construction and operation of a tritium extraction facility at the

UN

ITE

D

ST A T E S O F A

ME

RIC

A

DE

PA

RTMENT OF ENERG

Y

DOE/EIS-0271

Construction & Operation of a

Tritium Extraction Facility at the

Savannah River Site

Department of EnergySavannah River Operations OfficeAiken, South Carolina

Final Environmental Impact Statement

March 1999

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Preface

iii

COVER SHEET

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

TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of a Tritium ExtractionFacility at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0271)

LOCATION: Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

CONTACT: For additional information on this environmental impact statement (EIS), write or call:

Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Compliance OfficerU.S. Department of EnergySavannah River Operations OfficeBuilding 742A, Room 183Aiken, South Carolina 29802Attention: Tritium Extraction Facility EISLocal and Nationwide Telephone: (800) 881-7292.E-mail: [email protected]

For a complete package, the Draft TEF EIS is needed alongside the Final TEF EIS and these maybe obtained by contacting Andrew R. Grainger at the address above.

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

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

ABSTRACT: DOE proposes to construct and operate a Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) at H Area onthe Savannah River Site (SRS) to provide the capability to extract tritium from commercial light waterreactor (CLWR) targets and from targets of similar design. The proposed action is also DOE’s preferredalternative. An action alternative is to construct and operate TEF at the Allied General Nuclear Servicesfacility, which is adjacent to the eastern side of the SRS. Under the no-action alternative DOE couldincorporate tritium extraction capabilities in the accelerator for production of tritium. This EIS is linkedto the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling(DOE/EIS-0161), from which DOE determined that it would produce tritium either in an accelerator or ina commercial light water reactor. The purpose of the proposed action and alternatives evaluated in thisEIS is to provide tritium extraction capability to support either tritium production technology. The EISassesses the environmental impacts from the proposed action and the alternatives, including the no actionalternative.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: In preparing the Draft EIS, DOE considered comments received by letter andvoice mail, and comments given at public meetings in Savannah, Georgia, and Aiken, South Carolina, onDecember 3 and 5, 1996, respectively. A summary of public comments was made available on April 28,1997, and may be obtained by contacting Andrew R. Grainger at the address above.

A 45-day comment period on the Draft TEF EIS began with publication of a Notice of Availability in theFederal Register on May 8, 1998. A public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the Draft EISwas held on June 9, 1998, at the North Augusta Community Center, 101 Brookside Drive, NorthAugusta, South Carolina. The Draft EIS public comment period ended June 22, 1998. Comments were

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Cover Sheet

iv

submitted at the public meeting and by voicemail, e-mail, or regular mail at the address provided above.The comments received were considered in the preparation of this Final EIS.

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Preface

v

PREFACE

The Tritium Supply and Recycling Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)(DOE/EIS-0161), which was completed in October 1995, assessed the potential environmentalimpacts of technology and siting alternatives for the production of tritium for national securitypurposes. On December 5, 1995, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Tritium Supplyand Recycling PEIS that selected the two most promising alternative technologies for tritiumproduction and established a dual-track strategy that would, within 3 years, select one of thosetechnologies to become the primary tritium supply technology. The other technology, if feasible,would be developed as a backup tritium source. Under the dual-track strategy, DOE would:(1) initiate the purchase of an existing commercial reactor (operating or partially complete) orirradiation services with an option to purchase the reactor for conversion to a defense facility; and(2) design, build, and test critical components of an accelerator system for tritium production.Under the PEIS ROD, any new facilities that might be required, i.e., an accelerator and/or aTritium Extraction Facility to support the commercial reactor alternative, would be constructed atDOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.

The PEIS described a two-phase strategy for compliance with the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA). The first phase included completion of the PEIS and subsequent ROD. The secondphase included the preparation of site-specific NEPA documents tiered from the PEIS. These EISsaddress the environmental impacts of specific project proposals. As a result of the PEIS and theROD, DOE determined to prepare three site specific EISs: the Accelerator Production of Tritiumat the Savannah River Site (APT) (DOE/EIS-0270), the Production of Tritium in a CommercialLight Water Reactor (CLWR) (DOE/EIS-0288), and the Tritium Extraction Facility at SavannahRiver Site (TEF) (DOE/EIS-0271). Each of these EISs presents an analysis of alternatives whichdo not effect the alternatives in the other EISs with one exception. This exception is one alternativein the TEF EIS which would require the use of space in the APT. For this alternative to be viable,the APT would have to be selected as the primary source of tritium.

On December 22, 1998, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson announced that commercial lightwater reactors (CLWR) will be the primary tritium supply technology. The Secretary designatedthe Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor near Spring City, Tennessee, and Sequoyah Unit 1 and 2 reactorsnear Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee as the preferred commercial light water reactors for tritiumproduction. These reactors are operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), an independentgovernment agency. The Secretary designated the APT as the “backup” technology for tritiumsupply. As a backup, DOE will continue with developmental activities and preliminary design, butwill not construct the accelerator. Finally, selection of the CLWR reaffirmed the December 1995Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS ROD to construct and operate a new tritium extractioncapability at the SRS.

DOE has completed the final EISs for the APT, CLWR, and TEF. No sooner than 30 days afterpublication in the Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice ofAvailability of the final EISs for CLWR, APT, and TEF, DOE intends to issue a consolidatedRecord of Decision to: (1) formalize the programmatic announcement made on December 22, 1998;and (2) announce project-specific decisions for the three EISs. These decisions will include, for theselected CLWR technology, the selection of specific CLWRs to be used for tritium supply, and thelocation of a new tritium extraction capability at the SRS. For the backup APT technology,technical and siting decisions consistent with its backup role will be made.

DOE/EIS-0271Foreword March 1999

vi

FOREWORD

Introduction

This Final Environmental Impact Statement forConstruction and Operation of a Tritium Ex-traction Facility at the Savannah River Site(TEF EIS) has been prepared in a manner con-sistent with the President’s Council on Envi-ronmental Quality regulations (40 CFRPart 1500-1508) and Department of Energy Pro-cedures (10 CFR Part 1021). Because DOE re-ceived few comments on the Draft EIS(DOE/EIS-0271D), it is not preparing a modi-fied draft as the Final EIS, as is typically done.Rather, DOE is finalizing the TEF EIS by refer-ence to the Draft EIS and is issuing this FinalEIS as a record of changes made according to aprocess described in 40 CFR Part 1503.4 and tothe recommendation in 40 CFR Part 1500.4(m),which encourages agencies to publish only thechanges to the draft when changes are minor.This document focuses on changes that are ofimportance to the decision maker and the public.Specifically, modifications to finalize the TEFEIS were made for the following reasons:

• To incorporate responses to comments re-ceived during the public comment period

• To correct or clarify factual information pre-sented in the Draft EIS

• To reflect TEF, commercial light water re-actor, and accelerator production of tritiumdesign concepts developed since the DraftEIS was issued

Document Modification

Modifications to the Draft EIS are presented asfollows. Text or elements of tables in the DraftEIS have been modified and shown as boldedtext. The change is preceded by a text box thatexplains the change, states why the change wasmade, and references the pertinent section of theDraft EIS. The text box is followed by the ap-plicable modification. As mentioned, changes totext and table information are bolded and repro-duced with an adequate amount of the applicable

material in the Draft EIS to place the change incontext. As a result, the reader needn’t refer tothe Draft EIS to understand the change.

Comment Identification

Comments received by DOE on the Draft EIS,both verbal and written, appear in Section 1 ofthis document. If a comment prompted a modi-fication to the EIS, DOE has noted the changeand directs the reader to that change.

Comments are noted by one of the followingletter codes:

• M1 – M2 (comments submitted in eithersession 1 or 2 of the public meeting)

• L1 – L4 (comments received by letter oremail)

• V1 – V2 (comments submitted by telephoneto DOE’s message line)

DOE numbered the specific comments in eachletter or verbal presentation sequentially (e.g.,V1-01, V1-02, etc.) to provide unique identifi-ers. The meeting comments are organized incategories, which are discussed below. Appen-dix C contains transcripts of sessions 1 and 2 ofthe public meeting held on June 9, copies ofwritten comments submitted at the public meet-ing, copies of the letters acknowledged receiptof the Draft EIS but did not require commentresponses for DOE, and a copy of a letter andenclosed forms from the South Carolina Officeof State Budget.

DOE extends its gratitude to all the individualsand agencies who showed an interest and tookthe time to provide comments.

Public Meetings

The public meetings consisted primarily of in-formal discussions and questions and answersrelated to the TEF. As can be seen from thetranscripts prepared by a court reporter (repro-

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Foreword

vii

duced with comments marked and numbered asAppendix C of this document), a number ofpublic comments and concerns were raised anddiscussed with DOE officials during the meet-ings. The responses in this document focus onthose comments or questions which were notanswered during the meeting, or need elabora-tion or clarification.

Comment Categories

Most of the comments and issues discussed inthe meetings fall into the following broad cate-gories:

• Presentation of costs in an EIS

• Comparison of differences between alterna-tives

• U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy

• Worker health and safety, and emergencypreparedness

• Contaminant releases and relative severityof impacts of a combination facility

• Effect of this facility on the ongoing cleanupof SRS waste sites

• Legality of TEF as a DOE defense nuclearfacility and the implications thereof

Organization of the Final EIS

The Final EIS is composed of this Foreword, theSummary, two sections, one appendix, and rele-vant front and back material. DOE has providedthe Summary in its entirety with modificationsidentified by bold text and the rationale formodifying the EIS explained in a text box. Sec-tion 1 provides public comments and DOE re-sponses. Section 2 presents modifications to theDraft EIS, incorporates responses, clarifies fac-tual information, and reflects design conceptsdeveloped for the tritium supply program. Thisdocument also includes the List of Preparers;Organizational Conflict of Interest Representa-tion Statement; Glossary; Distribution List; andAppendix C, Transcripts, Letters, and Forms.Letters included in Section 1 are letters that of-fered comments for DOE to address. Lettersincluded in Appendix C are letters that had nocomments for DOE to address.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of thisdocument or the Draft EIS by calling 1-800-881-7292, or writing to: Andrew R. Grainger, U.S.Department of Energy, Savannah River Opera-tions Office, Building 742A, Room 183, Aiken,South Carolina 29802.

DOE/EIS-0271Table of Contents March 1999

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Cover Sheet.................................................................................................................................. iii

Preface………………………………………………………………………………………….. v

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... x

Metric Conversion Chart ............................................................................................................. xiv

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... S-1

1 Public Comments and DOE Responses ............................................................................. 1-1

2 Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS................................................................................... 2-1

List of Preparers........................................................................................................................... LP-1

OCI Statement

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... GL-1

Distribution List........................................................................................................................... DL-1

Index ............................................................................................................................................ IN-1

Appendix C – Transcripts, Letters, and Forms ………………………………………………… C-1

List of TablesTable Page

S-1 Comparison of the alternatives for construction and operation of TEF ............................ S-8S-2 Comparison of operation of APT with and without extraction capability ........................ S-151-1 Public comments on the Draft TEF EIS ............................................................................ 1-12-2 Comparison of the alternatives for construction and operation of TEF ............................ 2-32-3 Comparison of operation of APT with and without extraction capability ........................ 2-114-5 Annual radionuclide emissions (curies) from normal processing of CLWR targets

or targets of similar design at TEF in H Area.................................................................... 2-134-6 Annual doses from normal radiological air emissions from H Area TEF ......................... 2-154-7 Impacts on SRS treatment, storage, and disposal facilities from operation of

proposed action for CLWR targets or targets of similar design ........................................ 2-164-8 Construction waste generated from the proposed action for CLWR targets and

targets of similar design..................................................................................................... 2-174-9 TEF operational waste types, generating activities, and examples ................................... 2-18

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Table of Contents

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page

5-1 Estimated maximum cumulative ground-level concentrations of nonradiologicalpollutants (micrograms per cubic meter) at SRS boundary ............................................... 2-22

5-2 Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effectsto offsite population in the 50-mile radius from airborne releases.................................... 2-23

5-3 Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effectsto offsite population from aqueous releases ...................................................................... 2-24

5-4 Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effectsto offsite population and facility workers.......................................................................... 2-25

5-5 Estimated life-of-project waste disposal volumes from SRS projected activities ............. 2-275-6 Estimated average annual cumulative electrical consumption .......................................... 2-27

List of Figures

Figure Page

S-1 Tritium decay over time..................................................................................................... S-11-3 NEPA documentation for related DOE actions ................................................................. 2-1

DOE/EIS-0271Acronyms and Abbreviations March 1999

x

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGNS Allied General Nuclear Services

ALARA As low as reasonably achievable

APSF Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility

APT Accelerator Production of Tritium

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ARF Airborne release fraction

AWQC Ambient water quality criteria

BA Biological Assessment

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CCDF Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIF Consolidated Incineration Facility

CLWR Commercial light water reactor

CO Carbon monoxide

CPA Cask Processing Area

CSRA Central Savannah River Area

CSWTF Central Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility

D&D Decontamination and decommissioning

dB Decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DR Damage ratio

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPD Environmental Protection Department

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act

FG-Evac Flush-gas evacuation

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations

xi

FR Federal Register

gpd Gallons per day

gpm Gallons per minute

gpy Gallons per year

GRP Gross Regional Product

HEPA High efficiency particulate air

HSV Hydride storage vessel

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

HWR Heavy water reactor

IBA In-bed accountability

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

JCW Job control waste

kW Kilowatt

LCF Latent cancer fatality

LHS Latin Hypercube Sampling

LLRW Low-level radioactive waste

LPF Leak path factor

LTR Lower Three Runs

MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System

MAR Material at risk

MEI Maximally exposed individual

msl Mean sea level

MW Megawatt

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NOI Notice of Intent

NOX Oxides of nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPH Natural phenomena hazard

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWSM Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum


xii

O3 Ozone

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

P-Evac Product evacuation system

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit

PIDAS Perimeter Intrusion Detection Assessment System

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

rem Roentgen equivalent man

RF Respirable fraction

RHA Remote Handling Area

RHSS Receiving, Handling, and Storage System

ROD Record of Decision

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCE&G South Carolina Electric and Gas Company

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SNL Sandia National Laboratories

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SOx Sulfur oxides

SRS Savannah River Site

START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

SWMD Solid Waste Management Department

SWMS Solid Waste Management System

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TDS Total dissolved solids

TEF Tritium Extraction Facility

TFM&C Tritium Facilities Modernization and Consolidation Project

TPBAR Tritium-producing burnable absorber rod

TRP Target rod preparation

TSP Total suspended particulates

TWA Time-weighted average

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations

xiii

USC United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTR Upper Three Runs

VOC Volatile organic compound

WSRC Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Z-bed Zeolite bed


xiv

Metric Conversion ChartTo convert into metric To convert out of metric

If you know Multiply by To get If you know Multiply by To getLength

inches 2.54 centimeters Centimeters 0.3937 inches

feet 30.48 centimeters Centimeters 0.0328 feet

feet 0.3048 meters Meters 3.281 feet

yards 0.9144 meters Meters 1.0936 yards

miles 1.60934 kilometers Kilometers 0.6214 miles

Areasq. inches 6.4516 sq. centimeters sq. centimeters 0.155 sq. inches

sq. feet 0.092903 sq. meters sq. meters 10.7639 sq. feet

sq. yards 0.8361 sq. meters sq. meters 1.196 sq. yards

acres 0.0040469 sq. kilometers sq. kilometers 247.1 acres

sq. miles 2.58999 sq. kilometers sq. kilometers 0.3861 sq. miles

Volumefluid ounces 29.574 milliliters Milliliters 0.0338 fluid ounces

gallons 3.7854 liters Liters 0.26417 gallons

cubic feet 0.028317 cubic meters cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet

cubic yards 0.76455 cubic meters cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards

Weightounces 28.3495 grams Grams 0.03527 ounces

pounds 0.4536 kilograms Kilograms 2.2046 pounds

short tons 0.90718 metric tons metric tons 1.1023 short tons

TemperatureFahrenheit Subtract 32 then

multiply by 5/9thsCelsius Celsius Multiply by 9/5ths,

then add 32Fahrenheit

Metric Prefixes

Prefix Symbol Multiplication FactorExa- E 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 1018

Peta- P 1 000 000 000 000 000 = 1015

Tera- T 1 000 000 000 000 = 1012

Giga- G 1 000 000 000 = 109

Mega- M 1 000 000 = 106

Kilo- k 1 000 = 103

Centi- c 0.01 = 10-2

Milli m 0.001 = 10-3

Micro- µ 0.000 001 = 10-6

Nano- n 0.000 000 001 = 10-9

Pico- p 0.000 000 000 001 = 10-12

Femto- f 0.000 000 000 000 001 = 10-15

Atto- a 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10-18

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Public Comments and DOE Responses

1-1

SECTION 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DOE RESPONSES

This section provides DOE's responses to comments received during the public comment period. Comments re-ceived during the public meeting in North Augusta, South Carolina are summarized. Letters and the transcriptionsof telephone comments received over DOE’s message line also are reproduced in this section. The transcripts fromthe meeting can be found in Appendix C. Appendix C also contains written comments submitted at the publicmeeting, letters that acknowledge receipt of the Draft EIS but do not provide comments requiring DOE responses,did, and a letter and form from the South Carolina Office of State Budget.

DOE published the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for the Construction and Operation ofa Tritium Extraction Facility at the SavannahRiver Site in May 1998. On June 9, 1998, DOEheld public meetings on the Draft Environ-mental Impact Statement (DEIS) in NorthAugusta, South Carolina. The public commentperiod ended on June 22, 1998.

Court reporters documented comments andstatements made during two public meeting ses-sions. In those two sessions, eight individualsprovided comments or made public statements.DOE also received four letters with comments(including one by electronic mail) on the DraftEIS. Two individuals left comments by tele-phone on DOE’s message line.

This section presents the comments receivedand the DOE responses to those comments. If acomment prompted a modification to the EIS,DOE has noted the change and directed thereader to that change.

Comments are identified by one of the followingletter codes:

• M1 – M2 (comments submitted in eithersession 1 or 2 of the public meeting)

• L1 – L4 (comments received by letter oremail)

• V1 – V2 (comments submitted by telephoneto DOE’s message line)

DOE numbered specific comments in each letteror telephone message sequentially (01, 02, etc.)to provide unique identifiers. Table 1-1 lists the

individuals and government agencies that sub-mitted comments and their unique identifiers.

The Department extends its gratitude to all theindividuals and agencies who have shown theinterest and taken the time to provide comments.

Table 1-1. Public comments on the Draft TEFEIS.Comment source

numbera Commenter Page number

Commenters at the public meetingsb

M1-01, M1-02 Mr. Bob Newman 1-1, 1-2

M1-03 Dr. Mary Kelly 1-2

M1-04 to M1-07 Mr. Fred Humes 1-3

M1-08 to M1-09 Mr. Steve Parker 1-3

M1-10 to M1-11 Mr. Bob Newman 1-3, 1-4

M1-12 Mr. Ernie Chaput 1-3

M1-13 Mr. Steve Parker 1-4

M1-14 Ms. Paulette Thicke 1-4

M1-15 to M1-16 Mr. R. Stuhler 1-5

M2-01 to M2-02 Dr. Bob Smith 1-5, 1-6

Comments received by letter

L1 Dr. David Moses 1-7 to 1-15

L2 Dr. David Moses 1-16 to 1-17

L3 U.S. Department ofHealth and HumanServices

1-20 to 1-23

L4 U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency

1-27

Comments received verbally at the DOE message line

V-1 Mr. Marvin Lewis 1-28

V-2 Mr. Curt Graves 1-29

a. Unique source codes were given to each of the public

meeting sessions (M-1 and M-2 respectively). Theindividuals comments are coded M1-01, etc.

b. Complete transcript of the meeting is in Appendix C.

DOE/EIS-0271Public Comments and DOE Responses March 1999

1-2

Public Meetings

The public meetings consisted primarily of in-formal discussions and questions and answersrelated to the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF).In this section, each public meeting speaker’sstatement is paraphrased because some state-ments span several pages of the transcript (seeAppendix C). A number of comments and con-cerns were raised and discussed with Depart-ment officials during the meetings.

M1-01: One commenter stated that the EISshould include the costs for the facility with theimpact on the community. DOE needs to pro-vide the cost for the alternatives. This informa-tion should also include the basis fordetermining the costs.

Response: DOE is not required by National En-vironmental Policy Act (NEPA) to include costin an EIS. Section 102(2)(B) of NEPA states“All agencies of the Federal government shall… ensure that presently unquantified environ-mental amenities and values may be given ap-propriate consideration in decision-makingalong with economic and technical considera-tions.” Cost was an important considerationwhen the Secretary selected the CLWR as theprimary new tritium source. The EIS is in-tended to describe the environmental impacts ofconstruction and operation of the facility. DOEhas fully characterized and documented the so-cioeconomic impacts (e.g., the number of jobscreated and the resultant effect of income gener-ated on the local economy) of implementingeach of the alternatives in the evaluation of so-cioeconomic impacts in Chapter 4 of the DEIS.DOE did not perform a cost-benefit analysis forconstruction and operation of TEF at H Area orAGNS; however, DOE used two sources of costdata for the socioeconomic analysis, which areavailable in the DOE public reading room(Brizes 1997; DOE 1997b).

M1-02: One commenter stated that there arelittle or no differences between AGNS and theH-Area alternatives, but the EIS makes thesedifferences look like major differences.

Response: DOE did not intend to make qualita-tive judgments about differences in impactsbetween the two sites, but presented the datanecessary for the reader to make those judg-ments. DOE did wish to capture the differencesin environmental impacts for the decisionmaker(s) and the public. DOE has revised Sec-tion 2.4.1 starting on page 2-8 of the draft EIS toclarify the differences in these two alternatives.The revision is on page 2-9 of this Final EIS.Specifics of the environmental impacts of con-structing and operating TEF in H Area and atthe AGNS site are found in Chapter 4 and, insummary form, in Table 2-2 (page 2-9) of theDEIS and page 2-3 of this Final EIS. DOE con-siders the expected impacts from the preferredalternative or the AGNS alternative on the hu-man environment to be minor and similar. Sev-eral differences between AGNS and H Areaaccount for differences in environmental im-pacts between the two sites: one is a function ofAGNS’s closer proximity to the general public -operations at the AGNS site have a greater po-tential for affecting the offsite population nearthe Site boundary. For example, the impacts tothe maximally exposed offsite individual associ-ated with radiological and nonradiological airemissions are slightly greater for AGNS than forthe H-Area alternative, but the differences aresmall and the emissions well below regulatorylimits in both cases. Similarly, there is little todifferentiate the two sites in terms of impacts onthe natural environment because both sites havealready been impacted by industrial develop-ment.

M1-03: One commenter stated that AGNS didnot have an EIS prepared so it is difficult toconsider the environmental impacts.

Response: AGNS prepared an EnvironmentalReport on the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant in1971; the report is cited in the DEIS and avail-able in DOE’s public reading room in Aiken,South Carolina. In the DEIS, DOE describedthe environmental conditions at the AGNS siteand the impacts of constructing and operatingtritium extraction capability at the site, andcompared those impacts with other alternatives.


1-3

The next seven comments deal with concernsabout the U.S. nonproliferation policy. TheDOE response follows the seventh comment.

M1-04: One commenter had reservations aboutproducing tritium in a commercial reactor in thatthis may undermine U.S. nonproliferation pol-icy.

M1-05, M1-09, and M1-12: Three commentsstated that the DEIS is insufficient in that it doesnot address all environmental impacts. Produc-ing tritium in commercial facilities is a changein national policy. Other nations may use thischange as an excuse to use their commercialreactors for weapons production. This meansthat there will be additional environmental im-pacts throughout the world as other countriesuse their commercial reactors to produce tritium.These impacts should be addressed in this EIS.

M1-06: One commenter stated that the Com-mercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) EIS doesnot address the nonproliferation policy.

M1-07: One commenter asked if the U. S.would endorse North Korea if they producedtritium.

M1-08: One commenter stated that we shoulduse DOE [as opposed to commercial] facilitiesto avoid terrorists.

Response to comments M1-04, -05, -06, -07,-08, -09, and -12: The purpose of the proposedaction and alternatives evaluated in this EIS is toprovide tritium extraction capability to support anew tritium source for continuing the nuclearweapons stockpile of the U.S. The productionof tritium in commercial reactor facilities, theconformity of such production with nationalpolicy on nonproliferation, or the impact of sucha policy on the United States position interna-tionally in regard to nonproliferation, are notwithin the scope of this EIS. However, theStatement of Administration Policy, datedMay 20, 1998, from the Executive Office of thePresident, Office of Management and Budget,reads “Tritium production in commercial reac-tors is not inconsistent with U.S. nonprolifera-

tion policy. There have been several instancesof cooperation between U.S. military and civil-ian nuclear programs, including dual use of ura-nium enrichment facilities and commercial saleof electricity originating from a weapons mate-rial production reactor.” This conclusion wasconfirmed in the Interagency Review of July1998 Report to Congress by DOE which furtherreinforced the position that the dual track strat-egy for tritium production should be maintained.Concerning the CLWR EIS, DOE has expandedthe discussion on page S-2 of the TEF EIS toclarify the roles of the three project-specificEISs: one analyzing the production of tritium ina DOE-owned accelerator; one analyzing theproduction of tritium in a commercial light wa-ter reactor; and this EIS analyzing the extractionof tritium from irradiated targets regardless oftheir source. Concerning countries such asNorth Korea, the U.S. is a member of the Nu-clear Nonproliferation Treaty, and as such sup-ports reducing the nuclear threat by reducing thenumber of nuclear weapons and discourages thespread of the nuclear weapons. Concerning ter-rorists, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) has stringent security requirements thatapply to commercial facilities.

