpOfiatiOn activities ........................................................................................... 4-2654-80 Estimated maximum annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health

effects to offsite population and facility workers .................................................... 4-2674-81 Maximum SRS boundary-line concentrations and cumulative public health

impacts from carcmogemc emissions .......................................................... .,,,,,,,.. 4-2695- I permit and approval status of existing and planned SRS waste management

facilities ................................................................................................................... 5-2


LIST OF FIGURES

k

s-1

s-2s-32- I2-22-32-4

2-52-6

2-72-8

2-92-1o2-II2-122-132-142-152-162-172-18

2-192-20

2-2 I2-22

2-232-242-25

2-262-27

2-282-292-302-31

Savannah River Site ................................................................................................Process for evaluating waste management technologies ........................................SRS areas and facilities ...........................................................................................Explanation of grid symbol used in the SRS Wa$feManagement EMS....................The central SRS defense processing and environmental management areas .....

waste management - energy.gov · waste management activities, under all alternatives, liquid...

Documents