M1-10: One commenter stated that a recentemergency drill did not have all the people showup for their positions. Others did show up whofilled those positions; however, each job func-tion has specific responsibilities with its ownexpertise.

Response: The commenter is apparently refer-ring to recent press reports regarding unsatis-factory response to pager communicationsinitiating an emergency SRS drill. Test drillsare conducted periodically and at no time duringany of these drills has an SRS Emergency Op-erations Center position gone unfilled by aqualified individual. Each position in the Emer-gency Operations Center is staffed three deepwith qualified individuals. Although these indi-viduals rotate through their positions on amonthly basis, each carries a pager and is re-quired to respond to emergency drills whether ornot they are on shift. On April 27, 1998, achemical spill at an SRS facility required acti-


1-4

vation of the Emergency Operations Center at2:00 am. All Emergency Operations Center po-sitions were filled by the designated, qualifiedindividuals within one hour of the pager notifi-cation.

M1-11: One commenter stated that the EISshould evaluate impacts on involved as well asuninvolved workers and that the 640-meter dis-tance from the stack used to evaluate uninvolvedworkers was a long distance; uninvolved work-ers 600 meters away from the stack are alwaysincluded in EISs. He then asked about the in-volved workers and stated that these workersshould be included in all EISs.

Response: DOE evaluated the impacts of nor-mal operations on involved workers in the DraftEIS. See Section 4.1.2.5 (page 4-16), Ta-ble 4-13 (page 4-18), Section 4.2.2.5 (page4-44), and Table 4-27 (page 4-46) of the DraftEIS. A quantitative analysis of the impact ofaccident conditions on involved workers wasnot performed because the large number of as-sumptions required in the consequence model-ing would make the prediction unreliable. Toprotect involved workers, a qualitative evalua-tion of accident-related hazards is performedand reported in the hazards section of the SafetyAnalysis Report; this analysis is used to identifyrequired administrative controls/safety features.

With respect to modeling uninvolved workers at640 meters, limitations in industry-acceptedmodeling tools prevent the reliable modeling ofairborne dispersion of radioactive or chemicalmaterials at distances closer than 100 metersfrom an elevated or ground release. This is dueprimarily to limitations in the models them-selves and to the difficulty of modeling air flowin and around complex structures. The use of640 meters in the TEF EIS is appropriate be-cause DOE calculated that maximum groundsurface concentrations from TEF’s elevatedstack would occur at that approximate distance.Also, the use of 640 meters ensures consistencybetween this and previously prepared SavannahRiver EISs.

M1-13: One commenter stated that DOE shouldaddress where the reactor rods are coming frombefore it addresses the extraction of tritium fromthese rods.

Response: In order to provide tritium to thenuclear weapons stockpile by 2005, activitiesrequired for providing the nation’s tritium sup-ply must be conducted concurrently.

M1-14: One commenter stated that du Pont saidthat SRS was a clean site; however, Westing-house is cleaning up SRS now. The commenterthen asked if the current cleanup will be im-pacted by this TEF facility; if cleanup will beneeded for this facility; and about the types ofwastes and releases from this site.

Response: Locations on SRS needing cleanupwere recognized when du Pont was operatingthe Site in 1987 in the Final Environmental Im-pact Statement for Waste Management Activitiesfor Groundwater Protection. This EIS de-scribed the needed cleanup activities at knownhazardous, radioactive, and mixed waste sitesand the need for new waste disposal facilities.DOE has an ongoing Environmental Restorationprogram to clean up sites contaminated by pastactivities at the SRS. The SRS is listed on theNational Priorities List and as such is subject tothe requirements of the Comprehensive Envi-ronmental Response, Compensation, and Li-ability Act (CERCLA) as enforced by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and the SouthCarolina Department of Health and Environ-mental Control. As indicated in Chapter 7 ofthe Draft EIS, TEF operations would be re-quired to comply with these regulations in theevent of spills of hazardous materials. Fundingof SRS cleanup activities would not be directlyaffected by construction and operation of theTEF because Congress funds DOE’s environ-mental cleanup activities separately from de-fense facilities.

DOE estimates (Section 2.5 on page 2-18 of theDraft EIS) that the operating life of the TEFwould be 40 years. DOE would address the en-vironmental impacts of decontaminating anddecommissioning TEF when the facility is ap-


1-5

proaching the end of its operating life, usingtechnologies available at that time. Given thepotential for advancements in waste minimiza-tion and waste management technologies overthe next 40 years, DOE has not attempted in thisEIS to estimate the types and quantities of wastethat would be generated by decontamination anddecommissioning of the TEF at the end of itsoperational life.

DOE has estimated the types and quantities ofwaste that would be generated by constructionand operation of TEF and described the impactsof managing those wastes in Chapter 4 of theDraft EIS.

On page 2-15 in Section 2.4.1 of the DEIS, DOEdiscusses unknown contaminated materials.The DEIS states that if any were discovered,DOE would remove and dispose of such mate-rial in accordance with all applicable laws andregulations.

M1-15: One commenter asked if the Site Emer-gency Plan and H Area Plan had been consid-ered for impact by adding additional facilities.

Response: Emergency response-related factorswere considered first during the formal site se-lection process conducted for TEF. As part ofthe SRS emergency preparedness process andprior to becoming operational, the TEF wouldbe incorporated into the Site and H Area Emer-gency Plans. These plans would consider thepotential impacts of TEF accidents on personnelin nearby facilities, and the potential impacts ofexisting operations on personnel assigned to theTEF. DOE prepares and implements Site- andfacility-specific plans for responses to potentialemergencies such as chemical spills and acci-dents. The Emergency Operations Center and aspill response team ensure appropriate response.Emergency response personnel are trained ex-tensively, and each position has a primary andtwo alternates on call. The response plans in-clude specific responses to specific incidents forspecific facilities (e.g., a TEF), processes, orevents. DOE has either used plans in actualemergencies or exercised them in simulated op-erating conditions. DOE has integrated these

SRS plans with state and local offsite plans toenable coordination of a total response to SRSincidents.

M1-16: One commenter stated that the cobaltdoes not appear to be addressed for exposureand release.

Response: As indicated in Sections 4.1.1.2(page 4-3), 4.1.1.4 (page 4-8), and 4.2.1.4 (page4-37) of the DEIS, cobalt-60 is used to representworst-case liquid discharges and atmosphericemissions from CLWR target residues. Cobalt-60 imparts the highest atmospheric dose per cu-rie amount of all the radionuclides in the targetresidues. As shown in Table 4-5 of the DraftEIS, DOE estimates that about 4.2×10-4 curies ofcobalt-60 would be released annually. This re-lease is included in the source term used to cal-culate radiological doses to the public andworkers that would result from TEF operation.

M2-01: One commenter asked about the targetsif the TEF becomes part of the APT.

Response: If CLWR extraction capability isadded to the APT, the CLWR targets processedat APT would be identical to those that wouldbe processed in the TEF in H Area or AGNS.Also, an alternative APT target would requireextraction in TEF.

M2-02: One commenter asked if the environ-mental impacts are more severe if APT and TEFare combined.

Response: Overall, the TEF/APT combinationhas higher release rates than APT alone. Acomparison of the impacts of the APT facilitywith and without CLWR extraction capability isprovided in Table 2-3, page 2-16 of the DraftEIS and page 2-11 of this Final EIS.

LettersThe comment letters DOE received on the DraftTEF EIS and DOE’s responses are provided inthe following section. Comments in each letterare identified, and the corresponding responsesfollow the letter.


1-6

Letter L1 (page 1 of 9)


1-7



1-8


L1-01


1-9



1-10


L1-02


1-11



1-12


L1-03


1-13


L1-04


1-14


L1-04


1-15



1-16



1-17

Response to Comment L1-01 (Dr. DavidMoses)

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board(DNFSB) has the authority, under legislationestablishing the DNFSB and its mission, to pro-vide independent safety oversight to DOE inregard to the operation of defense nuclear fa-cilities. The DNFSB from time to time providesrecommendations to the Department. As thecommenter points out, ambiguities may exist inthe Board’s authority to provide oversight toTEF and other DOE tritium programs becausetritium is not a special nuclear material as de-fined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. As thecommenter also points out, DOE cooperatesfully with the Board on matters concerning ex-isting and proposed DOE tritium facilities.

As indicated in the draft EIS, because of its ra-diological characteristics DOE has chosen toapply to tritium operations a number of regula-tions and standards which also apply to specialnuclear material operations. DOE believes thisis a conservative approach to safety manage-ment for tritium facilities. The regulations (in-cluding 10 CFR Parts 830 and 835) and DOEOrders are discussed and listed in Section 7.4 ofthe Draft EIS. DOE has evaluated the NRC Iso-tope Facility requirements; those facility NRCrequirements that are more conservative and notcovered in DOE Orders will be included in thefinal design of the TEF. DOE has a rigorousregulatory system in place for tritium facilities.Because of this, it is not likely that changes inthe definition of DOE nuclear facilities or thedesignation of tritium as a special nuclear mate-rial would change the safety posture of thesefacilities or of the TEF. Therefore, DOE has notmodified the Draft EIS in this regard.


The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board(DNFSB) is an independent agency that freelyconducts oversight activities of DOE facilities.DOE’s Tritium Program has cooperated fullywith Board and Board staff requests for infor-mation on the TEF. Board and Board staff have

been provided briefings on TEF issues, at theirrequest. As the commenter suggests, DOE sub-mitted a copy of the TEF Draft EIS to the Boardfor review and comment. No comments werereceived from the DNFSB or DNFSB staff.DOE prepared the TEF EIS early in the facilitydecision process as mandated by NEPA; implicitin this objective of obtaining early public inputis the fact that detailed design information is notavailable to support the EIS. Assuming that theDepartment decides to proceed with develop-ment of the TEF, detailed design and safety re-views (including independent review andoversight by DNFSB) will be conducted ac-cording to DOE policy and established safetypractices at appropriate stages of design.


The purpose of the proposed action and alterna-tives evaluated in the TEF EIS is to provide thecapability to extract tritium from tritium pro-ducing burnable absorber rods irradiated in acommercial nuclear reactor, or targets of similardesign, for the sole purpose of supplying tritiumto the Department of Defense to support the nu-clear weapons stockpile of the United States.Commercial sale of tritium extracted in the TEF,regardless of the source (CLWR or APT), is notcontemplated at this time. However, it shouldbe noted that tritium produced in a CLWR doesfall within the scope of existing regulations.The commenter points out that it is unclearwhere regulatory authority rests in regard to ac-celerator-produced tritium. DOE does not con-sider “targets of similar design” the preferredtarget alternative for the proposed accelerator.The preferred alternative, as described in theAPT EIS, is to produce tritium in a helium targetand extract the tritium at the accelerator facility;the TEF would not be required if the acceleratorwas chosen as the primary source of tritium andthe helium target technology was implemented.Thus it is unlikely for a number of reasons thatcommercial sale of accelerator-produced tritiumfrom the TEF will become an issue.


1-18


Waste generated from TEF construction andoperation would be managed as described inSection 4.1.1.5 of the Draft EIS. As much wasteas possible would be treated and disposed atSRS facilities. As described in Chapter 7 of theDraft EIS, these facilities are under the regula-tory purview of the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency and the South Carolina Departmentof Health and Environmental Control. DuringTEF operation, facility wastes and wastes fromCLWR or APT sources, would, therefore, fallunder the same regulations as other SRS wastesand waste management facilities. This is thecase today for wastes generated at SRS tritiumfacilities. DOE does not see the need to proposechanges to any regulations because it is clearthat TEF waste will be regulated in the samemanner as current tritium waste at the SRS.


1-19



1-20



1-21


L3-03

L3-04

L3-01

L3-02


1-22


L3-11

L3-04

L3-05

L3-06

L3-07

L3-08

L3-09

L3-10


1-23

Response to Comment L3-01 (U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services)

DOE conducted an exhaustive review of tech-nologies for supplying tritium, including usingthe five reactors on SRS, and documented it inthe Final Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.The study revealed that only one of the reactorsat SRS (K Reactor) was capable of returning tooperation. DOE determined that operation of afirst-generation reactor designed in the 1940s isnot a reasonable alternative for a new, long-term, assured tritium supply. The purpose andneed for this EIS is for the capability to extracttritium after tritium has been produced. DOE isevaluating new sources for tritium production inthe Accelerator for Production of Tritium andCommercial Light Water Reactor(s) EISs.


Unlike using the production reactors discussedabove, refurbishing the existing tritium extrac-tion facility is an alternative means to respond tothe purpose and need for the actions evaluatedin this EIS. Although this alternative was de-termined to be unreasonable, DOE believes thatit is correct to present it in the Proposed Actionand Alternatives section of the Summary ratherthan earlier in the Summary, where backgroundon the Programmatic EIS and its Record of De-cision are presented.


DOE believes it has provided for the majority ofreaders the appropriate compromise betweenbrevity and readability versus a more detaileddiscussion of the dose calculation algorithms.

However, for the commenter and other inter-ested readers, DOE offers the following expla-nation from technical data input prepared forthis EIS. Reference to the technical data inputand references cited in the following paragraphare in the Reference list on page 2-29 in Sec-

tion 2 of this Final EIS. The following para-graph is quoted from Simpkins (1998).

“Site-specific codes MAXIGASP andPOPGASP are typically used to determine thedose to the maximally exposed individual andthe 50-mile population dose, respectively, re-sulting from routine atmospheric releases.MAXIGASP and POPGASP both accessXOQDOQ (Sagendorf et al., 1982), which isbased on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRegulatory Guide 1.111. The XOQDOQ modelcalculates the relative concentration and relativedeposition at specific downwind locations forboth individual and population doses. Bothcodes utilize the GASPAR module, which isdocumented by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (Eckerman et al. 1980). TheGASPAR module calculates the atmosphericconcentrations, deposition rates, concentrationin foodstuffs, and radiation dose to individualsand populations resulting from chronic releasesof radionuclides to the atmosphere. The basisfor GASPAR (Hamby 1992) is U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission Regulatory Guide1.109. Both GASPAR and XOQDOQ (Bauer1991) have been verified for use.”


DOE has revised Table 4-6 on page 4-9 of theDraft EIS in response to the suggestion. Therevision is on page 2-15 of this Final EIS. Theindividual doses listed in this table range from0.004 percent to 0.10 percent of the average 357millirem per year exposure to individuals in thevicinity of SRS (Arnett and Mamatey 1997).The total dose to the population within a 50-mile radius (620,100 people; Arnett and Ma-matey 1997) is 0.0003 percent of the averageannual exposure.


The commenter is correct. The sentence onpage 4-8 of the Draft EIS (page 2-14 of this Fi-nal EIS) is revised to read “After estimatingroutine emission rates, DOE used the computer


1-24

codes MAXIGASP and POPGASP to predictpotential radiological doses to the maximallyexposed individual, the hypothetical uninvolvedworker, and the population surrounding SRS.”


DOE tries to reserve its use of acronyms forlong strings of words that appear often in thetext. For those words, the acronym is definedafter its first use in each chapter. The words“maximally exposed individual” (MEI) and theCentral Sanitary Waste Treatment Facility(CSWTF) are identified in the Draft and FinalEIS list of Acronyms and Abbreviations in thefront matter of the document.


As indicated on page GL-4 of the Draft EIS, adesign-basis accident for nuclear facilities is apostulated abnormal event used to establish theperformance requirements of structures, sys-tems, and components to (1) maintain them in asafe shutdown condition indefinitely or (2) pre-vent or mitigate the consequences of an accidentto the general public and operating staff (i.e.,prevent exposure to radiation in excess of ap-propriate guideline values). Normally, a design-basis accident is the accident that causes themost severe consequences when engineeredsafety features function as intended. Typically,these events have an occurrence probability ofgreater than 10-6 per year.

A beyond-design-basis accident is more severethan the design-basis accident. It generally in-volves multiple failures of engineered safetysystems and has an occurrence probability ofless than 10-6 per year.

These definitions have been added to the Glos-sary, which is included in the back matter of thisFinal EIS.

Conceptual design is also defined in the Glos-sary (page GL-2 of both the Draft and FinalEIS). Conceptual design involves the develop-

ment of a facility that will meet project goalswhile ensuring cost effectiveness and attainableperformance; development of project criteriaand design parameters for all engineering disci-plines; and identification of applicable require-ments such as environmental studies,construction materials, space requirements,health and safety safeguards, and security re-quirements.

Pre-conceptual design has been added to theGlossary, page GL-10 of this Final EIS. Thedefinition is as follows: Pre-conceptual designinvolves the development of the preliminaryinformation necessary to define a project. Thispreliminary information consists of (1) State-ment of Mission Need (why the project isneeded), (2) preliminary functional and techni-cal requirements (how the project will satisfythe need), and (3) the development of the pre-liminary budgetary information (very rough es-timate of the total cost of the project). Thispreliminary information is then used to obtainDOE Program office approval to proceed intothe further developmental stages of the project.


The duplicated paragraph on page 4-11 of theDraft EIS is eliminated as shown on page 2-15of this Final EIS.


DOE disposes of its post-treatment low-levelradioactive waste (LLRW) in vaults in E-Areaon SRS that are designed for appropriate dis-posal of low-activity waste (LAW) or interme-diate-activity waste. The fraction of LLRW thatradiates less than 200 millirem per hour (at5 centimeters) is classified as LAW and dis-posed in LAW vaults. The remainder radiatesmore than 200 millirem per hour (at 5 centime-ters) and is classified as intermediate-activitywaste and disposed in intermediate-level vaults.DOE has identified these two subsets of LLRWin Table 4-7 on page 4-10 of the Draft EIS. Ta-ble 4-7, as revised, also directs the reader to Ta-


1-25

ble 4-9, which provides generating activities andexamples of the basic waste types (e.g., LLRW).These revisions are on pages 2-16 and 2-18 ofthis Final EIS.


The population within 50 miles of the center ofSRS referred to on page 4-9 of the Draft EIS iscalculated from a database that identifies popu-lation densities in cells on a fine grid for an areacovering most of South Carolina and easternGeorgia. There are over 800,000 total cells inthe database. It uses data from the 1990 U.S.Census. The database and the calculation of the50-mile radius population were developed and

validated by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL 1991). It is updated periodically whennew validated population data are published.This reference has been added to the text onpage 2-14 of this Final EIS. The reference isincluded in the reference list on page 2-31 ofSection 2 of this Final EIS.


DOE has revised the Draft EIS (page 4-9) toprovide the source for the percentage of dosethat is due to tritium (Simpkins 1997b). Therevision appears on page 2-14 in this Final EIS.


1-26


L4-01

L4-02


1-27

Response to Comment L4-01 (U. S. Environ-mental Protection Agency)

Response: Emergency response-related factorswere considered first during the formal site se-lection process conducted for TEF. As part ofthe SRS emergency preparedness process andprior to becoming operational, the TEF wouldbe incorporated into the Site and H Area Emer-gency Plans. These plans would consider thepotential impacts of TEF accidents on personnelin nearby facilities, and the potential impacts ofexisting operations on personnel assigned to theTEF. DOE prepares and implements Site- andfacility-specific plans for responses to potentialemergencies such as chemical spills and acci-dents. The Emergency Operations Center and aspill response team ensure appropriate response.Emergency response personnel are trained ex-tensively and each position has a primary andtwo alternates on call. The response plans in-clude specific responses to specific incidents forspecific facilities (e.g., a TEF), processes, orevents. DOE has either used plans in actualemergencies or exercised them in simulated op-erating conditions. DOE has integrated theseSRS plans with state and local offsite plans toenable coordination of a total response to SRSincidents.

Response to Comment L4-02 (U. S. Environ-mental Protection Agency)

Positive measures are taken to minimize an in-crease in occupational injuries during any con-struction activities at the Savannah River Site.These include the adherence to agreements,safety plans, and safety procedures by all con-tractors, subcontractors, and Site forces. Allcontractors must sign a Site Project Agreementthat requires a properly trained workforce.Proper training of the workforce is guaranteedthrough hiring of only recognized labor trades.Subcontractors must also submit a health andsafety plan that meets Occupational Safety &Health Administration (OSHA) requirementsand is approved by the Savannah River SiteSafety Department. In addition to meetingOSHA requirements, Site workforces must ad-

here to Site safety procedures documented inSite Safety Manuals.

The potential risk for increase of traffic fatali-ties during construction is minimized throughtraffic law enforcement by the Site securityforce, Wackenhut Security Inc. (WSI). WSISite security forces are Marshals for the State ofSouth Carolina with full jurisdiction to enforcetraffic laws at the Savannah River Site.

In accordance with NEPA, mitigation measuresare identified that should reduce significant im-pacts in construction and operation. Althoughan increase in actual numbers of accidents orfatalities could occur as a result of additionalconstruction activities and the additional work-ers required, DOE does not expect the accidentor fatality rate to increase. Therefore, DOE hasnot modified the Draft EIS.

Verbal Comments

Transcripts of the messages left on the DOEmessage line are presented next, followed byDOE responses.

Mr. Marvin Lewis (Comment V1-01)

This is a comment line; it is supposed to be openthrough June 23, 1998 according to the letterfrom Andrew R. Grainger to stakeholdersApril 30, 1998. If this is supposed to be a com-ment line, it is supposed to be open as a com-ment line.

I want to make some comments, actually addi-tions to my previous comments. First and againand again I have to reiterate, there is plenty ofcommercial tritium available we can buy it onthe open market if we really need it.

We don’t really need it; we have got plenty oftritium from present weapons to recycle if wereally need it.

I would like to point out what the media, severalof the media, are saying about the India nuclearbomb tests or nuclear device tests or whateveryou want to call it. Namely that there was no


1-28

benefit to India from it. There was only nega-tive to India from it and apparently the only realreason for India to go ahead with their nucleartesting was to buoy up the nuclear industry, nu-clear bomb industry in the U.S. Namely withthe Third World nations setting off bombs, eve-rybody is going to run to the nuclear bomb mak-ers to make more bombs.

I lost count already of how many things I havepointed out here, but I have to point out anotherthing. We sure don’t need Project Stage Coachand the other sub-critical tests to find out any-thing. A lot of it can’t be found out by com-puter simulation and a lot of it shouldn’t befound out and needn’t be found out, there is justno reason for it.

Finally, please don’t sell nuclear bomb makingstuff to Iran even if it is routed through Russia.Now this is the old gag: we did not sell, Russiasold it. Yeah, sure! Since when? We sell it, weknow it. By the way I am pro-military but thishog wash that is coming down from DOE andDOD and whatever the Eisenhower’s so wellput in military industry complex is just bull. Iam getting tired of it. I would like it stopped.Thank you.

Response to Comment V1-01 (Mr. MarvinLewis)

The Purpose and Need Section in the Summary(page S-2) has been expanded to clarify why theU.S. needs tritium. Technologies to meet trit-ium production needs are not within the scopeof this EIS. The 1995 Final Programmatic En-vironmental Impact Statement Tritium Supplyand Recycling (PEIS) addressed the full range ofreasonable alternatives for tritium production.Currently, no extractable tritium is being pro-duced at commercial nuclear reactor sites, butthe performance of tritium-producing burnableabsorber rods is currently being demonstrated ata Tennessee Valley Authority reactor. As statedin the 1995 Tritium Supply PEIS, DOE consid-ered the purchase of tritium from foreign na-tions. While there is no national policy againstpurchase from foreign sources, DOE determinedthat the uncertainties of purchasing tritium from

a foreign country render such an action unrea-sonable for an assured long-term supply.

This TEF DEIS stated on page S-2 and in Sec-tion 1.3 that the need for tritium is based uponthe Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan approvedby the President, which calls for a new tritiumsource by 2005 if the CLWR option is selected.The amount of tritium that could be expected tobe recovered from retired weapons would notsustain the long-term need under current stock-pile requirements. A safe, reliable, domesticsupply is required to maintain levels determinedby national defense policies.

The purpose of the proposed action and alterna-tives evaluated in this EIS is to provide tritiumextraction capability to support tritium produc-tion technology. Sub-critical testing is notwithin the scope of this EIS. Previous nationaldecisions determined that subcritical experi-ments are essential to the United States’ com-mitment to a world free of nuclear testing whilemaintaining a reliable nuclear deterrent. Theseexperiments are an integral part of DOE’sstockpile stewardship and management program.

Mr. Curt Graves (Comment V2-01)

I believe in the concept of the tritium facility,but would like to see a separate, independent(maybe non-governmental) group perform in-spections on the facility to ensure it is in com-pliance with all environmental, health, and otherregulations.

Response to Comment V2-01 (Mr. CurtGraves)

One or more regulatory bodies, including EPAand the South Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control oversee all Site ac-tivities. Other agencies, including the DefenseNuclear Facilities Safety Board, oversee par-ticular facets of SRS operations. For example,the DOE industrial hygiene program complieswith the Occupational Safety and Health Ad-ministration’s regulatory requirements fortracking the incidence and type of injuries andillnesses and the resulting days lost from work.


1-29

These agencies would exercise the same respon-sibilities for TEF operations.

DOE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) are currently exploring the possibil-ity of NRC oversight of certain DOE facilities.A pilot program is being conducted duringwhich the NRC is performing mock inspectionsof three DOE facilities, including the ReceivingBasin for Offsite Fuels at SRS. DOE and NRCwill further examine the process after this pilotproject is completed.

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS

2-1

SECTION 2. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT TEF EIS

This section presents the technical modifications to the Draft TEF EIS in the format described in the Foreword. Thechanges are made to (1) incorporate responses to comments received during the public comment period; (2) corrector clarify factual information; and (3) reflect TEF, CLWR, and APT design concepts developed since the Draft EISwas issued. The changes are presented in the same order (by chapter) the information was presented in the DraftEIS.

Chapter 1. Modifications – Back-ground and Purpose and Need forAction

As explained in greater detail on page S-2 of this EIS,DOE has modified the sections on Purpose and Needto clarify the decision process and the purpose for theproposed action evaluated in this EIS. Please refer topage S-2 in this Final EIS for the revised descriptionof Purpose and Need for Action. This modificationalso applies to Section 1.3 on page 1-3 of the DraftEIS.

In Section 1.5, Related Department of Energy Ac-tions on page 1-4, the Draft EIS describes the Recordof Decision for the Tritium Supply PEIS and the ne-cessity to prepare related site-specific evaluationsunder NEPA. The following text is reproduced fromthe Draft EIS and introduces Figure 1-3 which hasbeen updated.

As mentioned in Section 1.1, the Record of De-cision supported by the Tritium Supply PEIS hasresulted in a series of actions by DOE whichrequire site-specific evaluations under NEPA.These actions are the purchase or use of aCLWR to make tritium, the construction of anew tritium extraction facility at SRS (this EIS),the upgrade and consolidation of SRS tritiumfacilities (DOE 1997a), and the APT (DOE1998a). APT with its preferred feedstock of he-lium-3 would not require the tritium extractionprocesses in TEF; however, TEF could be builtas a backup to process alternative APT targets orCLWR targets if necessary. Because of the re-lationships among these proposed actions relatedto tritium supply and recycling, DOE is closelycoordinating the range of the proposed actionsand the schedules for preparation of NEPAdocuments (Figure 1-3).

Figure 1-3. NEPA documentation for related DOE actions.

DOE/EIS-0271Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS March 1999

2-2

If the Secretary selects the CLWR option, DOEwould transport the irradiated targets from thereactors to SRS for tritium extraction. Impactsof transporting irradiated targets from the com-mercial reactor to TEF will be discussed in theCLWR EIS. The potential impacts of tritium-related transportation on or near the SRS arebeing addressed in the CLWR EIS.

Chapter 2. Modifications –Proposed Action and Alternatives

In Section 2.4, Comparison of Environmental ImpactsAmong Alternatives Considered, on page 2-8 the Draft EISpresents a comparison of the environmental impacts amongthe alternatives. In this Final EIS, Table 2-2 on pages 2-3to 2-8 compares the increment of the impacts of the pro-posed action and its alternatives to the current conditions atthe SRS. Table 2-3 on page 2-11 compares the impacts ofincorporating tritium extraction capabilities into APT tothose associated with the construction and operation ofAPT without the tritium extraction capability. Since theDraft TEF EIS was issued, DOE has updated the informa-tion for operating APT in accordance with both the stand-alone APT and the APT with extraction capability designvariation. The following text and tables are revised basedon the updated operational information.

2.4 Comparison of EnvironmentalImpacts Among Alternatives Con-sidered

This section is based on the information inChapter 3, Affected Environment, analyses inChapter 4, Environmental Impacts, and dataprepared for the APT Final EIS (England1998a; Willison 1998). Its purpose is to presentthe impacts of the proposed action and the alter-natives in comparative form to provide a clearbasis for choice for the decisionmaker(s) and thepublic.

Table 2-2 on pages 2-3 to 2-8 compares the in-crement of impacts of the proposed action andthe alternative to construct and operate TEF atAGNS to the SRS baseline, which representscurrent conditions at the SRS as detailed inChapter 3. Where applicable, impacts from allnatural, existing causes or regulatory standardsor current impacts from existing causes are pro-vided as a perspective on the severity of baselineconditions and incremental impacts of the alter-

natives. Table 2-2 also presents the incrementalimpacts of incorporating TEF in APT (this EIS’sno-action alternative).

In general DOE considers the expected impactsfrom the proposed action or its alternatives onthe physical, biological, and human environmentto be minor and consistent with what might beexpected for an industrial facility. Impacts ofthe proposed action, the AGNS alternative andthe no-action alternative are detailed in Ta-ble 2-2 and subsections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. In thecomparison of impacts, DOE determined thatchanges from the baseline of less than 5 per-cent are within the margin of error and theconservatism inherent in the analyses. There-fore, DOE finds that in those instances therewould be no measurable change from thebaseline and has not evaluated the impactsfurther.

Compared to the proposed action, the AGNSalternative is projected to have a 0.13 milliremhigher radiation dose at the site boundary (dueto its closer proximity to the boundary) butnearly equal collective population doses. Theestimated radiation doses were used to predictwhether any latent cancer fatalities would beassociated with either normal operations or po-tential accidents. Construction waste at AGNSwould be less because putting TEF at AGNSwould involve refurbishing existing facilities,rather than the total construction of TEF at HArea. Slightly higher sanitary waste would begenerated at AGNS during operations due to alarger workforce.

Many of the incremental impacts of the no-action alternative are less than those of the pro-posed action, because the combined tritium ex-traction and accelerator production of tritiumprocesses would have shared land, components,and infrastructure that would be duplicated ifeach were developed as an independent facility.Table 2-2 demonstrates reduced impacts fromthe no-action alternative to geology, surfacewater, groundwater, nonradiological air emis-sions, hazardous waste generation, aestheticssocio-economics, environmental justice, con-struction worker injuries, anticipated and un-likely accidents, and ecological resources.

DOE/EIS-0271

March 1999 Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS

2-3

Tab

le 2

-2.

Com

pari

son

of th

e al

tern

ativ

es f

or c

onst

ruct

ion

and

oper

atio

n of

TE

F.

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S si

teIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

no-a

ctio

n al

tern

ativ

ea,b,

c

Sche

dule

and

Ope

rati

ng P

aram

eter

s

Con

stru

ctio

nT

EF

is n

ot b

uilt

5 ye

ars

5 ye

ars

No

chan

ge in

the

peri

od o

fco

nstr

uctio

n fo

r A

PT.

Ann

ual e

lect

rici

ty20

,600

Mw

-hrs

(C

LW

Rta

rget

s)<1

9,57

0 M

w-h

rs (

targ

ets

ofsi

mila

r de

sign

)

Sam

e as

H A

rea

Les

s th

an 5

per

cent

of

base

line

defi

ned

for

noac

tion.

See

foo

tnot

e (b

).

Ann

ual s

anita

ry w

aste

wat

er(g

allo

ns)

770,

000

1,20

0,00

0N

o ch

ange

fro

m A

PT’s

base

line.

Ann

ual r

adio

activ

e pr

oces

sw

aste

wat

er (

gallo

ns)

11,0

00Sa

me

as H

Are

a11

,000

(8

perc

ent i

ncre

ase

inA

PT’s

bas

elin

e).

Impa

cts

to th

e P

hysi

cal a

nd M

anm

ade

Env

iron

men

t

Geo

logy

Exi

stin

g si

tes

are

clea

red

and

grad

ed; g

rass

ed, p

aved

or g

rave

led;

and

use

d fo

rin

dust

rial

pur

pose

s

Min

imal

con

stru

ctio

n im

pact

sth

roug

h ap

plic

atio

n of

bes

tm

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es a

ndco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith F

eder

al a

ndst

ate

regu

latio

ns.

Low

er c

onst

ruct

ion

impa

cts

than

H A

rea

beca

use

of le

ssco

nstr

uctio

n at

AG

NS.

No

effe

cts

grea

ter

than

5 pe

rcen

t abo

ve A

PT’s

base

line.

See

foo

tnot

e (b

).

Gro

undw

ater

Min

or d

ewat

erin

g du

ring

cons

truc

tion

activ

ities

nea

r or

belo

w th

e w

ater

tabl

e.D

esig

n w

ould

pre

vent

proc

ess

wat

er m

igra

tion

into

the

grou

ndw

ater

dur

ing

oper

atio

ns.

Faci

litie

s ne

ar th

e w

ater

tabl

ear

e in

pla

ce a

nd p

rote

cted

(fue

l sto

rage

poo

ls a

redo

uble

d-w

alle

d st

ainl

ess

stee

lta

nks

with

leak

-det

ectio

nsy

stem

s).

No

effe

cts

grea

ter

than

5 pe

rcen

t abo

ve A

PT’s

base

line.

With

an

imm

edia

te r

espo

nse

by S

RS

to c

onta

in a

ndre

med

iate

spi

lls, i

t is

unlik

ely

that

a s

pill

wou

ld im

pact

grou

ndw

ater

.

Sam

e as

H A

rea

Sam

e as

APT

’s b

asel

ine.

Imm

edia

te r

espo

nse

by S

RS

wou

ld m

inim

ize

the

pote

ntia

lto

impa

ct g

roun

dwat

er.

Tab

le 2

-2.

(Con

tinu

ed).

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S s

ite

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofno

-act

ion

alte

rnat

ivea,

b,c

Sur

face

Wat

erC

onst

ruct

ion

in a

n in

dust

rial

area

wit

h es

tabl

ishe

dst

orm

wat

er c

ontr

ol s

yste

ms

Min

imal

con

stru

ctio

nim

pact

s; c

onst

ruct

ion

wou

ldno

t dis

turb

und

evel

oped

area

s.

Low

er c

onst

ruct

ion

impa

cts

than

H A

rea

beca

use

of le

ssco

nstr

ucti

on a

t AG

NS

.

No

effe

cts

grea

ter

than

5 pe

rcen

t abo

ve A

PT

’sba

seli

ne.

Per

mit

ted

proc

ess

was

tew

ater

dis

char

ges

Eff

luen

t tre

atm

ent w

ould

rem

ove

radi

oact

ive

coba

ltfr

om p

roce

ss w

ater

to s

afe

leve

ls b

efor

e di

scha

rge

toU

pper

Thr

ee R

uns.

Tri

tium

conc

entr

atio

n in

the

effl

uent

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an th

ere

gula

tory

lim

it o

f 20

,000

pico

Cur

ies

per

lite

r.

Sam

e as

H A

rea

Rad

ioac

tive

pro

cess

was

tew

ater

fro

m e

xtra

ctio

nfa

cili

ties

wou

ld b

e ro

uted

from

the

AP

T s

ite,

trea

ted,

and

disc

harg

ed to

Upp

erT

hree

Run

s.

Per

mit

ted

sani

tary

was

tew

ater

dis

char

ges

Eff

luen

t wou

ld b

e tr

eate

dbe

fore

rel

ease

to F

ourm

ile

Bra

nch.

All

dis

char

ges

wou

ld b

e w

ithi

n pe

rmit

lim

its.

Min

imal

impa

cts

expe

cted

.

Eff

luen

t wou

ld b

e tr

eate

dbe

fore

rel

ease

to L

ower

Thr

ee R

uns.

All

dis

char

ges

wou

ld b

e w

ithi

n pe

rmit

lim

its.

Min

imal

impa

cts

expe

cted

.

No

effe

cts

grea

ter

than

5 pe

rcen

t of

AP

T’s

bas

elin

e.

Air

Res

ourc

esN

onra

diol

ogic

alco

nsti

tuen

t con

cent

rati

ons

at th

e S

RS

and

AG

NS

sit

ebo

unda

ries

Con

cent

rati

ons

vary

fro

map

prox

imat

ely

0 to

60 p

erce

nt o

f ap

plic

able

stan

dard

s an

d av

erag

e25

per

cent

.d

Con

cent

rati

ons

vary

fro

map

prox

imat

ely

0 to

0.19

per

cent

of

appl

icab

lest

anda

rds

and

aver

age

0.02

per

cent

.e Ozo

neco

ncen

trat

ions

(m

easu

red

asV

OC

s) w

ould

be

0.19

per

cent

of th

e re

gula

tory

sta

ndar

d of

235

µg/

m3 .

All

oth

erco

ntam

inan

t lev

els

wou

ld b

ele

ss th

an 0

.02

perc

ent o

f th

eir

resp

ecti

ve r

egul

ator

yst

anda

rds.

Con

cent

rati

ons

vary

fro

map

prox

imat

ely

0 to

1.7

perc

ent o

f ap

plic

able

stan

dard

s an

d av

erag

e0.

2 pe

rcen

t.e O

zone

conc

entr

atio

ns (

mea

sure

d as

VO

Cs)

wou

ld b

e 1.

7 pe

rcen

tof

the

regu

lato

ry s

tand

ard

of23

5 µ

g/m

3 . A

ll o

ther

cont

amin

ant l

evel

s w

ould

be

less

than

0.2

0 pe

rcen

t of

thei

rre

spec

tive

reg

ulat

ory

stan

dard

s.

Die

sel g

ener

ator

bac

kup

pow

er w

ould

be

prov

ided

by

the

AP

T f

acil

ity.

The

refo

re,

no in

crea

se in

nonr

adio

logi

cal a

ir im

pact

s.

DOE/EIS-0271

Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS March 1999

2-4

Tab

le 2

-2.

(Con

tinue

d).

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S si

teIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

no-a

ctio

n al

tern

ativ

ea,b,

c

Ann

ual r

adio

logi

cal d

ose

to th

e m

axim

ally

exp

osed

(off

site

) ind

ivid

ual

(mill

irem

). D

ose

limit

=10

mill

irem

/yr.

0.05

mill

irem

0.02

mill

irem

; the

em

issi

on is

0.2

perc

ent o

f the

dos

e lim

it(C

LW

R ta

rget

s)0.

014

mill

irem

, 0.1

4 pe

rcen

tof

the

dose

lim

it (t

arge

ts o

fsi

mila

r des

ign)

0.15

mill

irem

; the

em

issi

on is

1.5

perc

ent o

f the

dos

e lim

it(C

LW

R ta

rget

s)0.

030

mill

irem

; 0.3

per

cent

of

the

dose

lim

it (t

arge

ts o

fsi

mila

r des

ign)

0.00

6 m

illir

em (C

LW

Rta

rget

s)

Was

te Tot

al e

stim

ated

cons

truc

tion

debr

is (m

etri

cto

ns)

N/A

385

115

No

effe

cts

grea

ter t

han

5 pe

rcen

t abo

ve A

PT’s

base

line.

Tot

al o

pera

tions

was

te b

yty

pe (c

ubic

met

ers)

Hig

h-le

vel

Low

-lev

el15

0,75

0 (3

0 ye

ars)

343,

710

(30

year

s)0

(40

year

s)9,

320

(40

year

s; C

LW

Rta

rget

s); 8

,720

(40

year

s;ta

rget

s of

sim

ilar d

esig

n)

Sam

e as

H A

rea

Sam

e as

H A

rea

0 (4

0 ye

ars)

12,8

00 (4

0 ye

ars;

CL

WR

targ

ets)

Haz

ardo

us o

r mix

edT

rans

uran

ic90

,450

(30

year

s18

,090

(30

year

s)13

2 (4

0 ye

ars)

0 (4

0 ye

ars)

Sam

e as

H A

rea

Sam

e as

H A

rea

80 (4

0 ye

ars;

CL

WR

targ

ets)

0 (4

0 ye

ars)

Impa

cts

to H

uman

Env

iron

men

t

Aes

thet

icse

Are

a is

not

vis

ible

to a

ndno

ise

is n

ot h

eard

by

offs

itepu

blic

. H

isto

ric

and

arch

aeol

ogic

al re

sour

ces

are

not p

rese

nt.

Tem

pora

ry in

crea

se in

noi

sedu

ring

con

stru

ctio

n ph

ase,

but i

t wou

ld n

ot b

e he

ard

byth

e of

fsite

pub

lic.

No

adve

rse

aest

hetic

impa

cts

duri

ng T

EF

oper

atio

n.H

isto

ric

and

arch

aeol

ogic

alre

sour

ces

are

not p

rese

nt.

Tem

pora

ry in

crea

se in

noi

sedu

ring

con

stru

ctio

n ph

ase.

No

adve

rse

aest

hetic

impa

cts

duri

ng T

EF

oper

atio

n.H

isto

ric

and

arch

aeol

ogic

alre

sour

ces

are

not p

rese

nt.

No

effe

cts

grea

ter t

han

5 pe

rcen

t abo

ve A

PT’s

base

line.

DOE/EIS-0271


2-5

DOE/EIS-0271

Modifications to the Draft TEF EIS March 1999

2-6

Tab

le 2

-2.

(Con

tinue

d).

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S si

teIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

no-a

ctio

n al

tern

ativ

ea,b,

c

Soci

oeco

nom

ics

SRS

empl

oym

ent i

sas

sum

ed to

dec

line

to10

,000

em

ploy

ees

by 2

001h ,

and

regi

onal

gro

wth

tren

dsar

e ex

pect

ed to

con

tinue

.

Reg

iona

l tem

pora

ry in

crea

seof

740

jobs

dur

ing

peak

yea

rof

con

stru

ctio

n, w

hich

is 0

.29

perc

ent o

f pr

ojec

ted

base

line

regi

onal

em

ploy

men

t of

258,

000

jobs

. T

he n

umbe

r of

jobs

at S

RS

wou

ld d

eclin

e to

108

for

TE

F op

erat

ion.

The

over

all e

ffec

ts w

ould

be

posi

tive

in te

rms

of a

ssis

ting

to s

tabi

lize

the

regi

onal

empl

oym

ent b

ase.

Reg

iona

l tem

pora

ry in

crea

seof

685

jobs

dur

ing

peak

yea

rof

upg

rade

s an

dre

furb

ishm

ent,

whi

ch is

0.2

7pe

rcen

t of

the

proj

ecte

dba

selin

e r

egio

nal

empl

oym

ent o

f 25

8,00

0 jo

bs.

The

num

ber

of jo

bs a

t SR

Sw

ould

dec

line

to 1

75 f

or T

EF

oper

atio

n. T

he o

vera

ll ef

fect

sw

ould

be

posi

tive

in te

rms

ofas

sist

ing

to s

tabi

lize

the

regi

onal

em

ploy

men

t bas

e.

App

roxi

mat

ely

the

sam

eco

nstr

uctio

n an

d op

erat

ion

wor

k fo

rce

as A

PT’s

base

line.

No

chan

ge w

ould

occu

r in

soc

ioec

onom

icim

pact

s.

Env

iron

men

tal J

ustic

eM

inor

ities

or

low

-inc

ome

com

mun

ities

wou

ld n

otre

ceiv

e di

spro

port

iona

tely

high

and

adv

erse

impa

cts.

Hea

lth e

ffec

ts w

ould

be

min

imal

. M

inor

ity o

r lo

w-

inco

me

com

mun

ities

wou

ldno

t be

disp

ropo

rtio

nate

lyaf

fect

ed.

Hea

lth e

ffec

ts w

ould

be

min

imal

. B

ecau

se o

f th

eir

prox

imity

to th

e A

GN

S si

tebo

unda

ry, s

ome

min

ority

or

low

-inc

ome

com

mun

ities

coul

d be

dis

prop

ortio

nate

lyaf

fect

ed.

No

mea

sura

ble

diff

eren

ces

from

APT

’s b

asel

ine.

Publ

ic H

ealth

Ann

ual p

roba

bilit

y of

fat

alca

ncer

to th

e m

axim

ally

expo

sed

(off

site

)in

divi

dual

(an

nual

fat

alca

ncer

ris

k fr

om a

llna

tura

l cau

ses

is 3

.4×

10-3

).

9.5×

10-8

1.0×

10-8

(C

LW

R ta

rget

s)6.

8×10

-9 (

targ

ets

of s

imila

rde

sign

)

7.5×

10-8

(C

LW

R ta

rget

s)1.

5×10

-8 (

targ

ets

of s

imila

rde

sign

)

3×10

-9 (

CL

WR

targ

ets)

Occ

upat

iona

l Hea

lthT

otal

est

imat

ed n

umbe

r of

addi

tiona

l lat

ent c

ance

rfa

talit

ies

(LC

Fs)

to a

llin

volv

ed w

orke

rs f

rom

an

annu

al d

ose.

0.06

61.

6×10

-3Sa

me

as H

Are

aN

o in

crea

se a

bove

APT

’sba

selin

e.

Tab

le 2

-2.

(Con

tinu

ed).

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S s

ite

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofno

-act

ion

alte

rnat

ivea,

b,c

Num

ber

of c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

ker

inju

ries

res

ulti

ngin

lost

wor

k ti

me.

NA

1110

No

incr

ease

abo

ve A

PT

’sba

seli

ne

Acc

iden

tsf,

g

Add

itio

nal L

CF

s in

off

site

popu

lati

onN

A

Ann

ual

freq

uenc

yB

ound

ing

acci

dent

>10

-2

>10

-4 to

<

10-2

>

10-6

to <

10-4

Hoo

d or

roo

m f

ire

Are

a fi

reD

esig

n-ba

sis

seis

mic

eve

nt w

ith

fire

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.7

0 0 0.3

Imp

acts

to

Eco

logi

cal R

esou

rces

Ter

rest

rial

Eco

logy

Aqu

atic

Eco

logy

The

aff

ecte

d en

viro

nmen

t is

wit

hin

deve

lope

d ar

eas

cons

isti

ng o

f pa

ved

lots

,gr

avel

ed s

urfa

ces,

bui

ldin

gsan

d tr

aile

rs, p

rovi

ding

min

imal

terr

estr

ial w

ildl

ife

habi

tat.

No

aqua

tic

habi

tat w

ithi

nH

Are

a bo

unda

ries

; aqu

atic

habi

tat a

djac

ent t

o H

Are

abo

unda

ries

(C

rouc

h B

ranc

han

d F

ourm

ile

Bra

nch)

.

No

phys

ical

alt

erat

ions

to th

ela

ndsc

ape

outs

ide

of H

Are

abu

t lim

ited

pot

enti

al to

dist

urb

any

near

by r

esid

ent

wil

dlif

e as

a r

esul

t of

cons

truc

tion

and

ope

rati

ons

nois

e.

Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tivi

ties

wou

ldoc

cur

unde

r be

st m

anag

emen

tpr

acti

ces

to li

mit

sed

imen

ta-

tion

in d

eten

tion

bas

ins

and

prot

ect s

trea

ms

from

non

-po

int s

ourc

e po

llut

ion.

Ope

r-at

ions

was

tew

ater

wou

ld b

edi

scha

rged

thro

ugh

NP

DE

S-

perm

itte

d ou

tfal

ls.

DO

Ew

ould

con

tinu

e to

com

ply

wit

h th

e pe

rmit

req

uire

men

tsan

d re

gula

tory

sta

ndar

ds to

ensu

re m

aint

enan

ce o

f w

ater

qual

ity

in r

ecei

ving

str

eam

s.

Bec

ause

the

AG

NS

fac

ilit

yha

s be

en in

acti

ve s

ince

198

3,it

may

con

tain

mor

e w

ildl

ife

than

the

H A

rea

site

.C

onst

ruct

ion

and

oper

atio

nsno

ise

and

hum

an a

ctiv

ity

wou

ld h

ave

loca

lize

d ad

vers

eef

fect

s on

wil

dlif

e.S

ame

as H

Are

a

No

addi

tion

al im

pact

s ab

ove

AP

T’s

bas

elin

e.

No

addi

tion

al im

pact

s ab

ove

AP

T’s

bas

elin

e.

DOE/EIS-0271


2-7

Tab

le 2

-2.

(Con

tinu

ed).

Res

ourc

eC

urre

nt S

RS

Bas

elin

eIn

crem

ent a

bove

bas

elin

e of

prop

osed

H A

rea

site

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofal

tern

ativ

e A

GN

S s

ite

Incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

ofno

-act

ion

alte

rnat

ivea,

b,c

Wet

land

Eco

logy

No

wet

land

hab

itat

wit

hin

H A

rea

boun

dari

es; w

etla

ndha

bita

t in

the

vici

nity

of

H A

rea

boun

dari

es (

Cro

uch

Bra

nch,

Fou

rmil

e B

ranc

h,U

pper

Thr

ee R

uns)

.

Wet

land

s in

the

Upp

er T

hree

Run

s w

ater

shed

, inc

ludi

ngC

rouc

h B

ranc

h, o

r th

eF

ourm

ile

Bra

nch

wat

ersh

edw

ould

not

be

adve

rsel

yaf

fect

ed b

y th

e co

nstr

ucti

onan

d op

erat

ion

of th

e T

EF

.

Wet

land

s as

soci

ated

wit

hL

ower

Thr

ee R

uns

wou

ld n

otbe

adv

erse

ly a

ffec

ted

byco

nstr

ucti

on o

r op

erat

ion.

No

addi

tion

al im

pact

s ab

ove

AP

T’s

bas

elin

e.

Thr

eate

ned

and

End

ange

red

Spe

cies

No

thre

aten

ed a

nden

dang

ered

spe

cies

wit

hin

H A

rea

boun

dari

es.

No

thre

aten

ed o

r en

dang

ered

spec

ies

live

or

fora

ge in

H A

rea.

The

re w

ould

be

noad

vers

e im

pact

.

Sam

e as

H A

rea

No

addi

tion

al im

pact

s ab

ove

AP

T’s

bas

elin

e.

a.

DO

E d

eter

min

ed th

at c

hang

es f

rom

the

base

line

of

less

than

5 p

erce

nt a

re w

ithi

n th

e m

argi

n of

err

or a

nd

the

con

serv

atis

m in

her

ent

in t

he

anal

yses

. D

OE

fin

ds

that

in t

hos

e in

stan

ces

ther

e is

no

mea

sura

ble

ch

ange

fro

m b

asel

ine

and

has

not

eva

luat

ed t

he

imp

acts

fu

rth

er.

b.

Bas

elin

e fo

r no

act

ion

incl

udes

an

acce

lera

tor

for

prod

ucti

on o

f tr

itiu

m (

AP

T)

cons

truc

ted

on it

s pr

efer

red

site

and

ope

rate

d w

ith

its

pref

erre

d he

lium

-3fe

edst

ock.

The

incr

emen

t abo

ve b

asel

ine

for

no a

ctio

n in

corp

orat

es e

xtra

ctin

g tr

itiu

m f

rom

CL

WR

targ

ets

in th

e A

PT

fac

ilit

y.c.

Sou

rce:

En

glan

d (

1998

a);

Wil

liso

n (

1998

).d.

Con

cent

rati

on in

crem

ents

that

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an 0

.1 p

erce

nt o

f st

anda

rd f

or b

oth

loca

tion

s ar

e no

t lis

ted.

e.In

clud

es la

nd u

se, v

isua

l res

ourc

es a

nd n

oise

, and

his

tori

cal a

nd a

rche

olog

ical

res

ourc

es.

f.E

vent

s w

ith

the

mos

t add

itio

nal l

aten

t fat

alit

ies

in o

ffsi

te p

ubli

c ar

e a

full

-fac

ilit

y fi

re a

nd a

des

ign-

basi

s ea

rthq

uake

wit

h a

seco

ndar

y fi

re.

g.A

ccid

ents

invo

lvin

g ta

rget

s of

sim

ilar

des

ign

wou

ld h

ave

subs

tant

iall

y lo

wer

impa

cts.

h.

Th

e em

plo

ymen

t of

10,

000

is b

ased

on

act

ual

red

uct

ion

s in

199

5, 1

996,

an

d 1

997

and

a c

onti

nu

atio

n o

f th

at

tren

d t

hro

ugh

200

0. T

he

1998

SR

Sw

ork

forc

e w

as 1

4,13

0 an

d is

exp

ecte

d t

o re

mai

n s

tab

le t

hro

ugh

at

leas

t 19

99.

As

such

, th

e es

tim

ate

serv

es a

s a

con

serv

ativ

e lo

wer

bou

nd

ass

um

ed t

oen

sure

th

at t

he

wor

kfo

rces

ass

ocia

ted

wit

h t

he

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

op

erat

ion

of

the

TE

F a

re n

ot u

nd

eres

tim

ated

rel

ativ

e to

th

e S

RS

wor

kfo

rce.

2-8



2-9

2.4.1 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSEDACTION AND THE AGNS ALTERNATIVETO THE SRS BASELINE

In Comment M1-02, the commenter stated that there islittle or no difference between the AGNS and H-Area alter-natives, but that the EIS makes it look like a major differ-ence. DOE did not intend to exaggerate the comparison ofthe H-Area (proposed action) and the AGNS alternatives.However, it did wish to capture the differences in environ-mental impacts for the decisionmaker(s) and the public.DOE has revised Section 2.4.1 starting on page 2-8 of theDraft EIS to clarify the differences between these two al-ternatives.

The action alternatives include the preferred al-ternative to construct and operate TEF in H Area(Section 2.2.1) and the alternative to upgradeand refurbish existing facilities and operate TEFat AGNS (Section 2.2.2). Table 2-2 onpages 2-3 to 2-8 compares the basic characteris-tics of locating TEF in H Area to those of locat-ing it at AGNS.

One difference between the proposed H Areaand alternative AGNS locations is AGNS’sclose proximity to non-government land andtherefore its greater potential for impacting off-site individuals near the site boundary in caseof a normal operational or accidental release.This difference is considered to be minimal.As shown in the following table, additionaldifferences include stack height and radionu-clides released to the environment.

Annual radionuclide emissions (curies) fromCLWR targets and stack height at TEF atH Area and TEF at AGNS.a

Annual emissions rate(curies)

Radionuclide H Area AGNS

Tritiumb 10,000 14,500Expelled pellet materialc 4.2××10-5 0.0012

Cobalt-60d 4.2××10-4 4.2××10-4

Zirconium-95e NA 1.1Stack Height 100 feet 328 feet

a. Smith (1997a, 1998a) and England (1998a).b. Assumed to be tritium oxide.c. See Table 2-3.d. Smith (1998b).e. Zirconium-95 would be released only during the

shearing of targets necessary at AGNS.

The quantities released at AGNS differ fromthose emitted at H Area because each rodwould be cut three times to be placed in theAGNS furnace while full-height targets wouldbe punctured at H Area. The shearing opera-tion would result in higher emissions than thepuncturing operation.

Should DOE discover threatened, endangered, orother sensitive resources on either potentiallyaffected area, avoidance or other appropriatemitigation measures would be taken. Neither ofthe alternative sites for TEF is known to containhazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials.Nonetheless, the potential exists that excavation-related activities could result in the discovery ofpreviously unknown and undocumented hazard-ous, toxic, or radioactive materials. In the eventthat hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materialwas discovered, DOE would remove and disposeof such material in accordance with all applica-ble laws and regulations.

DOE has not identified any significant historicor archaeological resources at either alternativesite that construction or operation of TEF couldaffect. However, if DOE discovered such sitesduring construction, it would comply with thestipulations of the Programmatic Memorandumof Agreement between DOE, the South CarolinaState Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), andthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

While processing CLWR targets, the contri-butions of nonradiological air constituents atAGNS would be 0.13 percent of the applicablestandard, and even lower for the onsite H-Areaalternative. Similarly, the annual radiologicaldose for the offsite maximally exposed individ-ual would be 0.13 millirem higher for AGNSthan H Area, but both would be well below theregulatory annual limit of 10 millirem from air-borne releases. Additionally, releases fromprocessing targets of similar design would belower than from processing CLWR targetsfor either alternative.


2-10

Because of the location of AGNS, some minor-ity or low-income communities could be dispro-portionately affected by radiological andnonradiological air emissions, but again impactsare expected to be minor. At the AGNS site,construction noise and activity could have lo-calized adverse effects on wildlife, but opera-tions would not.

Advantages of AGNS include less land dis-turbed, less construction waste generation, andlower construction costs. Also, the lower popu-lation density in the communities near AGNSwould result in a smaller collective dose frompotential accidents.

DOE has revised the Draft EIS to include advantagesof the proposed H-Area site to provide a comparisonto the advantages of AGNS discussed in the previousparagraph.

Advantages of the proposed H-Area site areprimarily due to its close proximity to the lo-cation of the final tritium purification step inBuilding 233-H. This enables DOE to sharecommon support facilities, services, and somepersonnel; to facilitate the transfer of tritiumbetween the two facilities; and to use certaingas-handling processes located in H Area.Consequently the life-cycle cost of operatingthe TEF at this location is substantially lessthan AGNS.

2.4.2 COMPARISON OF THE TEF NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE TO THE BASECASE PROPOSED ACTION FOR THEACCELERATOR FOR PRODUCTION OFTRITIUM (APT WITHOUT EXTRACTIONCAPABILITY)

Even though the Secretary selected the APTas backup, the discussion below is retained inthis Final EIS until a Record of Decision hasbeen issued.

The impacts of incorporating tritium extractioncapabilities into APT are compared to those as-sociated with construction and operation of theAPT without the tritium extraction capability.Differences between operating APT with and

without TEF capabilities are identified in Ta-ble 2-3. Only CLWR targets were evaluated forthe no-action alternative.

The main additions required to combine TEFand APT would have been the addition of theRemote Handling Area, target preparation area,storage area, and the TEF furnaces to APT.These furnaces would have heated CLWR tar-gets to drive tritium from them. In addition, theTEF furnaces could have been used to extractthe tritium from targets of similar design. Thefurnaces would be accommodated by the con-struction of a 48-foot addition along the lengthof one building in the APT facility. This addi-tion would have added a total of 28,800 squarefeet on five levels, for an increase of approxi-mately 10 percent in one APT building. Somesystem expansions and relocations within thebuilding would have been necessary as a resultof the combination of functions. However, thesemodifications would have been relatively minorin comparison with the entire APT project.

TEF at APT was designed to store up to 4,200CLWR targets. These targets would have beenkept in dry storage in one of the APT facilitybuildings. For accident analysis purposes, itwas assumed that each CLWR rod contains amaximum of 1.5 grams of tritium. It was alsoconservatively assumed that all of the tritium inthe extraction furnace and 1 percent of the trit-ium in the stored CLWR targets would havebeen oxidized and released in the event of eithera design-basis or beyond-design-basis seismicevent. The facility would have been designed sothat both the tritium-extraction furnaces and theaccelerator could have operated simultane-ously. Operators in the APT facility would havebeen cross-trained in both TEF and APT func-tions. As a result, no additional personnel wouldhave been expected for the combined facility.

2.4.2.1 Impacts of Construction of the Com-bined TEF/APT

The additional construction required for thecombined facility would not have requiredchanges either to the construction start date orthe period of construction. The additional con-struction necessary to build the combined


2-11

Table 2-3. Comparison of operation of APT with and without extraction capability.a

Resource

APT withoutextraction

capability (base case)No action (APT withextraction capability)

Annual Air Releases (curies)Tritium oxideb 30,000 35,000Carbon-11 250 250Expelled pellet materialc NA 4.2×10-5

Argon-41 2,000 2,000Cobalt-60 NA 4.2×10-4

Beryllium-7 0.02 0.02Iodine-125 2.7××10-3 2.7××10-3

Public and Worker HealthMaximally exposed (offsite) individual (MEI) dose

(mrem/yr)0.052 0.058

Annual probability of fatal cancer to MEI from nor-mal operations

2.6××10-8 2.9××10-8

Total dose to population (person-rem/yr) 2.0 2.2Annual population latent cancer fatalities (LCFs)

from air and aqueous releasesd1.0××10-3 1.1××10-3

Uninvolved worker dose (rem/yr) 1.7××10-3 2.0××10-3

Involved worker dose (rem/yr) 1.0 1.0Collective involved worker dose

(person-rem/yr)88 92

Annual collective involved worker LCFs 0.04 0.04Accidents

Maximally exposed (offsite) individual (rem)Design-basis seismic event 2.9 3.3Beyond design-basis seismic event 3.0 5.8

Total dose to population (person-rem)Design-basis seismic event 5,100 5,857Beyond design-basis seismic event 5,500 10,577

Total LCFs to populationDesign-basis seismic event 2.6 2.9Beyond design-basis seismic event 2.7 5.3

Uninvolved worker dose (rem)Design-basis seismic event 150 152Beyond design-basis seismic event 168 180

a. Source: England (1998a); Willison (1998).b. The dose effects of elemental tritium are negligible compared to tritium oxide and are not included in this analysis.c. Expelled pellet material resulting from puncturing CLWR targets. Source term radionuclides (with percent annual

Curie content) include Se-75 (33%), Cr-51 (23%), Co-58 (13%), Fe-55 (12%), Ca-45 (10%), Ar-37 (3%), Mn-54(2%), Ni-63 (1%), C-14 (1%), Ar-39 (1%), and trace isotopes (<1%) (Migliore, 1998).

d. Aqueous releases from APT are 3,000 Ci/yr of tritium, 1××10-4 Ci/yr of cobalt-60, 2××10-3 Ci/yr of chromium, and1××10-3 Ci/yr of sodium-22. The tritium extraction process has aqueous releases that are less than reportable levels.

extraction facility would have added less than 5percent to the construction effort of buildingAPT in both materials and workforce.

Construction of the combined facility wouldhave involved expansion of one building andsome additional equipment. The additional landrequired for the building footprint was adjacentto a planned building and already included in theAPT footprint. As a result, no effects greater

than 5 percent above APT’s baseline wouldhave been expected to the physical environment(landforms, soils, geology, hydrology, surfacewater, air emissions, infrastructure, waste man-agement, historic, archaeological and visual re-sources, or noise).

Construction of the combination facility wouldhave involved no new hazards to workers be-yond those already considered for the construc-


2-12

tion of the entire APT. As a result of design ef-ficiencies, the APT with the combination facilitywould have been constructed with approxi-mately the same workforce and no change ex-pected in the number of additional trafficaccident fatalities or occupational injuries duringconstruction. In addition, no change would haveoccurred in socioeconomic impacts comparedto the entire APT project.

The combination facility would have been asmall addition to the entire APT project; there-fore, no impacts beyond those already consid-ered would have taken place in the biologicalenvironment (terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecol-ogy, wetland ecology, threatened and endan-gered species).

2.4.2.2 Impacts of Operation of the Com-bined TEF/APT

Operation of the combined facility would nothave required large changes in the operationalcharacteristics of APT. No additional land usewould have been required and no water beyondthat already identified for separate APT andtritium extraction facilities would have beenrequired. No effects on the landforms, soils,visual resources or noise from the facility be-yond those already envisioned for APT wouldhave occurred. Emissions of non-radiologicalgases to the environment would have beenequivalent to the emissions already analyzed forAPT as a whole.

This document identifies the impacts of thebounding case of storing CLWR targets, proc-essing CLWR targets in TEF, and operatingAPT with the preferred helium-3 feedstock al-ternative. Operation of the combined facilitywould have increased emissions of radioactivegases and particulates compared to the APTbaseline. The combined facility could havebeen expected to have annual air releases nogreater than 35,000 curies of tritium oxide;250 curies of carbon-11; 2,000 curies of ar-gon-41; 0.02 curies of beryllium-7; 0.0027 cu-ries of iodine-125; 4.2×10-5 curies of expelledpellet material; and 4.2×10-4 curies of cobalt-60. These releases would have bound all opera-tional combinations of TEF and APT produc-

tion, but in no case would the operation of thecombined facilities have produced more than3 kilograms of tritium per year.

Waste streams from the combined facility wouldhave been very similar to those from the APTbaseline with the exception of job control wasteand radioactive process wastewater from TEF.The combined facility would have produced anadditional 320 cubic meters annually of low-level solid radioactive waste and an additional2 cubic meters annually of hazardous waste.Radioactive wastewater would have increased8 percent over the APT baseline.

Cross-training of the workforce would have re-sulted in no additional workers required for thecombined facility. Therefore, the estimates foroccupational injuries, traffic accident fatalities,and impacts on the regional economy would beunchanged from the APT baseline. While emis-sions would have increased over the APT base-line, the relative effects on each member of thesurrounding population would have been un-changed and the environmental justice conclu-sion of the Draft APT EIS would remain valid.

The diesel generator and storage tank necessaryfor backup power for TEF at H Area would nothave been needed for the combined facility.The TEF furnaces did not require backup power,and other backup power needs would have beenprovided by the APT facility generators. There-fore, there was no difference between the nonra-diological air impacts for the combined facilityand the APT baseline alternative.

Public health impacts would have been higherfor the combined facility than those for thebaseline APT alternative due to the higher ra-diological source terms associated with ex-tracting tritium from CLWR targets. Thedoses to the maximally exposed offsite individ-ual and population for the APT/TEF combina-tion would be 0.058 mrem/year and 2.2 person-rem/year, respectively. The estimated numberof annual latent cancer fatalities to the generalpopulation from the combined facility is 0.0011compared to 0.0010 for the baseline APT.


2-13

Because worker radiological dose is an admin-istratively controlled limit, the maximum workerdose allowed at the combined TEF/APT facilitywould have been unchanged from the APTbaseline facility. The estimated number of latentcancer fatalities based on the collective workerdose would remain at 0.03. APT alone wouldhave a bigger workforce and a higher individualdose than TEF alone, so the addition of the TEFdose to the APT dose would not have increasedthe number of potential latent cancer fatalities.The uninvolved worker dose (640 meters fromthe facility) would have been higher for thecombined facility due to cobalt-60 emissionsfrom extracting CLWR targets and also fromincreased tritium emissions as a result of the ad-ditional TEF operations. The uninvolved workerdose would have increased from 1.7××10-3

mrem/year for baseline APT to 2.0××10-3

mrem/year for the combined facility.

Consequences of potential accidents at facilitiesthat produce or process radioactive materialswere driven by the amount of source materialavailable for release to the environment. Thecombination facility differed from the baselineAPT in that there was an increase in the amountof tritium stored in the form of CLWR targets.This additional fixed source term resulted ingreater accident consequences for the combinedfacility over the APT baseline. The limiting ac-cident scenarios for the TEF/APT combinationfacility were a large fire in the combined facilityand design-basis and beyond-design-basis seis-mic events.

Chapter 4. Modifications –Environmental Impacts

Comment letter L3, submitted on behalf of the U.S.Public Health Service, Department of Health andHuman Services, had several comments thatprompted changes to the section on the impacts ofoperation on radiological air quality which begins onpage 4-8 of the Draft EIS. The following section,Operation is provided to place these changes in con-text.

Operation (under Radiological Air Quality ofSection 4.1.1.4, Air Resources) – Although

many different radionuclides would be emittedas a result of normal operations for processingCLWR targets, only a few would account foressentially all of the potential dose. Annualemissions (curies) for the radionuclides that areconsidered the major contributors to dose fromCLWR targets are presented in Table 4-5 (Smith1997a, 1998). Tritium and expelled pellet ma-terial emissions result from the puncturing andprocessing of CLWR targets. A number of ra-dionuclides found in the CLWR target surfacecrud also are released in the course of normaloperations.

Table 4-5. Annual radionuclide emissions (cu-ries) from normal processing of CLWR targetsor targets of similar design at TEF in H Area.a

Annual emissions rate

Radionuclide CLWR targetsTargets of

similar design

Tritiumb 10,000 8,500

Expelled pel-let materialc

4.2×10-5 <4.0×10-5d

Cobalt-60e 4.2×10-4f NAg

a. Smith (1997a) and England (1998b).b. Assumed to be tritium oxide.c. See Table 2-3.d. For calculation purposes <4.0×10-5 Ci is conser-

vatively assumed to be 4.0×10-5.e. Smith (1998).f. Includes major dose-contributing radionuclides in

CLWR target crud: Co-60, Co-58, Cr-51, Fe-59,and Mn-54 (Cunningham 1996).

g. NA = not applicable. Cobalt-60 is not a compo-nent of a target of similar design assumed to bemade of lithium aluminum material.

The radionuclides in the CLWR target residuerecognized as potential major contributors toradiological dose include cobalt-60, cobalt-58,chromium-51, iron-59, and manganese-54 (Cun-ningham 1996). However, except for cobalt-60,these other radionuclides have relatively shorthalf-lives and thus would be present in onlysmall amounts by the time the CLWR targetswere processed. Additionally, of all the radio-nuclides in the surface material, cobalt-60 im-parts a higher dose per curie amount. Therefore,


2-14

in order to represent the worst case in terms ofradiological effects, the total amount of curiesreleased from the surface crud was assumed tobe all in the form of cobalt-60, thereby makingthe calculated dose conservative. For purposesof estimating impacts, TEF is assumed to oper-ate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. All radio-nuclide emissions resulting from TEF processeswould pass through the Glovebox and PurgeStripper System and the Module Stripper Sys-tem, where tritium, oxygen, helium, moisture,and some hydrocarbons would be stripped orpurged through a single 100-foot stack (DOE1997b).

Radiological emissions (Ci/yr) associated withthe processing of targets of similar design atTEF in H Area are presented in Table 4-5. Aswith the CLWR targets, the radionuclides listedfor the target of similar design represent themajor dose contributors. Tritium and expelledpellet material emissions for these targetswould be less than those for the CLWR targets.For purposes of this analysis, a target of similardesign is assumed to be made of lithium-aluminum material which is ductile, unlike theceramic getter and pellets in the CLWR targets.The tritium in these targets would remain boundin the lithium until the targets were melted in thefurnace (Smith 1998). For the case of the targetsof similar design, TEF is assumed to operate24 hours a day, 365 days a year and pass throughthe same stripper systems and 100-foot stack, aswith the processing of CLWR targets. See Sec-tion 2.2.1.1 for uranium bed information.

Comment L3-03 asked for more detail on the func-tion of the computer programs discussed in the fol-lowing paragraph, the pertinent parameters, or areference to this information to increase the readersunderstanding of dose estimation. DOE believes thatthe text as written contains the appropriate level ofdetail for most readers. DOE provided the requestedinformation in the response to the comment and re-fers interested readers to that comment and response.Comment L3-05 suggested changing “determining”to “estimating” in the following modified text toclarify that emission rates are not precise at this stagein the design of TEF.

Comment L3-10 requested a reference for the vali-dated data set discussed on page 4-9 of the Draft EISin the paragraph below. DOE has inserted the appro-priate reference.

After estimating routine emission rates, DOEused the computer codes MAXIGASP andPOPGASP to predict potential radiologicaldoses to the maximally exposed individual, thehypothetical uninvolved worker, and the popu-lation surrounding SRS. Both codes utilize theGASPAR (Eckerman et al. 1980) and XOQDOQ(Sagendorf et al. 1982) modules which havebeen adapted and verified for use at SRS(Hamby 1992 and Bauer 1991, respectively)

MAXIGASP and POPGASP are both site-specific computer programs that have SRS-specific meteorological parameters (e.g., windspeeds and directions) and population distribu-tion parameters (e.g., number of people in sec-tors around the Site). Meteorological datagathered at SRS from 1987 through 1991 (themost recent validated data set available) wereused for the radiological dispersion modeling.The 1990 census population database (ORNL1991) was used to represent the population liv-ing within a 50-mile radius of the center of SRS.For further information see the CommentL3–03 and the DOE response in Section 1 ofthis Final EIS.

Comment L3-04 recommended that the dose numbersdiscussed below and listed in Table 4-6 on page 4-9of the Draft EIS be presented on a relative basis sothe reader could judge the severity of these doses inproportion to doses commonly received by individu-als in the vicinity of SRS. DOE revised Table 4-6 inresponse to this suggestion. Also, in response toComment L3-11, DOE has provided the reference tothe statement that tritium accounts for 98 percent ofthe dose to the SRS worker.

Table 4-6 presents the calculated maximum ra-diological doses associated with routine opera-tions of TEF. Based on the dispersion model,the maximally exposed individual was identifiedas being located in the northern sector at theSRS boundary, 7.4 miles from the H Area TEF


2-15

location. According to these results for theCLWR targets, the maximum committed effec-tive dose equivalent for the maximally exposedindividual would be 0.02 millirem for each yearof operation, well below the annual dose limit of10 millirem from SRS atmospheric releases(40 CFR 61.92). The estimated dose to the off-site population residing within a 50-mile radiusis calculated as 0.77 person-rem per year (Simp-kins 1997a). For both the maximally exposedindividual and the offsite population, tritium isestimated to be the highest contributor to dose,accounting for 99 percent of both the maximallyexposed individual and population doses (Simp-kins 1997b).

Table 4-6. Annual doses from normal radio-logical air emissions from H Area TEF.a

Maximum dose

ReceptorCLWRtargets

Targets ofsimilar design

MEI dose (millirem)b 0.02 0.014

Percent of totalradiation exposure c

0.006 0.004

Total dose to population(person-rem)

0.77 0.66

Percent of totalradiation exposured

0.0003 0.0003

Uninvolved worker dose(millirem)

0.35 0.29

Percent of totalradiation exposure

0.10 0.08

a. Simpkins (1997a).b. MEI = maximally exposed individual.c. Relative to effective dose equivalent for non-

occupational sources in the vicinity of SRS (357millirem).

d. Relative to average annual dose to the offsitepopulation of 620,100 within a 50-miles radius ofSRS (0.357 rem x 620,100 persons = 221,376 personrem).

Table 4-6 also reports a dose to the hypotheticalonsite worker from annual radiological emis-sions. The onsite worker is located at a distanceof 640 meters from the release point in the di-rection, as determined through modeling, of thehighest dose; for TEF, this location is toward thesouthwest. The estimated maximum committedeffective dose equivalent is 0.35 millirem foreach year of operation (Simpkins 1997a). Trit-ium is the highest contributor to the worker

dose, accounting for 98 percent of the total dose(Simpkins 1997b).

Radiological doses due to the processing of thetargets of similar design are determined in thesame manner as doses from the CLWR targets,and are presented in Table 4-6. All the receptordoses for the targets of similar design are ap-proximately the same as for the CLWR targets.The MEI, population, and worker doses wouldbe 0.014 millirem, 0.66 person-rem, and0.29 millirem, respectively, with tritium respon-sible for essentially all the dose.

4.1.1.5 Waste Management

This section describes the impacts of TEF con-struction and operations (described in Appen-dix A) waste management activities on theenvironment (described in Chapter 3) at SRS.DOE has determined that construction and op-eration of TEF would result in generation ofseveral types of nonradioactive and radioactivewaste.

The waste would be managed at SRS, onsitevendor-operated, or offsite treatment, storage,and disposal facilities. This analysis assumesthat as much waste as possible would be treatedand disposed at SRS facilities. Potential impactsto the waste management facilities are expectedto be small due to existing SRS waste treatment,storage, and disposal capacities for the projectedtypes of waste and the relatively low volumes ofwaste generated (Table 4-7).

DOE clarified Table 4-7 from page 4-10 of the DraftEIS as requested in Comment L3-09.

DOE incorporated waste minimization and pol-lution prevention factors into the TEF precon-ceptual and conceptual designs. Productionprocesses were configured to minimize wastegeneration. This was accomplished through seg-regation of activities that generate radioactiveand hazardous wastes, treatment to separate ra-dioactive and nonradioactive components to re-duce the volume of mixed waste, andsubstitution of nonhazardous materials for mate-rials that contribute to hazardous or mixedwastes.


2-16

Table 4-7. Impacts on SRS treatment, storage, and disposal facilities from operation of proposed actionfor CLWR targets or targets of similar design.a,b

Waste facilityb Annual waste quantityc Waste typea,d Operating capacityImpact of

proposed action

Pretreated waste volumes

CIF 230 m3 (CLWRtargets)

20 m3 (targets of similardesign)

2.5 m3

0.09 m3

Incinerable LLRW

Incinerable MWIncinerable HW

17,830 m3/yrb,e,f 1.3 percent ofcapacity

0.11 percent ofcapacity (targets of

similar design)

Compactor 75 m3 LLRW 3,983 m3/yrb 1.9 percent ofcapacity

Waste-generation and post-treatment volumes

E-Area LAW vault 195 m3g LLRW 30,500 m3/vaultb 0.006 vault/yr

E-Area ILTV 35 m3 (CLWR targets)20 m3 (targets ofsimilar design)

LLRW with tritium 5,300 m3/vaultb 0.006 vault/yr0.004 vault/yr

Storage building 0.6 m3

2.5 m3hHWMW

2,618 m3

619 m3/building(total)b<1 percent of capacity<1 percent of capacity

Three Rivers Landfill 231.5 m3 Sanitary waste 3,592.5 m3/dayi 0.06 days/yr

CSWTF 770,000 gallons Sanitary wastewater 1 million gallons/daya 0.8 days/yr

Effluent TreatmentFacility

11,000 gallonse Process wastewater 187,000 gallons per daya 0.06 days/yr

Burma Road Landfill 33 m3j Industrial waste 100,000 m3/yrb 0.03 percent ofannual capacity

a. WSRC (1997).b. DOE (1995a).c. These quantities cannot be compared with volumes in Appendix A which are only wastes generated. The volumes in this

table include waste-generation volumes and the post-treatment volumes sent to storage and disposal facilities.d. Waste types are described in Table 4-9.e. All waste considered as solid feed.f. 50 percent attainment capacity.g. Includes post-compacted LLRW with tritium (4:1 ratio).h. Excludes pumps oils and alcohols.i. DOE (1995b).j. BSRI (1997).CIF = Consolidated Incineration Facility.CSWTF = Central Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility.HW = hazardous waste.ILTV = intermediate-level tritium vault disposes of low-level radioactive waste containing tritium and radiating greaterthan 200 millirem per hour.LLRW = low-level radioactive waste.LAW = low-activity waste. Low-level radioactive waste radiating less than 200 millirem per hour.MW = mixed waste.N/A = not applicable. A new wastewater treatment facility would be constructed.


2-17

Construction – The construction of TEF wouldgenerate nonhazardous, nonradioactive wastes,including construction debris (mixed rubble,metals, plastics), and sanitary wastewater. Ta-ble 4-8 lists estimated maximum quantities ofwaste for construction of TEF in H Area.

DOE could use the existing Burma Road Land-fill on SRS for rubble and other nonrecyclableconstruction debris or transport them to an off-site commercial landfill. DOE estimates a totalof approximately 165 metric tons of construction

Table 4-8. Construction waste generated fromthe proposed action for CLWR targets and tar-gets of similar design.a

Waste typeWaste quantity for pro-

posed action

Construction debris 165 cubic meters

Sanitary wastewater 3.1 million gallons

Low-level radioactive waste 0 a. Smith (1997b).

debris would be generated during TEF construc-tion.

During construction, sanitary wastewater wouldbe managed by an offsite vendor using portablerestroom facilities until DOE could build per-manent restroom facilities at TEF. Because thevendor would be responsible for disposing ofthis sanitary wastewater offsite, it would not af-fect SRS wastewater treatment facilities. Afterconnection of the TEF facilities to the CSWTF,the maximum annual volume attributable to TEFconstruction would represent approximately750,000 gallons (0.2 percent) of the CSWTF’sannual operating capacity of about 365 milliongallons.

Operation – TEF operations would generate anumber of nonradioactive and radioactive wastestreams. In addition, some of the TEF radioac-tive waste would be mixed (Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act [RCRA] hazardous andradioactive) waste. Because processes at TEFdo not involve fission and DOE would not usematerials with high atomic numbers in the ex-

traction process, the facility would not generatehigh-level radioactive or transuranic wastes.

TEF operations’ wastes would be generated bythe extraction of tritium from irradiated targets,decontamination processes, and operation ofsupporting facilities. They would also be gener-ated incidentally as a result of failed equipment,routine maintenance, and off-normal events.Table 4-9 lists the waste types generated by ac-tivity and examples of items included in eachwaste type.

The waste estimates in Table 4-7 are based onpre-conceptual and conceptual design informa-tion, conceptualized modes of operation, as-sumed levels of production, engineeringjudgment, waste forecasts, and waste manage-ment plans.

TEF would be able to pretreat, treat, accumulate,handle, package, and store the wastes it gener-ated prior to shipment to a waste treatment, stor-age, or disposal facility. DOE would manageTEF wastes for treatment and disposal accordingto waste type, using SRS, onsite vendor-operated, and offsite waste treatment, storage,and disposal facilities. Table 4-7 lists the wastetypes and quantities destined for treatment, stor-age, and disposal facilities and the subsequentimpact to the facility from operation of TEF in HArea.

4.3 IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION AL-TERNATIVE

DOE has modified Section 4.3 beginning on page4-56 of the Draft EIS. The No-Action Alternative isdescribed in the Summary on page S-4 of this FinalEIS. Text included in Section 4.3 that is in additionto the text in Section 2.4 (page 2-8 of the Draft EIS)is modified as follows. Table 4-31, which is calledout in the text below, is identical to Table 2-3 and ismodified as indicated in Table 2-3 on page 2-11 ofthis EIS.

This EIS analyzes the incremental impacts of theno-action alternative above the APT baseline.The data prepared to support the Final APTEIS (England 1998a; Willison 1998) containsan analysis of impacts to the physical and


2-18

Table 4-9. TEF operational waste types, generating activities, and examples.a

Waste type Generating activity Examples of waste stream items

Sanitary solid waste Offices, change rooms Paper

Industrial waste Production, maintenance, house-keeping

Failed nonrecyclable equipment, expired non-hazardous chemicals

Low-level radioactive waste Production, maintenance, decontami-nation, housekeeping

Personnel protective equipment, failed equip-ment, spent TPBARs and extraction baskets,TPBAR baseplates, furnace components, processequipment, U/Mg beds, hydride/catalyst/ zeolitebeds, HEPA filters, tritiated oil, glovebox bub-bler fluid

Mixed low-level radioactive waste Production, maintenance, decontami-nation, housekeeping

Process equipment, oil/solvent rags, decontami-nation, cleaning, degreasing, spill clean-up andmaintenance paper, products, lubricating oil andsolvents, analytical laboratory/radiological con-trol chemicals, spent fuel cells

Hazardous waste Routine analytical, process operation,maintenance, cleaning, degreasing,and decontamination

Lubricating oil and solvents, analytical labora-tory/radiological control chemicals

Mixed low-level liquid radioac-tive waste

Cooling water systems, radiologicalcontrol analytical activities, pollutioncontrol equipment, decontamination,fluids collected in the floor drains inpotentially contaminated areas

TPBAR cask/trailer decontamination, tritiatedwater and aqueous solutions, tritium-contaminated process cooling water, analyticallaboratory/ radiological control chemicals

Sanitary wastewater Restrooms Wastewater

Nonradioactive process wastewater Process cooling water Cooling water with traces of salts, corrosioninhibitor, slimicide, dispersant; rainwater,groundwater, wastewaters

TPBAR = tritium-producing burnable absorber rod.a. WSRC (1997).

manmade environment, the human environment,and to archaeological, historic, and ecologicalresources. The TEF no-action analysis is basedon the Final APT EIS and information devel-oped since the draft TEF EIS was issued. Table4-31 compares the basic impacts of operatingAPT with and without TEF. Section 2.4 (page2-2 of this EIS) discusses more fully the im-pacts presented in Table 4-31.

Chapter 5. Modifications – Cumu-lative Impacts

Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, has been modified toreflect changes from the Draft EIS and includes threepotential new missions as identified in the text thatfollows. The revised analysis includes the effects ofthese three potential missions on air and water re-sources, public health, waste management, and utili-ties.

The counties surrounding SRS have numerousexisting (e.g., an electric generating station, tex-tile mills, paper product mills, and manufactur-ing facilities) and planned (e.g., BridgestoneTire, and Hankook Polyester) industrial facilitieswith permitted air emissions and discharges tosurface waters. Because of the distances be-tween the SRS and the private industrial facili-ties, there is little opportunity for interactions ofplant emissions, and no major cumulative impacton air or water quality. Construction and opera-tion of Bridgestone Tire and Hankook Polyesterfacilities could affect the regional socioeco-nomic cumulative impacts.

DOE also has evaluated the impact from its ownproposed future actions by examining impacts toresources and the human environment as de-scribed in NEPA documents related to SRS.Additional NEPA documents related to SRS thatwere considered in this cumulative impacts sec-tion include:


2-19

• Final Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement for Tritium Supply and Recycling(DOE 1995a). In addition to constructionand operation of TEF, the Record of Deci-sion (ROD) states that the preferred alterna-tives for tritium production are either topursue the purchase of an existing commer-cial reactor, irradiation services from acommercial reactor, or to build an accelera-tor system. The SRS was selected as the lo-cation for an accelerator, should one bebuilt. In addition, the existing tritium recy-cling facilities would be upgraded to supporteither option.

Three project-level NEPA documents dis-cussed below cover the cumulative im-pacts of the activities associated with thetritium supply and recycling program:an accelerator (DOE, 1999a; England1998a; Willison 1998), commercial lightwater reactor (DOE 1997b), and upgradeof existing tritium recycling facilities(DOE 1997a).

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Ac-celerator Production of Tritium at SavannahRiver Site (DOE, 1999a; England 1998a;Willison 1998;). DOE has proposed to de-sign, build, and test critical componentsof an accelerator system for tritium pro-duction (APT). The preferred acceleratordesign would use helium-3 target blanketmaterial and an alternate accelerator designwould use lithium-6 target blanket material.If an accelerator is built, it would be locatedat SRS. The cumulative impact analysis in-cludes projected impacts from the helium-3target blanket material accelerator. Thecumulative impact analysis includes datafrom the final EIS.

• Final Environmental Impact StatementCommercial Light Water Reactor (DOE1999b). DOE has proposed to initiate thepurchase of an existing commercial reac-tor (operating or partially complete) forconversion to a defense facility, or thepurchase of irradiation services with anoption to purchase the reactor. Either theCLWR or the APT would be selected as

the primary tritium source. The projectimpact zone for this EIS that overlaps theTEF project impact zone is the transpor-tation corridor within a 50-mile radius ofthe SRS, to the point of transfer to theTEF of irradiated targets and to the SRSSolid Waste Disposal Facility of associ-ated low-level waste.

The CLWR EIS presents quantitativedata for human health impacts to includeimpacts to the transportation crews andmembers of the public from moving thetargets along the entire transportationcorridor of approximately 500 miles fromthe proposed Tennessee Valley Authoritynuclear plant to SRS. The human healtheffects within the TEF project impactzone (within the 50-mile radius of SRS)would be approximately 10 percent of thetotal transportation route impacts. Theannual radiological dose to the publicfrom transportation (entire route) of ir-radiated targets to TEF is estimated inthe CLWR EIS to be 0.014 person-rem.The dose to the population within the 50-mile radius of SRS would be approxi-mately 0.0014 person-rem. This dose rep-resents less than 0.005 percent of thecumulative dose to the 50-mile populationfrom airborne releases from TEF. Be-cause of the minimal impacts of CLWR-associated transportation activities, datafrom that EIS is generally not included inthe cumulative impact analysis in thisEIS; however, low-level waste quantitiesassociated with CLWR shipments to SRShave been included in the Waste Man-agement section of this chapter.

• Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear FuelManagement Environmental Impact State-ment (DOE 1998c). The DOE proposed ac-tion is to provide additional capability atSRS to receive and prepare spent nuclearfuel for ultimate disposal at a Federal geo-logic repository. Specific actions to accom-plish this could include construction andoperation of a transfer and storage facility;construction and operation of a treatment fa-cility; and additional dry storage capacity.


2-20

• Final Environmental Impact Statement In-terim Management of Nuclear Materials(DOE 1995c). DOE has begun implement-ing the preferred scenarios for most of thenuclear materials discussed in the InterimManagement of Nuclear Materials EIS withthe exception of selecting the “comparativemanagement scenario” alternatives for thefollowing materials: H-Canyon plutonium-239 solutions (process to oxide), Mark-16and -22 fuels (blending down to low-enriched uranium), and other aluminum-clad fuel targets (process and store for vitri-fication at DWPF). Data in this chapter re-flect projected impacts from the preferredand comparative management scenarios.

• Disposition of Surplus Highly EnrichedUranium Final Environmental ImpactStatement (DOE 1996a). The cumulativeimpacts analysis discussed in this chapterincorporates from that EIS the blending ofhighly enriched-uranium to 4 percentlow-enriched uranium as uranyl nitratehexahydrate.

• Defense Waste Processing Facility Sup-plemental Environmental Impact State-ment (DOE 1994). The selectedalternative in the Record of Decision(ROD) is the completion and operation ofthe Defense Waste Processing Facility toimmobilize high-level radioactive waste atthe SRS. The facility is currently in op-eration. However, SRS baseline data isnot representative of full operational im-pacts. Therefore, the DWPF data is listedseparately.

• Draft Surplus Plutonium Disposition Envi-ronmental Impact Statement (DOE 1998b).This EIS analyzes the activities necessary toimplement DOE’s disposition strategy forsurplus plutonium. SRS is being consideredin this EIS as one of four candidate sites forconstruction of three types of facilities forplutonium disposition. The cumulative im-pacts analysis in this EIS includes data fromthe draft plutonium disposition EIS, whichwas issued after the Draft TEF EIS wasdistributed.

• Environmental Assessment for the TritiumFacility Modernization and ConsolidationProject at the Savannah River Site (DOE1997a). This environmental assessment(EA) addresses the impacts of consolidatingthe tritium activities currently performed inBuilding 232-H into the newer Building233-H and Building 234-H. Tritium extrac-tion functions would be transferred to TEF.The overall impact would be to reduce thetritium facility complex net tritium emis-sions by up to 50 percent. Another positiveeffect of this planned action would be to re-duce the amount of low-level job controlwaste. Effects on other resources would benegligible. Therefore, impacts from the EAhave not been included in this cumulativeimpacts analysis.

• Final Environmental Impact Statement onManagement of Certain Plutonium Resi-dues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the RockyFlats Environmental Technology Site(DOE 1998a). DOE proposes to processcertain plutonium-bearing materials be-ing stored at the Rocky Flats Environ-mental Technology Site. These materialsare plutonium residues and scrub alloyremaining from nuclear weapons manu-facturing operations formerly conductedby DOE at Rocky Flats. Under one of thealternatives, Processing with PlutoniumSeparation Alternative, DOE would re-move most of the plutonium from the plu-tonium-bearing materials in preparationfor disposal at SRS, Rocky Flats, or theLos Alamos National Laboratory. Envi-ronmental impacts from this EIS are in-cluded in this section.

The cumulative impacts analysis also includesthe impacts from actions proposed in this EIS.Risks to members of the public and site workersfrom radiological and nonradiological releasesare based on the proposed action to extract trit-ium from commercial light water reactor(CLWR) targets. Impacts associated with ex-tracting tritium from targets of similar design arenot discussed here because in all cases they areless than the impacts of CLWR targets.


2-21

In addition, the cumulative impacts analysis ac-counts for other SRS operations. Most of theSRS data (radiological and nonradiologicalemissions) are based on 1996 values (Arnett andMamatey 1997), which are the most recent dataavailable.

Temporal boundaries were defined by examin-ing the period of influence from both the pro-posed action and the other actions to be includedin the cumulative impact analysis.

TEF site preparation and construction areplanned to begin in the first quarter of fiscal year1999 and be completed in 2003. Startup woulddepend on the preferred tritium supply source.A commercial light water reactor source couldbegin delivering tritium to the stockpile in 2005.Operation of the tritium supply source, TEF, andtritium recycling facilities are expected to con-tinue for 40 years. Impacts over the 40 years ofoperation are expected to be essentially constant.Temporal limits for new actions are discussedbelow.

Actions for interim management of nuclear ma-terials, highly enriched uranium, and certainplutonium residues and scrub alloy fromRocky Flats occur over a shorter time periodthan tritium extraction facilities while spentnuclear fuel activities initially occur concur-rently with the other activities and are sched-uled to be completed in 2035. For example,interim management (processing) of nuclearmaterials is scheduled to be complete in 2006;Rocky Flats plutonium residues and scruballoy processing at SRS would be completedby 2004; and receipt and preparation of spentnuclear fuel for ultimate offsite disposal isscheduled to be completed in 2035.

In addition, activities associated with storageand disposition of weapons-usable fissile ma-terials involves expansion of the ActinidePackaging and Storage Facility (APSF) pro-posed in the Interim Management of NuclearMaterials EIS. The APSF is scheduled forcompletion in 2006. Expansion and operationactivities would occur concurrently with TEFconstruction and operation. Activities associ-ated with plutonium disposition involve pos-

sible construction of as many as threefacilities (completed in the 2003-2006 time-frame) that would operate for approximately10 years, or longer if new missions are con-sidered at a later date.

Therefore, the period of interest for cumulativeimpacts is during concurrent construction of theAccelerator Production of Tritium (APT) andTEF and their operation while actions for nu-clear materials, spent nuclear fuel, highly en-riched uranium, and plutonium residues/scruballoy are ongoing.

5.1 Air Resources

Table 5-1 compares the cumulative concentra-tions of nonradiological air pollutants from SRSto Federal or state regulatory standards. TheSRS maximum values are the maximum mod-eled concentrations that could occur at groundlevel at the Site boundary. The data demonstratethat total estimated concentrations of nonradi-ological air pollutants from the SRS, includingthe contributions from TEF, would be below theregulatory standards at the Site boundary. Thecumulative concentrations range from less than1 percent to 59 percent of the applicable stan-dards. The higher percentages (54-59 percent)are for the shorter interval sulfur dioxide con-centrations and the particulate concentrationsand are still well within regulatory standards.

DOE also evaluated the cumulative airborne ra-dioactive releases for dose to a maximally ex-posed individual at the SRS boundary. DOEincluded the dose attributable to Plant Vogtle(NRC 1996) in this cumulative total. The ra-diological emissions from Chem-Nuclear Serv-ices and Starmet CMI, Inc. are very low(SCDHEC 1995) and are not included. Ta-ble 5-2 presents the results of the cumulativeradiological analysis, using 1996 data for theSRS baseline (1992 for Plant Vogtle). The cu-mulative dose to the maximally exposed mem-ber of the public would be 1.1×10-3 rem (1.1millirem) per year, equivalent to 11 percent ofthe regulatory standard of 10 millirem per year(40 CFR Part 61). The approach of summingthe doses to a maximally exposed individual for


2-22

Table 5-1. Estimated maximum cumulative ground-level concentrations of nonradiological pollutants(micrograms per cubic meter) at SRS boundary.a,b

PollutantAveraging

time

SCDHECambientstandard(µg/m3) TEF

SRSbaseline(µg/m3)

Other foreseeableplanned SRS

activitiesc

(µg/m3)

Cumulativeconcentration

d,e

(µg/m3)Percent ofstandard

Carbon monoxide 1 hour8 hours

40,00010,000

3.60.45

5,014.6631.8

79.419.3

5,097.6632.2

136

Oxides of Nitrogen Annual 100 5.5×10-3 8.8 4.9 13.7 14

Sulfur dioxide 3 hours24 hoursAnnual

1,300365

80

0.0881.0×10-3

9.0×10-5

690.2215.416.3

6.021.550.12

696.3216.916.4

545921

Ozonef 1 hour 235 0.45 NAf 0.8 1.3 <1

Lead Max. quarter 1.5 <1.0×10-6 <0.01 NA <0.01 <1

Particulate matter(≤10 microns aero-dynamic diameter)g

24 hoursAnnual

15050

0.019.0×10-5

80.64.8

0.160.03

80.74.8

5410

Total suspendedparticulates (µg/m3)

Annual 75 1.6×10-4 43.3 0.07 43.3 58

a. DOE (1995a,c,d; 1997c; 1998b,c,1999b); England (1998a); Willison (1998).b. Hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, hexane, and nickel are not listed in Table 5-1 because operation of TEF or other foresee-

able, planned SRS activities would not result in any change to the SRS baseline concentrations of these toxic pollutants.c. Includes Accelerator Production of Tritium, Highly Enriched Uranium, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials, Spent

Nuclear Fuel, Surplus Plutonium Disposition, and Management of Certain Plutonium Residue and Scrub Alloy con-centrations.

d. SCDHEC (1976).e. Includes TEF concentrations.f. Not available.g. New NAAQS for ozone (1 hr replaced by 8 hr standard = 0.08 ppm) and particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns (24 hr standard = 65

µg/m3) and annual standard of 15 µg/m3 will become enforceable during the stated temporal range of the cumulative impactsanalyses.

the seven actions that contribute to the radio-logical dose, non-Federal contributions, andbaseline SRS operations is an extremely conser-vative one because it assumes that the maxi-mally exposed individual would occupysimultaneously the four locations that wouldreceive the maximum doses from activities de-scribed in each EIS at the same time, a physicalimpossibility.

Adding the population doses from TEF, non-Federal activities, and current and projected ac-tivities at SRS could yield a total annual cumu-lative dose of 48 person-rem from airbornesources. The total annual cumulative dosetranslates into 0.023 latent cancer fatality foreach year of exposure by the population livingwithin a 50-mile radius of SRS. For compari-

son, 145,700 deaths from cancer due to allcauses would be likely in the same populationover their lifetimes.

5.2 Water Resources

At present, a number of SRS facilities dischargetreated wastewater to Upper Three Runs and itstributaries and Fourmile Branch via NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)-permitted outfalls. These include theF and H Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF)and the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Fa-cility. TEF operations would generate processand sanitary wastewater streams that would betreated at ETF and the SRS Central SanitaryWastewater Treatment Facility, respectively.


2-23

Table 5-2. Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsitepopulation in the 50-mile radius from airborne releases.

Offsite Population

Maximally exposed individual (MEI) 50-mile population

ActivityDose(rem)

Probability offatal cancer

aCollective dose(person-rem)

Latent cancerfatalities

b

SRS baselinec 5.0×10-5 2.5×10-8 2.8 1.4×10-3

Tritium Extraction Facility 2.0×10-5 1.0×10-8 0.77 3.9×10-4

Accelerator Production of Tritiumd 3.7××10-5 1.9××10-8 1.6 8.0××10-4

Surplus HEU dispositione 2.5×10-5 1.3××10-8 0.16 8.0×10-5

Interim Mgmt of Nuclear Materialsf 9.7××10-4 4.9××10-7 40 0.02

Management of Spent Nuclear Fuelg 1.5××10-5 7.5××10-9 0.56 2.8××10-4

Management of Plutonium Residues/Scrub Alloyh

5.7××10-7 2.9××10-10 6.2××10-3 3.1××10-6

Surplus Plutonium Dispositioni 4.0××10-6 2.0××10-9 1.6 8.0××10-4

Defense Waste Processing Facilityj 1.0×10-6 5.0×10-10 7.1×10-2 3.6×10-5

Plant Vogtlek 5.4××10-7 2.7××10-10 0.042 2.1××10-5

Total 1.1××10-3 5.5××10-7 48 0.023

a. NCRP (1993); expressed as the “probability” of a latent cancer fatality when applying the NCRP dose-to-risk conver-sion factor to an individual rather than a population.

b. Excess fatal cancers per year.c. Arnett and Mamatey (1997) for MEI and population.d. England (1998a); Willison (1998).e. DOE (1996); HEU = highly enriched uranium.f. DOE (1995c).g. DOE (1998c).h. DOE (1998a)i. DOE (1998b).j. DOE (1994).k. NRC (1996).

Treated wastewater from ETF is discharged toUpper Three Runs and from the Central SanitaryWastewater Treatment Facility to FourmileBranch. Studies of water quality and biotadownstream of these outfalls suggest that dis-charges from these facilities have not degradedthe water quality of Upper Three Runs or Four-mile Branch (Halverson et al. 1997). Even withthe addition of TEF wastewaters, ETF and theCentral Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facilitywould continue to meet the requirements of theSRS NPDES permit.

Depending on the volumes of radioactive, haz-ardous, and mixed wastes generated during envi-ronmental restoration and decontamination anddecommissioning of surplus facilities, a numberof waste management facilities could be builtthat discharge into Upper Three Runs. If APT isbuilt, it would discharge into Upper Three Runs.

New facilities or additions or modifications toexisting SRS facilities would be required tocomply with the NPDES permit limits that en-sure protection of water quality.

Table 5-3 summarizes the estimated cumulativeradiological doses to human receptors from ex-posure to waterborne sources downstream fromSRS. Liquid effluents from the Site could con-tain small quantities of radionuclides that wouldbe released to SRS streams that are tributaries ofthe Savannah River. The exposure pathwaysconsidered in this analysis included drinkingwater, fish ingestion, shoreline exposure, swim-ming, and boating. As discussed in Sec-tion 4.1.1.2, the preferred TEF configurationwould result in minimal radiological dose to themaximally exposed individual at the SRSboundary from liquid releases. The dose fromTEF liquid emissions would be minimal because


2-24

Table 5-3. Estimated average annual cumulative radiological doses and resulting health effects to offsitepopulation from aqueous releases.

Offsite PopulationMaximally exposed individual (MEI) 50-mile population

Activity Dose (rem)Probability of fatal

canceraCollective dose(person-rem)

Latent cancerfatalitiesb

SRS baselinec 1.4×10-4 7.0×10-8 2.2 1.1×10-3

Tritium Extraction Facility (d) (d) (d) (d)

Accelerator Production of Tritiume 1.5××10-5 8.2×10-9 0.42 2.1××10-4

Surplus HEU Dispositionf None None None NoneInterim Mgmt of Nuclear Materialsg 2.4××10-5 1.2××10-8 0.09 4.5××10-5

Management of Spent Nuclear Fuelh 5.7×10-5 2.9×10-8 0.19 9.5×10-5

Management Plutonium Residues/ScrubAlloyi

(d) (d) (d)

Surplus Plutonium Dispositionj (d) (d) (d) (d)Defense Waste Processing Facilityk None None None NonePlant Vogtlel 5.4×10-5 2.7×10-8 2.5×10-3 1.3×10-6

Total 2.9××10-4 1.5×10-7 2.9 1.4××10-3

a. NCRP (1993); expressed as the “probability” of a latent cancer fatality when applying the NCRP dose-to-risk conversion

factor to an individual rather than a population.b. Excess fatal cancers per year.c. Arnett and Mamatey (1997) for MEI and population.d. Less than minimum reportable levels.e. England (1998a); Willison (1998); DOE (1999a).f. DOE (1996); HEU = highly enriched uranium.g. DOE (1995c).h. DOE (1998c).i. DOE (1998a).j. DOE (1998b).k. DOE (1994).l. NRC (1996).

effluent from TEF would be treated at ETF.ETF processes would remove non-tritium ra-diological components of the waste stream. Thetritium in the TEF liquid effluent sent to ETF isexpected to be well below the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) drinkingwater limit of less than 20,000 picoCuries perliter.

The estimated cumulative dose from all SRSactivities to the maximally exposed member ofthe public from liquid releases would be2.9×10-4 rem (0.29 millirem) per year, well be-low the regulatory standard of 4 millirem peryear (40 CFR Part 141). Adding the populationdoses associated with current and projected SRSactivities to the SRS baseline would increase thecumulative annual dose to 2.9 person-rem fromliquid sources. This translates into 1.4××10-3 la-tent cancer fatality for each year of exposure ofthe population living downstream of the SRS.

For comparison, 15,300 deaths from cancer dueto all causes would be likely in the population of65,000 downstream residents over their life-times.

5.3 Public and Worker Health

Text was added to Section 5.3 on page 5-6 of theDraft EIS, Public and Worker Health, to expand thediscussion on the public and worker health impactspresented in Table 5-4 on page 5-7 of the Draft EIS.

Table 5-4 summarizes the annual cumulativeradiological doses and resulting health effects tothe offsite population and site workers fromroutine SRS operations, based on 1996 data andproposed DOE actions. Impacts resulting fromproposed DOE actions are described in the envi-ronmental documents listed earlier. In addi-tionto estimated radiological doses to the

Tab

le 5

-4.

Est

imat

ed a

vera

ge a

nnua

l cum

ulat

ive

radi

olog

ical

dos

es a

nd r

esul

ting

hea

lth

effe

cts

to o

ffsi

te p

opul

atio

n an

d fa

cili

ty w

orke

rs.a

Max

imal

ly e

xpos

ed in

divi

dual

Off

site

pop

ulat

ion

Invo

lved

wor

kers

Act

ivit

y

Dos

e fr

omai

rbor

nere

leas

es(r

em)

Dos

e fr

omli

quid

rele

ases

(rem

)T

otal

dos

e(r

em)

Pro

babi

lity

of f

atal

canc

erb

Col

lect

ive

dose

fro

mai

rbor

nere

leas

es(p

erso

n-re

m)

Col

lect

ive

dose

fro

mli

quid

rele

ases

(per

son-

rem

)

Tot

alco

llec

tive

dose

Lat

ent

canc

erfa

tali

ties

c

Col

lect

ive

dose

(per

son-

rem

)

Lat

ent

canc

erfa

tali

ties

c

SR

S b

asel

ined

5.0´

10-5

1.4´

10-4

1.9´

10-4

9.5´

10-8

2.8

2.2

5.0

2.5´

10-3

164

0.06

6

Tri

tium

Ext

ract

ion

Fac

ilit

y2.

0´10

-5(e

)2.

0´10

-51.

0´10

-80.

77(e

)0.

773.

9´10

-44.

01.

6´10

-3

Acc

eler

ator

Pro

duct

ion

of T

riti

umf

3.7´

10-5

1.5´

10-5

5.3´

10-5

2.6´

10-8

1.6

0.42

2.0

1.0´

10-3

880.

035

Sur

plus

HE

U d

ispo

siti

ong

2.5´

10-6

(e)

2.5´

10-6

1.3´

10-8

0.16

(e)

0.16

8.0´

10-5

114.

4´10

-3

Inte

rim

Mgm

t of

Nuc

lear

Mat

eria

lsh

9.7´

10-4

2.4´

10-5

9.9´

10-4

5.0´

10-7

400.

0940

0.02

127

0.05

1

Man

agem

ent o

f S

pent

Nuc

lear

Fue

li1.

5´10

-55.

7´10

-57.

2´10

-53.

6´10

-80.

560.

190.

753.

8´10

-455

0.02

2

Man

agem

ent

Plu

ton

ium

Res

idu

es/ S

cru

b A

lloy

j5.

7´10

-7(e

)5.

7´10

-72.

9´10

-10

6.2´

10-3

(e)

6.2´

10-3

3.1´

10-6

8.0

3.2´

10-3

Su

rplu

s P

luto

niu

m D

isp

osit

ion

k4.

0´10

-6(e

)4.

0´10

-62.

0´10

-91.

6(e

)1.

68.

0´10

-456

10.

22

Def

ense

Was

te P

roce

ssin

gF

acil

ityl

1.0×

10-6

01.

0×10

-65.

0×10

-10

7.1×

10-2

07.

1×10

-23.

6×10

-512

00.

048

Pla

nt V

ogtl

em5.

4´10

-75.

4´10

-55.

5´10

-52.

7´10

-80.

042

2.5´

10-3

0.04

52.

2´10

-5N

AN

A

Tot

aln

1.1´

10-3

2.9´

10-4

1.4´

10-3

7.0´

10-7

482.

950

0.02

51,

138

0.45

a.C

olle

ctiv

e do

se to

the

50-m

ile

popu

lati

on f

or a

tmos

pher

ic r

elea

ses

and

to th

e do

wns

trea

m u

sers

of

the

Sav

anna

h R

iver

for

aqu

eous

rel

ease

s.b.

NC

RP

(19

93);

exp

ress

ed a

s th

e “p

roba

bili

ty”

of a

late

nt c

ance

r fa

tali

ty w

hen

appl

ying

the

NC

RP

dos

e-to

-ris

k co

nver

sion

fac

tor

to a

n in

divi

dual

rat

her

than

a p

opul

atio

n.c.

Inci

denc

e of

exc

ess

fata

l can

cers

.d.

Arn

ett a

nd M

amat

ey (

1997

) fo

r 19

96 d

ata

for

ME

I an

d po

pula

tion

. W

orke

r do

se is

bas

ed o

n 19

97 d

ata

(WS

RC

199

8).

e.L

ess

than

min

imum

rep

orta

ble

leve

ls.

f.E

ngl

and

(19

98a)

; W

illi

son

(19

98);

DO

E, (

1999

a).

g.D

OE

(19

96);

HE

U =

hig

hly

enri

ched

ura

nium

.h.

DO

E (

1995

b).

i.

DO

E (

1998

c).

j.

DO

E (

1998

a).

k.

DO

E (

1998

b).

l.

DO

E (

1994

).m

. N

RC

(19

96).

DOE/EIS-0271


2-25


2-26

hypothetical maximally exposed individual andthe offsite population, Table 5-4 lists potentiallatent cancer fatalities for the public and workersdue to exposure to radiation.

The radiation dose to the maximally exposedoffsite individual from air and liquid path-ways is estimated to be 1.4××10-3 rem(1.4 mrem) per year, which is well below theapplicable DOE regulatory limits (10 mremper year from the air pathway, 4 mrem peryear from the liquid pathway, and 100 mremper year for all pathways). The total popula-tion dose for current and projected activitiesof 50 person-rem translates into 0.025 addi-tional latent cancer fatality for each year ofexposure for the population living within a50-mile radius of the SRS. As stated in Sec-tion 5.1, for comparison, 145,700 deaths fromcancer due to all causes would be likely in thesame population over their lifetimes.

The annual radiation dose to the involvedworker population would be 1,138 person-rem. The largest contributor to the dose isAlternative 3B in the Surplus Plutonium Dis-position EIS. Specifically, the dose is associ-ated with the operation of a plutoniumdisassembly and conversion facility that couldbe sited at SRS. It also should be noted thatdose to the individual worker will be keptbelow the regulatory limit of 5,000 mrem peryear (10 CFR 835). In addition, as low asreasonably achievable (ALARA) practiceshelp maintain worker doses below DOE’sadministrative control level of 2,000 mremper year and facility. SRS-specific adminis-trative control levels are as low as 700 mremper year.

5.4 Waste Generation

Table 5-5 lists cumulative volumes of high-level, low-level, transuranic, hazardous, andmixed wastes that the SRS would generate,based on the 30-year expected waste forecast(WSRC 1994) which includes tritium recyclingwaste. The waste forecasts for TEF and otherproposed activities are included in the esti-mates. The 30-year expected waste forecast isbased on operations and the following assump-

tions: secondary waste from DWPF, In-TankPrecipitation, and Extended Sludge Processingoperations as described in the DWPF EIS; high-level waste volumes based on the selected optionfor the F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions EIS andthe Interim Management of Nuclear Materials atSRS EIS; some investigation-derived wasteshandled as hazardous waste per Resource Con-servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regula-tions; purge water from well sampling handledas hazardous waste; and continued receipt ofsmall amounts of low-level waste from otherDOE facilities and nuclear naval operations.Amounts of waste generated from decontamina-tion and decommissioning and planned envi-ronmental restoration projects are also includedin the waste forecast. The estimated quantity inthis forecast of waste from operations during thenext 30 years is 603,000 cubic meters. In addi-tion, environmental restoration and decontami-nation and decommissioning activities identifiedin the 30-year forecast would produce an addi-tional 712,000 cubic meters (WSRC 1994; Hess1995). Other proposed activities that werenot included in the 30-year expected wasteforecast (exclusive of decontamination and de-commissioning) would add 211,705 cubic me-ters. Therefore, the total amount of waste fromSRS activities exclusive of TEF is estimated tobe 1,526,705 cubic meters. It is anticipatedthat SRS will have the capacity to handle thetotal amount of projected waste.

As stated in Section 4.1.1.5, low-level wastewould be generated from TEF operations activi-ties. Mixed and hazardous wastes would begenerated from TEF maintenance activities.High-level and transuranic waste would not begenerated at TEF. The total waste volume asso-ciated with TEF activities (excluding decon-tamination and decommissioning) would be9,430 cubic meters. The TEF post-treatmentwaste volume would require less than1 percent of the low-activity waste and inter-mediate-level tritium waste vault disposal ca-pacities per year. TEF hazardous and mixedwaste also would require less than 1 percentof their respective storage capacities at SRS.

The Three Rivers Solid Waste Authority Re-gional Landfill at SRS is being built for the


2-27

Table 5-5. Estimated life-of-project waste disposal volumes from SRS projected activities (cubicmeters).

Waste TypeSRS projected

activitiesa,b ER/D&Dc TEFOther proposed

activitiesc Total

High-level 150,750 0 0 11,032 161,782

Low-level 343,710 132,000 9,300 186,653 671,663

Hazardous/mixed 90,450 575,180 130 5,030 670,790

Transuranic 18,090 4,820 0 8,990 31,900

Total 603,000 712,000 9,430 211,705 1,536,135 a. Sources: WSRC (1994); Hess (1995).b. Based on a total 30-year expected waste generation forecast, but does not include Environmental Restoration and De-

contamination and Decommissioning activities.c. Life cycle waste associated with reasonably foreseeable future activities such as APT, spent nuclear fuel manage-

ment, highly-enriched uranium blend-down activities, Rocky Flats plutonium residues, surplus plutonium disposi-tion, and CLWR-associated waste.

disposal of nonhazardous and nonradioactivesolid wastes from the SRS and eight SouthCarolina counties. This municipal solid wastelandfill is intended to provide modern (SubtitleD) facilities for landfilling solid wastes whilereducing the environmental consequences asso-ciated withconstruction and operation of multiple county-level facilities (DOE 1995b). It was designed toaccommodate combined SRS and county solidwaste disposal needs for at least 20 years, with aprojected maximum operational life of 45 to60 years (DOE 1995b). The landfill is designedto handle an average of 1,000 tons per day and amaximum of 2,000 tons per day of municipalsolid wastes. The SRS and eight cooperatingcounties had a combined generation rate of900 tons per day in 1995. The Three RiversSolid Waste Authority Regional Landfill beganaccepting waste on July 1, 1998.

TEF would not generate large volumes of radio-active, hazardous, or solid wastes and wouldhave little impact on existing or planned capaci-ties of SRS waste storage and management fa-cilities.

5.5 Utilities and Energy

Table 5-6 lists the cumulative consumption ofelectricity from SRS activities. The values arebased on annual consumption estimates. Thiswould be a significant increase in electricity us-

age at SRS. Because the source of this electric-ity would be dispersed across the electric gridthat serves SRS, DOE cannot estimate site- spe-cific impacts from increased electricity require-ments. The estimated annual electricityconsumption by TEF (20,600 megawatt-hours)would be small compared to existing site elec-tricity usage.

Table 5-6. Estimated average annual cumula-tive electrical consumption.

Activity

Electricityconsumption(megawatt-

hours)1993 SRS usagea 660,000Tritium Extraction Facilityb 20,600Accelerator Production of Tritiumc 3,100,000Defense Waste Processing Facilityd 32,000Surplus HEU dispositione 5,000Interim Management of Nuclear

Materialsf140,000

Management of Spent Nuclear Fuelg 23,600Management Plutonium Resi-

dues/Scrub Alloyh9,800

Surplus Plutonium Dispositioni 38,000Total estimated annual consumption 4,029,000

a. DOE (1995e).b. Vozniak (1997).c. England (1998a); Willison (1998).d. DOE (1994).e. DOE (1996); HEU = highly enriched uranium.f. DOE (1995c).g. DOE (1998c).h. DOE (1998a)i. DOE (1998b).


2-28

5.6 Socioeconomics

DOE did not revise the section on socioeconomics(Section 5.6, page 5-9 in the Draft EIS). Althoughprocessing of plutonium residues from Rocky FlatsEnvironmental Technology Site (DOE 1997c) andconstruction and operation of one to three facilitiesfor surplus plutonium disposition (Pit ConversionFacility, Immobilization Facility, and a Mixed-OxideFacility) at SRS (DOE 1998d) may result in a slightincrease in regional employment, these actionsshould not have a major impact on regional economy.The additional jobs associated with plutonium man-agement and disposition would likely offset potentialreductions in the SRS workforce. Data for these ac-tions have not been analyzed because differencesidentified would be less than the precision of themeasurement and would not change the conclusionsdrawn on the cumulative socioeconomic effects.

Appendix B. Modifications – Acci-dent Analysis

Two references in Appendix B were replaced withcurrent revisions. One reference was deleted becauseat the time of its publication (1993), it was consid-ered unclassified controlled nuclear information.

Patel (1996) was changed to Patel (1997). Thenew reference is:

Patel, S. M., 1997, Hazardous Evaluation Ta-bles for the Commercial Light Water Reaction-Tritium Extraction Facility (U), S-CLC-00525,Revision B, Westinghouse Savannah RiverCompany, Aiken, South Carolina, December.

Mangiante (1997) was changed to Mangiante(1998). The new reference is:

Mangiante, W. R., 1998, Hazard AssessmentDocument Commercial Light Water Reactor-Tritium Extraction Facility, Revision 2,Westinghouse Savannah River Company,Aiken, South Carolina, October.

East (1997) has been deleted.


2-29

References

Arnett, M. W. and A. R. Mamatey, 1997, Savannah River Site Environmental Data for 1996, WSRC-TR-96-077, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

Bauer, L. R., 1991, Modeling Chronic Atmospheric Releases at the SRS: Evaluation and Verification ofXOQDOQ, WSRC-RP-91-320, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina.

BSRI (Bechtel Savannah River, Inc.), 1997, Project S-6091, Commercial Light Water Reactor TritiumExtraction Facility (CLWR-TEF), CLWR-TEF Study No. 68, Liquid Effluent Summary, M-ADS-H-00018, Rev. 0.

Cunningham, M. E., 1996, “Tritium Target Qualification Project, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,Richland, Washington, CLWR-Initial Information on Expected Levels of External Crud andContamination on TPBARs; Attachment from K. G. Turnage, Southern Nuclear Company, Augusta,Georgia,” letter to W. F. Brizes, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina,September 4.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for theDefense Waste Processing Facility, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995a, Savannah River Site Waste Management Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement, DOE/EIS-0217, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995b, Environmental Assessment for the Construction andOperation of the Three Rivers Solid Waste Authority Regional Waste Management Center at theSavannah River Site, DOE/EA-1079, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995c, Final Environmental Impact Statement Interim Managementof Nuclear Materials, DOE/EIS-0220, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995d, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement forTritium Supply and Recycling, DOE/EIS-0161, Office of Reconfiguration, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995e, Data Report on Tritium Extraction Facility for CommercialLight Water Reactor, Office of Reconfiguration, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996, Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium FinalEnvironmental Impact, DOE/EIS-0161, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997a, Environmental Assessment for the Tritium FacilityModernization and Consolidation Project at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1222, SavannahRiver Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997b, Conceptual Design Report for Commercial Light WaterReactor (CLWR) Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) Project S-6091 (U) Volume 1, 98-D-125,Commercial Light Water Reactor Project Office, Aiken, South Carolina, July 8.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1998a, Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management ofCertain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental TechnologySite, DOE/EIS-0277F, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.


2-30

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1998b, Draft Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental ImpactStatement, DOE/EIS-0283D, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1998c, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SavannahRiver Site Spent Nuclear Fuel Management, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SouthCarolina, July.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999a, Final Environmental Impact Statement, AcceleratorProduction of Tritium at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EIS-270, Savannah River Operations Office,Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production ofTritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor, DOE/EIS-0288F, Assistant Secretary for DefensePrograms, Washington, D.C.

Eckerman, K. F., F. J. Congel, A. K. Roecklein, and W. J. Pasciak, 1980, Users Guide to Gaspar Code,NUREG-0597, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

England, J., 1998a, “Augmentation of Previous Radiological Air and Water Emissions Estimatesfrom Routine Operations,” SPM-APT-98-0051, interoffice memorandum, WestinghouseSavannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, April 20.

England, J., 1998b, “Re: Al-Li Target Info. – APT/TEF EISs – Minutes/Actions,” interofficememorandum to Robert Smith, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SouthCarolina, February 17.

Halverson, N. V., L. D. Wike, K. K. Patterson, J. A. Bowers, A. L. Bryan, K. F. Chen, C. L. Cummins,B. R. del Carmen, K. L. Dixon, D. L. Dunn, G. P. Friday, J. E. Irwin, R. K. Kolka, H. E. Mackey, Jr.,J. J. Mayer, E. A. Nelson, M. H. Paller, V. A. Rogers, W. L. Specht, H. M. Westbury, and E. W.Wilde, 1997, Savannah River Site Ecology Environmental Information Document, WSRC-TR-97-0223, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

Hamby, D. M.,1992, Verification of GASPAR Dose Assessment Module Used in MAXIGASP andPOPGASP, WSRC-RP-92-418, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina.

Hess, M. L., 1995, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, “WSRC DataTransmittal - Summary of Changes Between Draft and Final WMEIS Forecasts and Alternatives,”ESH-NEP-95-0084, interoffice memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S. Department of Energy, SavannahRiver Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, May 15.

Migliore, R. J., 1998, “Activated Particulate Release from a Punctured TPBAR,” PNNL memo:TTQP-1-2036, Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA, 1998.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1996, Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releasesfrom Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 1992, NUREG/CR 2850, Vol. 14, Washington, D.C.

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1991, Demographic database on 1980 census, Oak Ridge,Tennessee.


2-31

Sagendorf, J. F., J. T. Croll, and W. F. Sandusky, 1976, XOQDOQ: Computer Program for theMeteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, NUREG/CR-2919, U.S. Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 1976, South Carolina Codeof Laws, SCDHEC Regulations 61-62, “Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards,” Columbia,South Carolina.

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), 1995, South CarolinaNuclear Facility Monitoring - Annual Report 1995, Columbia, South Carolina.

Simpkins, A. A., 1997a, “Atmospheric Dose Modeling for Tritium Extraction Facility EIS,” SRT-EST-97-0469, interoffice memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,Aiken, South Carolina, December 10.

Simpkins, A. A., 1997b, “TEF EIS Routine Release Environmental Dosimetry Calculations,” SRT-EST-97-466, interoffice memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah RiverCompany, Aiken, South Carolina.

Simpkins, A. A., 1998, “APT EIS Routine Release Environmental Dosimetry Calculations – StackHeight = 80m,” interoffice memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah RiverCompany, Aiken, South Carolina, April 22.

Simpkins, A.A., 1999, “APT EIS Routine Release Environmental Dosimetry Calculations –Addional Radionuclides,” SRT-EST-99-107, interoffice memorandum to C. B. Shedrow,Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, January 13.

Smith, R., 1997a, “Re: TEF Stack Emissions – Draft Estimates/Confirmed Valid,” U.S. Energy, Aiken,South Carolina, memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken,South Carolina, December 10.

Smith R., 1997b, “TEF Construction Waste Estimate for EIS,” Westinghouse Savannah River Company,Aiken, South Carolina, December 4.

Smith R., 1998a, “AGNS Emissions for CLWR Targets,” Westinghouse Savannah River Company,Aiken, South Carolina, February 20.

Smith, R. 1998b, “Co-60 Emissions Reductions and Revisions of CLWR-TEF DEIS,” WestinghouseSavannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, April 2.

Vozniak, G., 1997, Bechtel Savannah River, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina, “Project S-6091 CommercialLight Water Reactor Tritium Extraction Facility (CLWR-TEF). EIS Data Call Input, Transmittal ofUtility Data (U),” memorandum to C. B. Shedrow, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken,South Carolina, December 10.

Willison, J. S., 1998, Design Parameters and Expected Impacts from Construction and Operation ofTritium Extraction Functions Combined with the Accelerator Production of Tritium Project,TtNUS-APT-98-001, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina, April.

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


2-32

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1997, Process Waste Assessment, WSRC-TR-96-0294, Rev. 1, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1998, Savannah River Site Radiological Performance,4th Quarter 1997, ESH-SHP-98-0007, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.


2-33

INDEX

accelerator, 2, 10, 19accident, 10, 11, 12, 13as low as reasonably achievable, 26commercial light water reactor, 19, 20, 21committed effective dose equivalent, 14, 15communities, 10conceptual design, 15, 17conceptual designs, 15consequences, 13, 26Consequences, 13crud, 13cumulative impact, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22cumulative impacts, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22decisionmaker, 2dose, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26doses, 2, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26effluent, 23effluents, 23electricity, 27environment, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18environmental justice, 2, 12exposure, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26exposure pathway, 23exposure pathways, 23extraction basket, 18extraction baskets, 18getter, 14glovebox, 18Glovebox, 13hazardous waste, 2, 12, 15, 16, 26HEPA filters, 18high-level waste, 26impact, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27impacts, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27infrastructure, 2, 11irradiated, 2, 17, 19irradiation, 18, 19landfill, 17, 26latent cancer fatalities, 2, 11, 12, 24latent cancer fatality, 22, 23, 24, 26light water, 19, 20, 21

low-income communities, 10low-level waste, 19, 26maximally exposed individual, 9, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24millirem, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24minority, 10mitigation, 9mixed waste, 15, 16, 23, 26National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 22Oxides of Nitrogen, 22ozone, 22pellets, 14radiation, 2, 15, 24, 26radiological, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23,

24, 25radionuclide, 9, 13radionuclides, 9, 13, 14, 23reactor, 2, 18, 19, 20, 21receptor, 15Receptor, 15receptors, 23Record of Decision, 1, 18, 20rem, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 26Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 17, 26Risks, 20sanitary waste, 2, 15, 17, 22spent nuclear fuel, 19, 21, 27stripper system, 14Stripper System, 13sulfur dioxide, 21target of similar design, 13, 14targets of similar design, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20tritium, 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 23, 26tritium extraction facility, 1Tritium Extraction Facility, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31uninvolved worker, 12, 14Uninvolved worker, 11, 15wetland, 12zeolite bed, 18zeolite beds, 18

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 List of Preparers

LP-1

LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Degree Expertise Experience

U.S. Department of Energy

Charles Borup M.S., ForestManagement, 1979B.S., EnvironmentalPlanning, 1973

Contributing author toChapter 3

8 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 22 yearsexperience in planningand environmental fields.

Pat Burke B.S., Civil Engineering,1980

Reviewer of Chapters 3and 6

5 years reviewing NEPAdocuments; 15 years incivil engineering and5 years in utilitymanagement

Andrew R. Grainger M.S., Wildlife Ecology,1978B.S., Natural Resources,1975

NEPA ComplianceOfficer; NEPA Specialistfor the EIS; DOE-SRreviewer for Draft EIS;contributing author toChapter 3

12 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 18 years interrestrial ecology,facility siting, wetlandsecology, endangeredspecies

Brent J. Gutierrez, PE M.S., MechanicalEngineering, 1986B.S., MechanicalEngineering, 1985

DOE reviewer of andcontributing author togeology and seismicsafety sections ofChapter 3 andAppendix B

2 years experiencepreparing NEPAdocuments; 11 years insite characterization,geotechnical engineering,structural engineering,and equipmentengineering

Brenda Hays J.D., 1986 Contributing author toChapter 7; DOE reviewerof Draft EIS

6 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 11 yearsexperience as attorney

Michael O. Hickman B.S., EngineeringScience, 1978

DOE reviewer of DraftEIS; contributing authorto Chapters 1, 2, and 6,and Appendix A

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 17 years innuclear engineering andproject management

Richard L. Huskin A.S., Nuclear Science,1969

Primary DOE reviewerfor health physicssections of Chapter 3 andAppendix B

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 28 years inapplied health physicsand radiation protection

DOE/EIS-0271List of Preparers March 1999

LP-2


Ronald Jernigan B.S., Geography, 1973 Reviewer of Chapters 3and 6

14 years reviewing NEPAdocuments; 25 years inreal estate management

John Knox M.S., Botany, 1974B.S., Biology, 1972

Document Manager;prepared Summary andChapter 1; principalDOE reviewer of DraftEIS; contributing authorto Chapter 3

4 years preparing orreviewing NEPAdocuments; 24 years inenvironmental analysisand environmentalmanagement

David Roberts B.S., NuclearEngineering, 1979

Contributing author toChapters 3 and 7

5 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 20 years inregulatory compliance

Dennis P. Ryan M.B.A., BusinessAdministration, 1980M.S., Planning, 1976B.S., Economics, 1974

Contributing author toChapters 3 and 7

2 years experience inland use planning at TVA(EnvironmentalDivision); 10 yearsexperience in preparingNEPA documents; 28years in environmentalservices

Thomas Temples M.S., Geology, 1978B.S., Geology, 1976

Contributing author toChapter 3

4 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 18 years as ageophysicist

Richard Viviano M.S., Management, 1985B.S., MechanicalEngineering, 1975

DOE reviewer of DraftEIS; contributing authorto Chapters 1 and 2 andAppendix A

7 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 26 years ofnavy and commerciallight water reactorengineering, design,construction, operationand research anddevelopment

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.

John B. Bland M.A., Economics, 1982B.S., Mathematics, 1970

Prepared socioeconomicsand environmentaljustice sections ofChapter 4

4 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 20 years inenvironmental andemergency management,military, and commercialsecurity


LP-3


Bruce H. Bradford, P.E. Ph.D., Civil Engineering,1974M.S., Civil Engineering,1966B.S., Civil Engineering,1965

Project Manager forTtNUS; contributingauthor to Chapters 1, 2,3, 6, and 7

14 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 30 years incivil engineeringspecializing in hydrology,hydraulics, and waterresources

Steven J. Connor M.S., Physics, 1974B.S., Physics, 1973

Reviewer of noise,transportation, andenvironmental radiationsections of Chapter 4

7 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 22 years inscientific, educational,and engineeringdisciplines

William J. Craig M.S., Planning, 1977B.S., Forestry, 1972

Reviewer of andcontributing author tosocioeconomics sectionsof Chapter 4

10 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 20 yearsutility fuel planning andpowerplant siting

Kent Cubbage M.S., Ecotoxicology,1993B.S., Biology, 1991

Prepared ecologicalresources sections ofChapter 4

3 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 5 years as aecotoxicologist

Alan A. Eckmyre,CHMM

B.E., NuclearEngineering, 1981B.S., BusinessAdministration, 1979

Prepared wastemanagement sections ofChapter 4

5 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 18 years innuclear-environmentalengineering

Scott Flickinger M.E.M., NaturalResource Economics andPolicy, 1988B.A., Political Scienceand Biology, 1985

Reviewer of geology andgroundwater sections ofChapter 4

4 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 10 years insite characterization andpermitting

Gary L. Gunter, PG B.S., Geology, 1984 Prepared geology andhydrogeology sections ofChapter 4

1 year preparing NEPAdocuments; 10 years asgeologist/hydrogeologist

Kathryn B. Hauer,CHMM

M.A., English, 1985B.A., English, 1983

Document manager;contributing author toSummary, Chapter 4introduction, and frontand back sections of EIS

6 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 11 yearstechnical editing andwriting experience

DOE/EIS-0271List of Preparers March 1999

LP-4


Brian A. Hill,CHMM

B.S., EnvironmentalHealth, 1988

Prepared occupationaland public health andenvironmental justicesections in Chapter 4 andcumulative impacts inChapter 5

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 11 years inhealth physics, industrialhygiene, emergencypreparedness, andenvironmental science

Jeff Keenum B.S., Geology, 1986 Prepared groundwatersections of Chapter 4

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 11 yearspreparing groundwaterrelated reports;Registered ProfessionalGeologist

Douglas Kennemore M.S., Biology, 1995B.S., Biology, 1991

Prepared visualresources, historic andarchaeological resources,noise, and land usesections in Chapter 4

1 year preparing NEPAdocuments; 6 years inbotany and plantcommunity investigations

Lisa Matis M.S., MechanicalEngineering, 1989B.S., ChemicalEngineering, 1984

Reviewer of wastemanagement sections ofChapter 4

6 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 14 years inchemical-environmentalengineering

Philip R. Moore M.S., Wildlife &Fisheries Biology, 1983B.A., English, 1975

Contributing author toand reviewer of aquaticecology sections ofChapter 4

8 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 17 years asfishery biologist andaquatic ecologist

Aparajita S. Morrison,CHMM

B.S., Health Physics,1985

Prepared occupationaland public health andenvironmental justicesections of Chapter 4,and cumulative impactsin Chapter 5

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 11 years inenvironmental andoccupational protection

James L. Oliver B.S., Biology (Fisheries),1971

Reviewer of sections onaquatic ecology, surfacewater, and wetlands inChapter 4; author of No-Action Alternativesection of Chapter 4

13 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 26 years inenvironmental researchand impact assessment


LP-5


Karen K. Patterson M.A., Biology, 1977B.A., Biology, 1973

Editor 5 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 25 years inecology andenvironmental sciences

Eugene M. Rollins,CHP, CHMM

M.S.P.H., HealthPhysics, 1976B.S., NuclearEngineering, 1973

Reviewer of sections onoccupational and publichealth, and accidentanalysis

3 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 19 years inradiological healthprotection

Diane S. Sinkowski,CHMM

M.E., EnvironmentalEngineering, 1994B.S., NuclearEngineering Sciences,1990

Prepared air qualitysections of Chapter 4

3 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 6 years in airpermitting, fate andtransport modeling,human health impacts,environmentalcompliance, and healthphysics

James S. Willison, PE,CHP

M.S., NuclearEngineering, 1982B.S., NuclearEngineering, 1980

Prepared accidentanalysis sections ofChapter 4

1 year preparing NEPAdocuments; 13 years ofaccident analyses atnuclear facilities; healthphysics and radiologicalengineering

Paul F. Wise, CEA,CHMM

M.S., Biology, 1984B.S., Biology, 1982

Prepared surface watersections of Chapter 4

2 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 14 years inenvironmental, waterquality, wastemanagement, andenvironmental audits

Philip L. Young, CHP M.S., Health Physics,1989B.S., Radiation Health,1988

Reviewed public andworker health and safety,air resources,environmental justice,and cumulative impactssections

6 years preparing NEPAdocuments; 10 yearsexperience inenvironmental healthphysics andenvironmental impactassessment

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Glossary

GL-1

GLOSSARY

A-weighted decibel (dBA)A unit of weighted sound pressure level, measured by the use of a metering characteristic and the“A” weighting, which favors the human ear, specified by American National Standard InstituteS1.4-1971(R176). (See decibel).

acceleratorA device that accelerates charged particles (e.g., electrons or protons) to high velocities so theyhave high kinetic energy (i.e., the energy associated with motion); it focuses the charged particlesinto a beam and directs them against a target.

adsorptionThe adhesion (attachment) of a substance to the surface of a solid or solid particles.

air stripperA device that blows air through effluent, sewage, groundwater, etc., and has an aerator thatremoves unwanted materials such as gases, volatile organic compounds, or synthetic detergents.

aquiferA geologic formation that contains enough saturated porous material to permit movement ofgroundwater and to yield groundwater to wells and springs.

As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)An approach to radiation protection that controls or manages exposures (both individual andcollective to workers and general public) as low as social, technical, economic, practical andpublic policy considerations permit. ALARA is not a dose limit, but a process which has theobjective of dose levels as far below applicable limits of 10 CFR 835 as is reasonably achievable.Particular attention is to be paid to this definition in design of facilities.

attainment areaAn area that complies with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteriapollutants; a nonattainment area does not meet these standards.

bedrockThe solid rock underlying surface materials (as soil).

benthicAssociated with the bottom of a body of water (ocean, lake, river, stream), as in “benthicorganism.”

Best Management Practices (BMP)A practice or combination of practices that is determined by a state (or other planning agency) tobe the most effective, practicable means of preventing pollution generated by nonpoint sources orreducing it to a level compatible with air or water quality goals.

beyond-design-basis accidentA beyond-design-basis accident is more severe than the design-basis accident. It generallyinvolves multiple failures of engineered safety systems and has an occurrence probability ofless than 10-6 per year.

DOE/EIS-0271Glossary March 1999

GL-2

bounding accidentAn accident whose calculated consequences encompass all other possible accidents for thatfacility. For example, a bounding accident for the release of hazardous material from a storagetank would postulate the release of the entire tank contents. The consequences from this accidentwould be greater than the consequences of all other tank release scenarios.

bounding analysisSee bounding accident.

Carolina bayOval-shaped, intermittently flooded, marshy depression that occurs abundantly on the CoastalPlain of the Carolinas.

cesiumNaturally-occurring element with 55 protons in its nucleus. A radioactive isotope of cesium,cesium-137, is a common fission product.

claddingThe material that covers fuel and target assemblies in nuclear reactors.

colocated workerA worker on the SRS who is not involved with the operation of the facility being evaluated orunder the control of the Emergency Plan of that facility.

commercial light-water reactorA reactor that uses regular water as the neutron moderator. Commercial reactors are owned andoperated by utilities to produce electricity for consumers.

committed dose equivalentThe calculated dose equivalent received by a tissue or an organ during the 50-year period after aradionuclide is introduced into the body.

committed effective dose equivalentThe sum of the committed dose equivalents to various tissues/organs in the body multiplied bytheir appropriate tissue weighting factor. Equivalent in effect to a uniform external dose of thesame value.

community (environmental justice)A group of people or a site in a specified area exposed to industrial risks that could threatenhealth, ecology, or land values, or exposed to unwanted noise, smell, industrial traffic, particulatematter, or other unaesthetic impacts.

conceptual designName for the process to develop a facility that will meet project goals while ensuring feasibleand attainable performance levels; develop project criteria and design parameters for allengineering disciplines; and identify applicable codes and standards, quality assurancerequirements, environmental studies, construction materials, space allowances, energyconservation features, health and safety safeguards, security requirements, and other features orrequirements of the project.


GL-3

confining unitA body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable material stratigraphically adjacent to one ormore aquifers.

confluenceThe point where two streams meet.

consequenceThe result or effect (especially projected exposure to radiological or chemical hazards) of arelease of hazardous materials to the environment.

crackTo break a compound into simpler molecules.

crudFor the purposes of this EIS, crud (short for Chalk River Unidentified Deposits) refers tooxidation residue attached to targets.

cryogenic distillationCryogenic distillation is used to separate different hydrogen isotopes.

cumulative impactsImpacts on the environment including additive ecological, health, or socioeconomic effects thatresult from the addition of the impact of the proposed action to impacts from other past, present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) orperson undertakes the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

decay (radioactive)The spontaneous transformation of one nuclide into a different nuclide or into a different energystate of the same nuclide. The process results in the emission of nuclear radiation.

decibelA unit for measuring the relative loudness of sounds. In general, a sound doubles in loudness forevery increase of 10 decibels.

decision makerGroup or individual responsible for making a decision on constructing and operating a tritiumextraction facility at the Savannah River Site. Decision makers include DOE officials asspecified in DOE Order 451.1A; elected officials; Federal, state, and local agencyrepresentatives; and the public.

Defense Waste Processing FacilitySavannah River Site facility that processes high-level radioactive waste into a glass form fortransport to a permanent disposal site.

deflagrationRapid burning with great heat and intense light.

deinventoryPackaging unused nuclear materials and placing them in storage on the SRS or at their source.


GL-4

demographicRelated to the statistical study of human populations, including size, density, distribution, andvital statistics such as age, gender, and ethnicity.

design-basis accidentFor nuclear facilities, a postulated abnormal event used to establish the performancerequirements of structures, systems, and components to (1) maintain them in a safe shutdowncondition indefinitely or (2) prevent or mitigate the consequences of an accident to the generalpublic and operating staff (i.e., prevent exposure to radiation in excess of appropriate guidelinevalues). Normally, a design-basis accident is the accident that causes the most severeconsequences when engineered safety features function as intended. Typically these eventshave an occurrence probability of greater than 10-6 per year.

design-basis eventsThe set of events that serve as part of the basis for the establishment of design requirements forsystems, structures, and components within a facility.

doseThe energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation. The unit of absorbed dose is the rad, whichis equal to 0.01 joule per kilogram of irradiated material in any medium.

dose equivalentA term used to express the amount of effective radiation when modifying factors have beenconsidered. It is the product of absorbed dose (rads) multiplied by a quality factor and othermodifying factors. It is measured in rem (Roentgen equivalent man).

dry storage areaAn area in the remote handling area of the tritium extraction facility that will store incomingstorage/shipping containers. Shielding of stainless steel and concrete will protect personnel.

E-Area Waste Storage FacilityFacilities on the Savannah River Site (SRS) that store wastes generated by SRS activities.

ecosystemThe community of living things and the physical environment in which they live.

effluentA liquid or airborne material released to the environment; in common usage, a liquid release.

effluent monitoringThe collection and analysis of samples to measure liquid and gaseous effluents to characterizeand quantify contaminants, to assess radiation exposure to members of the public, and todemonstrate compliance with applicable standards effluent monitoring; occurs at the point ofdischarge, such as an air stack or drainage pipe.

EIS (environmental impact statement)A legal document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, asamended, for Federal actions involving significant or potentially significant environmentalimpacts. A tool for decisionmaking, it describes the positive and negative impacts of theproposed action and the alternative actions.


GL-5

electronAn elementary particle with a mass of 9.107×10-28 gram (or 1/1837 of a proton) and a negativecharge. Electrons surround the positively charged nucleus and determine the chemical propertiesof the atom.

emission standardsLegally enforceable limits on the quantities and kinds of air contaminants that may be emitted tothe atmosphere.

environmentThe sum of all external conditions and influences affecting the life, development, and ultimatelythe survival of an organism.

environmental justiceThe fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and educational levels with respect tothe development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, andpolicies. Fair treatment implies that no population of people should be forced to shoulder adisproportionate share of the negative environmental impacts of pollution or environmentalhazards due to a lack of political or economic strength.

environmental surveillanceThe collection and analysis of samples of air, water, soil, foodstuffs, biota, and other media andthe measurement of external radiation to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards,assess radiation exposures to members of the public, and assess effects, if any, on the localenvironment.

exposure (to radiation)The incidence of radiation on living or inanimate material by accident or intent. Backgroundexposure is the exposure to natural background ionizing radiation. Occupational exposure is theexposure to ionizing radiation that occurs during a person’s working hours. Population exposureis the exposure to a number of persons who inhabit an area.

exposure pathwayThe way a chemical or physical agent gets from its source to an organism. The pathwaydescribes the way an individual or population is exposed to the chemical or physical agent. Eachexposure pathway must have a source, a release from the source, an exposure point, and amethod of exposure (ingestion, breathing, etc.). If the exposure point differs from the source, atransport/exposure medium (e.g., air) and an exposure route is included in the pathway.

extraction basketHardware that hold a bundle of reactor targets (tritium sources) during the high temperatureextraction process which releases tritium and other process gases.

fault (geological)A fracture in the earth’s crust accompanied by a displacement of one side in relation to the other.

floodplainThe relatively flat valley floors adjacent to and formed by rivers subject to flooding. When theriver floods, the floodplain is inundated.


GL-6

gettersThe material in a target rod that collects the tritium produced when the rod is in a reactor.

gloveboxLarge sealed enclosure that contains equipment used to process hazardous materials. A gloveboxis normally constructed of stainless steel with large acrylic/lead glass windows. Workers arephysically separated from the hazardous material, but can manipulate the equipment with heavy-duty, lead-impregnated rubber gloves, whose cuffs are sealed in portholes in the gloveboxwindows.

gross regional productThe total value of the goods and services produced in a defined region.

half-life (radiological)The time it takes for the radioactivity of a radioactive isotope to decay by half. Half-lives varyfrom millionths of a second to billions of years.

hazard analysisA comprehensive assessment of facility hazards and/or accidents that could produce undesirableconsequences for the onsite population, the public, and/or the environment. Included in theanalysis are hazard identification, screening for common hazards, postulation of release events,screening for hazardous release events, defense-in-depth evaluation, and risk grouping of events.

hazardous wasteWaste (solid, semisolid, or liquid) with the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, toxicity, orreactivity, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and identified or listed in40 CFR 261 or the Toxic Substances Control Act.

heavy waterWater in which the hydrogen of the water molecule consists entirely of the heavy hydrogenisotope having a mass number of 2; also called deuterium oxide (D2O).

heavy water reactorA nuclear reactor in which heavy water serves as a neutron moderator and sometimes as acoolant.

HEPA filtersHigh Efficiency Particulate Air filters filter air and gases to remove particulate matter that issmaller than a micron.

high-level wasteThe highly radioactive wastes that result from the chemical processing of spent nuclear fuel,including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid waste derived from theliquid. High-level waste contains a combination of transuranic waste and fission products inconcentrations requiring permanent isolation.

HVAC fansHeating, ventilation, and air conditioning fans.


GL-7

hydrogen isotope separationSystem used to separate different hydrogen isotopes using the TCAP process (see below).

incinerationThe efficient burning of combustible solid and liquid wastes to destroy organic constituents andreduce the volume of the waste. The greater the burning efficiency, the cleaner the air emission.Incineration of radioactive materials does not destroy the radionuclides but does significantlyreduce the volume of the waste.

inertedFor the purposes of this EIS, a term to describe the process of replacing the air in a confinedspace with nitrogen gas.

inert moduleA container, filled with non-reactive gas, where targets are prepared remotely for tritiumextraction.

inert separationFor the purposes of this EIS, a system used to separate nitrogen or inert gases from hydrogenisotopes.

inert transporterFor the purposes of this EIS, a transporting device filled with nitrogen gas to prevent a chemicalreaction. Targets are moved among inert modules and to the furnace in the inert transporter.

infrastructureThe system of public works of a county, state, or region; also, the resources (buildings orequipment) required for an activity.

irradiatedA term to describe target rods that have been exposed to radiation in a reactor such ascommercial light water reactor.

irradiationExposure to radiation.

isotopeAn isotope of a chemical element has the same atomic number (i.e., number of protons) but has adifferent atomic mass (i.e., number of neutrons plus protons) than other isotopes of the sameelement. That is, although the number of protons always remains fixed for an element, thenumber of neutrons may vary, giving rise to different isotopes of that element. Isotopes of anelement display identical chemical properties. Isotopes may be radioactive.

jurisdictional wetlandsWetlands that are protected by the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer requiresa permit to fill or dredge jurisdictional wetlands.

latent cancer fatalitiesDeaths resulting from cancer that became active sometime after the exposure to the carcinogenthat induced the cancer.


GL-8

laydownArea of construction site used to sort and store construction materials.

LiAlThe chemical symbols for lithium and aluminum and which describes one type of target thatcould be irradiated in an accelerator to produce tritium.

light waterTerm used to distinguish ordinary water from heavy water. (A light water reactor uses ordinarywater as the neutron moderator.) Heavy water, on the other hand, is D2O, deuterium oxide.Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen with an atomic mass of 2 or twice that of hydrogen.

light-water reactorA nuclear reactor that uses ordinary water to moderate (reduce the energy of) the neutronscreated in the core by fission reactions.

low-income communityA community in which 25 percent or more of the population lives in poverty.

low-level wasteRadioactive waste not classified as high-level waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, orbyproduct material.

maximally exposed individualA hypothetical member of the public at the SRS boundary who receives the maximum possibledose equivalent from a given exposure scenario.

metal hydride bedA vessel filled with a metal which will form a hydride when exposed to hydrogen isotopes.These beds are typically used for storage of hydrogen isotopes.

milliremOne thousandth of a rem. (See rem.)

minority communitiesA community whose minority population is equal to or greater than the average minoritypopulation of a defined area or jurisdiction. A minority is classified by the U.S. Bureau of theCensus as Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, or othernonwhite persons.

mixed wasteWaste material that contains both hazardous waste and radioactive, special nuclear, or byproductmaterial (subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954).

National Ambient Air Quality StandardsAir quality standards established by the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The primaryNational Ambient Air Quality Standards are intended to provide the public with an adequatemargin of safety, and the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards are intended toprotect the public from known or anticipated adverse impacts of a pollutant.


GL-9

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemFederal system that permits liquid effluents regulated through the Clean Water Act, as amended.

National Register of Historic PlacesA list maintained by the Secretary of the Interior of districts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects of prehistoric or historic local, state, or national significance.

neutronAn uncharged nuclear particle that has a mass approximately the same as that of a proton; it ispresent in all atomic nuclei except that of hydrogen-1. A free neutron is unstable and decayswith a half-life of about 13 minutes into an electron and a proton.

nitrogen inertedDescribes when the internal atmosphere of a system, structure or device completely consists ofnitrogen.

nitrogen inerted modulesDescribes when a module’s internal atmosphere consists completely of nitrogen.

nonattainment areaSee attainment area.

nuclideAn atomic nucleus specified by atomic weight, atomic number, and energy state; a radionuclideis a radioactive nuclide.

overpackingThe act of placing packaged radioactive waste into a second container for transport and/ordisposal. At TEF, extracted targets and the extraction basket would be placed into a steel tube(the overpack) designed to go into an SRS waste storage facility.

oxides of nitrogen (NOx)Primarily nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), these compounds are produced in thecombustion of fossil fuels, and contribute to air pollution.

ozoneA compound of oxygen in which three oxygen atoms are chemically attached to each other.Ozone is an air pollutant.

pelletsOne configuration of the reactive material in a target rod.

person-remThe measure of radiation dose commitment to a specific population; the sum of the individualdoses received by a population.

pHA measure of the hydrogen ion concentration in an aqueous (made from, with, or by water)solution. Pure water has a pH of 7, acidic solutions have a pH less than 7, and basic solutionshave a pH greater than 7.


GL-10

pre-conceptual designPre-conceptual design involves the development of the preliminary information necessary todefine a project. This preliminary information consists of (1) Statement of Mission Need (whythe project is needed), (2) preliminary functional and technical requirements (how the projectwill satisfy the need), and (3) the development of the preliminary budgetary information (veryrough estimate of the total cost of the project). This preliminary information is then used toobtain DOE Program office approval to proceed into the further developmental stages of theproject.

process hoodAn enclosure which contains equipment for processing tritium. A process hood is maintained ata slight negative pressure with a high velocity air in-flow.

process stripperEquipment used to reduce the concentration of unwanted materials in air or some other gaseousatmosphere.

protonA nuclear particle with a positive charge equal in magnitude to the negative charge of theelectron; it is a constituent of all atomic nuclei, and the atomic number of an element indicatesthe number of protons in the nucleus of each atom of that element.

quantitative analysisAnalysis that uses precise values.

radiationThe emitted particles and photons from the nuclei of radioactive atoms; a short term for ionizingradiation or nuclear radiation, which is different from nonionizing radiation such as microwaves,ultraviolet rays, etc.

radioactivityThe spontaneous decay of unstable atomic nuclei accompanied by the emission of radiation.

radiologicalRelated to ionizing radiation.

radionuclideSee nuclide.

reactorA device in which a chain reaction of fissionable material is initiated and controlled; a nuclearreactor.

receptorThe individual being affected by radiation or a chemical hazard.


GL-11

Record of Decision (ROD)A document that provides a concise public record of an agency decision on a proposed actiondescribed in an EIS. An ROD identifies the alternatives, the environmentally preferablealternative(s), factors the agency balanced in making the decision, and whether the agency hasadopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm and if not, why not.

release fractionThe calculated percent of total material in a facility that could be released in a particularaccident.

rem (Roentgen equivalent man)The unit of dose equivalent for human exposure to radiation. It is equal to the product of theabsorbed dose in rads and a quality factor.

remote handling cellA room designed so that the process carried out in the room is done remotely by operatorsmanipulating robotic equipment.

Resource Conservation and Recovery ActThe Act that provides, among other things, a system for managing hazardous waste from itsgeneration until its ultimate disposal.

Richter ScaleA scale for measuring earthquakes with graded steps from 1 to 10. Each step is about 60 timesgreater than the preceding step, adjusted for different regions of the earth.

riskIn a radioactive accident analysis, the probability-weighted consequence of an accident, definedas the accident frequency per year multiplied by the dose. Risk also is used commonly in otherapplications to describe the probability of an event occurring times the consequences of theevent.

sanitary wasteSolid waste that is neither hazardous as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Actnor radioactive; sanitary waste streams include paper, glass, discarded office material, andconstruction debris.

seismicityCapacity for earth-movement events, usually earthquakes.

shielded transport casksA heavily shielded container designed to hold one or more tritium targets during transport.

shipping bayAn opening or recess in a building where materials are loaded or unloaded for shipping.

spent target rodsTarget rods that have had their tritium extracted.


GL-12

stripper systemA decontamination system that removes tritium and water vapors from the nitrogen atmospherecirculating through inerted process gloveboxes.

sulfur dioxideA heavy, pungent, toxic gas, used as a preservative or refrigerant, that is an air pollutant.

Target/target of similar designA tube, rod, or other form containing material that, on being irradiated in a nuclear reactor or anaccelerator, would produce a desired end product.

Thermal Cycling Absorption Process (TCAP)A system that separates different hydrogen isotopes in a hydrogen gas stream.

tierTo link to another in a hierarchical chain. An upper-tier document might be programmatic to theentire DOE complex of sites; a lower-tier document might be specific to one site or process.

tritiumA radioactive isotope of hydrogen and an essential component of every warhead in the currentand projected U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Tritium enables warheads to perform as designed.

Tritium Extraction FacilityA proposed facility at SRS that would extract tritium from target material irradiated in either anaccelerator or a commercial light-water reactor.

Tritium-producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs)A highly radioactive target rod which contains recoverable tritium after irradiation in a reactor.

Tritium Separation FacilityA proposed facility at SRS that would separate hydrogen isotopes (protium, deuterium, andtritium) from helium using metal hydride beds that would absorb hydrogen and allow helium topass through, and that would separate tritium from the other hydrogen isotopes using cryogenicdistillation.

uninvolved workerFor this EIS, an SRS worker who is assumed to be 640 meters from a point of release.

water quality standardsProvisions of Federal or state law that consist of a designated use or uses for the waters of theUnited States and water quality standards for such waters based on their uses. Water qualitystandards are used to protect the public health or welfare, and enhance the quality of water.

way stationsModules located inside the remote handling area of TEF. Their purpose is to capture gases thatmay be emitted from partially extracted target rods.


GL-13

wetlandsLand exhibiting the following: hydric soil conditions, saturated or inundated soil during someportion of the year, and plant species tolerant of such conditions; also, areas that are inundated orsaturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, andthat under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for lifein saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similarareas.

zeolite bedA vessel that recovers tritiated and non-tritiated waters from process gas streams and convertsthem to gas of various hydrogen isotopes for later recovery of tritium. The waters are driven offthe zeolite beds by heating for recovery of tritium.

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Distribution List

DL-1

DISTRIBUTION LIST

DOE is providing copies of the final EIS to Federal, state, and local elected and appointed officials andagencies of government; Native American groups; Federal, state, and local environmental and publicinterest groups; and other organizations and individuals listed below. Copies will be provided to otherinterested parties upon request.

CONTENT

Section Page

A. United States Congress ...................................................................................................... DL-2A.1 Senators from Affected and Adjoining States....................................................... DL-2A.2 United States Senate Committees ......................................................................... DL-2A.3 United States House of Representatives from Affected and Adjoining States ..... DL-2A.4 United States House of Representatives Committees ........................................... DL-3

B. Federal Agencies................................................................................................................ DL-3

C. State of South Carolina ...................................................................................................... DL-5C.1 Statewide Offices and Legislature ........................................................................ DL-5C.2 State and Local Agencies and Officials ................................................................ DL-5

D. State of Georgia ................................................................................................................. DL-5D.1 Statewide Offices and Legislature ........................................................................ DL-5

E. Natural Resource Trustee, Savannah River Site ................................................................ DL-6

F. Native American Groups ................................................................................................... DL-6

G. Environmental and Public Interest Groups ........................................................................ DL-6

H. Other Groups and Individuals ............................................................................................ DL-8

I. Reading Rooms and Libraries............................................................................................ DL-12

DOE/EIS-0271Distribution List March 1999

DL-2

A. UNITED STATES CONGRESS

A.1 SENATORS FROM AFFECTED AND ADJOINING STATES

The Honorable Max ClelandUnited States Senate

The Honorable Paul CoverdellUnited States Senate

The Honorable Ernest F. HollingsUnited States Senate

The Honorable Strom ThurmondUnited States Senate

A.2 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEES

The Honorable Mary L. LandrieuRanking Minority MemberSubcommittee on Strategic ForcesCommittee on Armed Services

The Honorable Robert C. ByrdRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Appropriations

The Honorable Pete V. DomeniciChairmanSubcommittee on Energy and Water

DevelopmentCommittee on Appropriations

The Honorable Carl LevinRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Armed Services

The Honorable Harry ReidRanking Minority MemberSubcommittee on Energy and Water


The Honorable Robert SmithChairmanSubcommittee on Strategic ForcesCommittee on Armed Services

The Honorable Ted StevensChairmanCommittee on Appropriations

The Honorable John WarnerChairmanCommittee on Armed Services

A.3 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM AFFECTED ANDADJOINING STATES

The Honorable James E. ClyburnU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Nathan DealU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Lindsey GrahamU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Jack KingstonU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Cynthia McKinneyU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Charlie NorwoodU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Mark SanfordU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Floyd SpenceU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr.U.S. House of Representatives


DL-3

A.4 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES

The Honorable Peter ViscloskyRanking Minority MemberSubcommittee on Energy and Water


The Honorable Duncan L. HunterChairmanSubcommittee on Military ProcurementCommittee on Armed Services

The Honorable C.W. YoungChairmanCommittee on Appropriations

The Honorable Ron PackardChairmanSubcommittee on Energy and Water


The Honorable David ObeyRanking Minority MemberCommittee on AppropriationsU.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Norman SisiskyRanking Minority MemberSubcommittee on Military ProcurementCommittee on National Security

The Honorable Ike SkeltonRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Armed Services

The Honorable Floyd SpenceChairmanCommittee on National Security

B. FEDERAL AGENCIES

Ms. Kathleen WalzU.S. Department of State

Mr. John BellingerNEPA CoordinatorOffice of Environmental PolicyU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Major General R. M. BunkerDivision Engineer, South Atlantic DivisionU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Bill ChampionWest Valley Nuclear ServicesU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Douglas H. ChapinRichland Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Ken ClarkRegion II Public Affairs OfficerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionCommander, Savannah DistrictAttn: Planning DivisionU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ms. Marjorie S. DavenportDistrict ChiefWater Resources DivisionU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Department of Interior

Mr. Paul F. X. Dunigan, Jr.Richland Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy

EAD Document Retrieval CenterArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Richard H. EnglemannWaste Management HanfordU.S. Department of Energy Laboratory

Mr. Leif EricksonDirectorRichlands Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Robert FairweatherChief, Environmental BranchOffice of Management and Budget


DL-4

Mr. Joseph R. FranzmathesAssistant Regional Administrator, Office ofPolicy and ManagementU.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region IV

Mr. Kenneth W. HoltCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Environmental HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Mr. Roger HuesserU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Dave Huizenga (EM-60)Office of Safety and HealthAssistant Secretary for EnvironmentalManagementU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Michael JanskyWM HanfordU.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Don L. KlimaDirector, Office of Planning & ReviewAdvisory Council on Historic Prevention

Mr. Andreas Mager, Jr.Habitat Conservation DivisionNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationU.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Heinz MuellerOffice of Environmental Policy & ComplianceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Charles OravetzChiefProtected Species Management BranchSoutheast Regional OfficeNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrationU.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Carl J. PaperielloDirectorNuclear Material Safety SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mr. Bob PeraltaChief CouncilArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy Laboratory

Mr. Jon RichardsRegion IVU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Joe SandersDefense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Mr. Jeffrey M. SteeleOffice of Naval Reactors, NE-60U.S. Department of Energy

Dr. Libby StullArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy Laboratory

Mr. Willie R. TaylorDirectorOffice of Environmental Policy & ComplianceU.S. Department of Interior

Mr. Greer C. TidwellAdministrator, US EPA-IV

Mr. T. L. WichmannEIS Office, DOE-Idaho Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy

Commander, Savannah DistrictPlanning DivisionUS Army Corps of Engineers


DL-5

C. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

C.1 STATEWIDE OFFICES AND LEGISLATURE

The Honorable James H. HodgesGovernor of South Carolina

The Honorable Bob PeelerLieutenant Governor of South Carolina

The Honorable Charles CondonAttorney General

The Honorable James E. Smith, Jr.South Carolina House of Representatives

Ms. Omeaga BurgessOffice of the State Budget

C.2 STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS

The Honorable Jackie HolmanMayor of Blackville

CoordinatorAiken County Civil DefenseAiken County Emergency ServicesAttn: Freddie M. Bell

Mr. Russell BerrySouth Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control

Mr. Frank BrafmanHilton Head Town Council

Mr. Donnie CasonSouth Carolina Department of Highways and

Public Transportation

Ms. Ann ClarkFederal Facility LiaisonEnvironmental Quality ControlSouth Carolina Department of Health and


Mr. Phil EnglandDirectorAiken County Planning & Development

Department

Mr. Henry PorterSCDHEC Division of HydrogeologyBureau of Land and Hazardous Waste Mgt.

G. Kendall TaylorDivision of HydrogeologyBureau of Land and Hazardous Waste

ManagementSouth Carolina Department of Health and


Mr. Freddie M. BellAiken County Emergency Services

Ms. Kim NewellPublic Information DirectorSCDHEC

D. STATE OF GEORGIA

D.1 STATEWIDE OFFICES AND LEGISLATURE

The Honorable Roy BarnesGovernor of Georgia

The Honorable Mark TaylorLieutenant Governor of Georgia

The Honorable Charles W. WalkerGeorgia Senate

The Honorable Thurbert BakerAttorney General


DL-6

The Honorable Ben L. HarbinGeorgia House of Representatives

E. NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEE, SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

Mr. Douglas E. BryantCommissioner, SCDHECNatural Resource Trustee

Mr. A. B. GouldDirectorNatural Resource TrusteeDOE-SR Environmental Quality Management

Mr. Clarence HamSRS Natural Resource TrusteeUS Army Corps of EngineersCharleston DistrictDepartment of the Army

Mr. David HolroydSRS Natural Resource TrusteeUS Environmental Protection Agency Region IV

Mr. Ronald W. KinneySRS Natural Resource TrusteeSCDHEC Waste Assessment and EmergencyResponse

Ms. Denise KlimasSRS Natural Resource TrusteeNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrationUS EPA Waste Division

Mr. James H. LeeRegional Environmental OfficerSRS Natural Resource TrusteeUS Department of the Interior

Mr. Douglas L. NovakSRS Natural Resource TrusteeSouth Carolina Office of the Governor

Mr. James SetserChief, Program Coordinator BranchSRS Natural Resource TrusteeDepartment of Natural Resources

Dr. Paul A. SandiferDirectorSC Department of Natural ResourcesSRS Natural Resource Trustee

F. NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS

The Honorable Gilbert BlueChairmanCatawba Indian Nation

The Honorable Bill FifePrincipal ChiefMuscogee (Creek) Nation

G. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS

Mr. Bill CunninghamEconomistDepartment of Public PolicyAFL-CIO

Ms. Karen PattersonSRS Citizens Advisory Board

Dr. Mildred McClainCitizens for Environmental Justice, Inc.

Mr. Paul SchwartzNational Campaigns DirectorClean Water Action

Mr. William YeniscavichDefense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


DL-7

Mr. Joseph GoffmanCapital OfficeEnvironmental Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. Fred KruppExecutive DirectorNational HeadquartersEnvironmental Defense Fund, Inc.

Dr. Brent BlackwelderPresidentFriends of the Earth

Mr. Tom ClementsNuclear Control Institute

Ms. Sharon Lloyd-O’ConnorManager, Energy ProgramsLeague of Women Voters

Mr. Edward V. FentonNational Association of Radiation Survivors

Dr. David BradleyNational Community Action Foundation

Ms. Joann ChaseExecutive DirectorNational Congress of American Indians

Mr. Alex EcholsDeputy DirectorNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Ms. Tamar OstermanDirector of Government AffairsDepartment of Law & Public PolicyNational Trust for Historic Preservation

Mr. Robert HoldenDirector, Nuclear Waste ProgramNational Congress of American Indians

Dr. Ed LymanNuclear Control Institute

Dr. Christopher PaineNatural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Thomas DonnellyExecutive Vice PresidentNational Water Resources Association

Mr. Mark Van PuttenPresident & Chief Executive OfficerNational Wildlife Foundation

Dr. Thomas V. CochranDirector, Nuclear ProgramsNatural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Bob TillerDirector of Security ProgramsPhysicians for Social Responsibility

Ms. Joy OakesRegional Staff DirectorAppalachian OfficeThe Sierra Club

Mr. Tom Zamora CollinaDirector of Arms Control ProjectUnion of Concerned Scientists

Ms. Diane JacksonAdministrative AssistantEcology and Economics Research DepartmentThe Wilderness Society

Ms. Rebecca CharlesTennessee Department of Environment andConservation

Dr. Paul LeventhalPresidentNuclear Control Institute

Mr. Brad MorseAlliance for Nuclear Accountability

Mr. David BeckerThe Sierra Club


DL-8

H. OTHER GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

Mr. John Achille

Dr. Dave AmickRaytheon Engineers & Constructors

Mr. Tom AndersonBattelle

Ms. Jila BanaeeLockheed-Martin Idaho Technologies Company

Mr. Sy BaronMUSC

Ms. Sonya Barnette

Colonel Mary Barton

Mr. Robert C. Baumback

Ms. Lisa BaxterGeorgia Technical College

Mr. Walton Bell, Jr.Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union #150

Mr. Chuck Bernhard

Mr. Charles T. Black

Mr. Edward P. Blanton, Jr.

Edmund D. BootheAiken Technical College

R. P. Borsody

Mr. Carlos W. Bowen

Ms. Sara Jo Braid

Mr. Dannion Brinkley

Mr. Bill Brizes

Ms. Elizabeth R. BrownCharleston DeanerySouth Carolina Council of Catholic Women

Ken Bulmahn

E. L. Cagle, Jr.

Ms. Donna CampbellFoster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

Mr. Rich CampbellChem-Nuclear Systems

Mr. Ralph Cansler

Mr. Roy Carter

Mr. George R. Caskey

Mr. Bill ChampionWest Valley Nuclear Services

Dr. Kailash Chandra

Mr. Ernie Chaput

Dr. Lawrence Chase

Mr. John P. ClemmensStone & Webster

Mr. Carl E. Cliche

Mr. Steve Connor

Mr. Stephen Crump

Ms. Suzan A. DaggSchool of PlanningOxford Brookes University

Dr. Tim DevolClemson UniversityEnvironmental Systems Engineering Department

Ms. Linda Dietrich

Mr. Sal Dimaria

Mr. John Dimarzio


DL-9

Mr. John F. Doherty, J.D.

Mr. Dave Ecklund

Ms. Lynne Fairobent

Ms. Rita FellersDepartment of GeographyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mr. Leverne P. Fernandez

Ms. Paulette Fix

Dr. Robert A. FjeldClemson University ESE Department

Professor H. Paul FriesemaInstitute for Policy and ResearchNorthwestern University

Mr. Richard FryDirector, Division of Radiation Protection

Mr. Melvyn P. Galin

Mr. Ben Gannon

Mr. John Geddie

Colonel George A. Gibson

Mr. Robert GodfreyCounselor (Nuclear)Embassy of Australia

Mr. Anthony P. Gouge

Dr. Randall GuenslerSchool of Civil & Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology

Mr. Robert Guild

Mr. Jan Hagers

Mr. David Haines

Mr. Glen T. Hanson

Ms. Mary Hassell

Kathryn Hauer

Ms. Shelley HawkinsJacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Mr. Warren HillsLaborers Local 1137AFL-CIO

Mr. C. C. Holcomb

Mr. Robert A. Hollingsworth

Mr. Leonard Huesties

Mr. Charles E. Irvin

Mr. Cliff Jarman

Mr. Norman Kaish

Mr. Roy Karimi

Mr. Ron KollWaste Management Services

Mr. Larry Kripps

Mr. Joseph KrupaWSRC

Mr. Paul KrzychDynamic Corporation

Miss Cynthia E. Lake

Mr. Dewey E. LargeMolten Metal Technology Inc. of TN

Mr. Lechel

Mr. Marvin Lewis

Ms. Barbara LindseyTVA

Ms. Betsy LindsayUltra Systems Env. Inc.

Mr. Thomas L. Lippert


DL-10

Dr. William A. LochstetUniversity of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Physics

Mr. Robert Maher

Mr. Steve Maheras

Mr. Joseph A. MartillottiTexas Department of HealthBureau of Radiation Control

Mr. Bob Matthews

Mr. Roger MayesLos Alamos Tech. Assoc.

Ms. Elizabeth McBride

Trish McCracken

Dr. William R. McDonell

Mr. B. D. McGeeNatural Resource Conservation Service

Mr. Michael F. McGowanGeological Environmental Consultant

Ms. Dana McIntyreWJBF-TVChannel 6

Ms. Christa Michael

Mr. George Minot

Ms. Louise M. Montgomery

Mr. Ed Moore

Dr. David L. Moses

Mr. Kenneth J. Newcomer

Mr. R. I. Newman

Mr. George Nozviak

Mr. Matthew J. O’Connor

Mr. J. F. Ortaldo

Mr. Robert F. Overman

Mr. Bruce Palmer

Mr. Aris Papadopoulous

Ms. Jean Pasquale

Dr. Ruth PatrickDivision of Limnology and EcologyAcademy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

Mr. Mark A. PetermannHydrogeologistRMT, Inc.

Mr. Jeff Petraglia

Mr. George Piper

Mr. David Pittman

W. Lee Poe

Mr. Ron PoundEnvironmental ProjectsNewsletter

Mr. Richard H. Powell

Mr. Rich RanelloneNewport News Shipbuilding Co.

Ms. Essie M. RichardsCarver Heights Community Org.

Ms. Dorene L. Richardson

Mr. Wayne RickmanSonalysts, Inc.

Mr. F. A. Riemann

Mr. Jacob Charles Robertson

Mr. Paul RobinsonSouthwest Research & Information Center

Ms. Linda Rodgers


DL-11

Ms. Ruth SaltsNuclear Fuel Services

Mr. Glenn R. Schlafer

Mr. Guy R. Selph

Dr. R. F. Shangraw, Jr.Project Performance Corporation

Mr. John O. Shipman

Ms. Kimberly Sizemore

Mr. Donald J. Skinner

Mr. Daniel Smith

Mr. Arthur H. Smith, Jr.

Mr. Don SolkiCarpenter’s Local 283

Mr. Paul StansburyPNL

Ms. Josephine StegallOffice of EH Resident

Mr. Jim SteinkeNewport News Shipbuilding Co.

Mr. Bill StokesAdvanced Nuclear and Medical Systems

Mr. Richard Stuiler

The Reverend Thomas A. Summers

Mr. Arthur SutherlandRogers & Associates Engineering Corporation

Mr. Edward S. Syrjala

Dr. D. William TedderAssociate ProfessorSchool of Chemical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology

Mr. James W. TerryOak Ridge National Laboratory

Lockheed Martin Energy Research

Mr. Vincent Van BruntUniversity of South CarolinaChemical Engineering Department

Mr. Alan VaughanNuclear Fuel Services

Mr. M. W. Villemain

Mr. Martin VorumCommodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.

Ms. Melissa VranaProject Performance Corporation

Mr. Jim Wanzeck

Mr. Payton H. Ward, Jr.Ironworkers Local Union #709

Mr. Edgar WestIronworkers Local Union #709

Mr. Frank S. Watters

Mr. Gary R. WeinSavannah River Ecology LaboratoryUniversity of Georgia

Mr. Kim Welsch

Dr. F. Ward WhickerRadiological Health ServicesColorado State University

Ms. Reba WhiteTeladine Brown Engineering, Inc.

Ms. Pam WhitsonOak Ridge Associated Universities

Mr. Patrick L. Whitworth

Mr. Don J. WilkesJacob Engineering Group

Mr. Jermetia L. Williams


DL-12

Mr. John WilliamsSAIC

Mr. Michael Witunski

Mr. Mel Woods

Mr. B. T. Young

Dr. Abe ZeitounSAIC

Mr. Francis P. ZeraThe Georgia Guardian

I. READING ROOMS AND LIBRARIES

Freedom of Information Public Document RoomUniversity of South Carolina at Aiken SC OfficeGregg-Graniteville Library

Freedom of Information Reading RoomU.S. Department of Energy

Battelle-Pacific Northwest LaboratoriesAttn: Technical Library

LibrarianChatham-Effingham-Liberty Regional LibraryLibrarianLos Alamos Technical Association

Head, Document DepartmentThe LibrariesColorado State University

Reese LibraryAugusta State University

LibrarianGeorgia Institute of Technology

WSRC Library

SRS Library

Pallen Public Library

National Atomic MuseumUSDOEAlbequerque Operations Office

LibrarianErskine CollegeMcCain Library

Parsons Brinckerhoff Library

Public Reading RoomChicago Operations Office

Mr. Michael SimpsonLibrary of Congress

Ms. Judy SmithMonographs Acquisition ServicesColorado State Universities Libraries

Felicia YehTechnical Services LibrarianSouth Carolina State Library

Public Reading RoomUSDOEOak Ridge Operations Office

Technical LibraryArgonne National Laboratory

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Index

IN-1

INDEX

A

acceleratorF-v, S-1, S-2, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-15, 1-3, 1-4,1-17, 1-23, 2-2, 2-10, 2-21

accidentS-15, S-17, S-18, 1-4, 1-24, 1-27, 2-10,2-12, 2-13, 2-14

As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)2-27

B

beyond-design-basis accident1-24

C

commercial light-water reactorF-v, S-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-23, 2-21, 2-23

committed effective dose equivalent2-15, 2-16

communityS-14, 1-2, , 2-10

conceptual design2-16, 2-18

consequenceS-18, 1-4, 1-24, 2-14, 2-29

crud2-14

cumulative impacts2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24

D

decision makerF-v, S-3, 1-2, 2-2

doseS-6, S-7, S-14, S-16, S-18, 1-5, 1-23, 1-24,1-25, 2-2, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14,2-15, 2-16, 2-21, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26,2-27, 2-2-2-28

E

effluent2-25, 2-26

electricity1-3, 2-29

environmentS-4, S-7, S-14, S-17, S-18, 1-2, 2-2, 2-9,2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-18, 2-20

environmental justiceS-14, S-17, 2-9, 2-13

exposureS-18, 1-5, 1-23, 1-24, 2-16, 2-24, 2-25,2-26, 2-27

exposure pathway2-25

extraction basket2-20

G

getters2-15

glovebox2-14, 2-20

H

half-lifeS-1

hazardous wasteS-14, S-17, 2-9, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-27,2-29

DOE/EIS-0271Index March 1999

IN-2

heavy waterS-4

HEPA filters2-20

high-level waste2-27

I

impactsF-vi, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-14,S-15, S-17, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-27, 2-2,2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-18, 2-20, 2-21,2-22, 2-29

infrastructureS-6, S-14, S-17, 2-2, 2-12

irradiatedS-1, S-3, S-4, S-5, 1-3, 1-4, 1-17, 2-2,2 18, 2-21

irradiationS-1, S-2, 1-4, 2-21

isotopeS-1, S-4, 1-17

L

landfill2-18, 2-29

latent cancer fatalitiesS-1, S-4, 2-2, 2-12, 2-13, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26,2-27

low-income communityS-1, 2-10

low-level waste2-21, 2-27, 2-29

M

maximally exposed individualS-1, 1-23, 1-24, , 2-9, 2-15, 2-16, 2-23,2-24, 2-26, 2-27

milliremS-7, S-14, S-18, 1-23, 1-24, 2-9, 2-15,2-16, 2-17, 2-24, 2-26

minority communitiesS-6, S-14, 2-10

mitigation1-27, 2-9

mixed waste1-4, 2-9

N

National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem

2-24

nonproliferationF-vi, S-2, 1-3

O

oxides of nitrogen2-24

ozone2-24

P

pellets2-15

Q

quantitative analysis1-4

R

radiationS-7, S-18, 1-23, 1-24, 2-2, 2-16, 2-27

radiologicalS-14, S-17, S-18, 1-2, 1-5, 1-17, 1-24, 2-9,2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-20, 2-21,2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Index

IN-3

radionuclideS-14, 1-5, 1-23, 2-9, 2-14, 2-15, 2-25

reactorS-1,S- 2, S-4, S-5, 1-3, 1-4, 1-17, 1-23,1-28, 2-2, 2-21, 2-23

receptor2-16. 2-25

Record of DecisionS-1, S-3, S-5, 1-23, 2-1, 2-21, 2-22

remS-16, 2-12, 2-16, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act2-18, 2-27

risk1-27, 2-22

S

sanitary wasteS-7, 2-2, 2-18, 2-25

spent nuclear fuelS-4, 2-21, 2-23, 2-29

stripper system2-14, 2-15

sulfur dioxide2-23

T

target/targets of similar designS-2, S-3, S-4, S-14, S-15, 1-17, 2-9, 2-10,2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23

tritiumF-v, F-vi, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7,S-14, S-15, S-16, S-17, S-18, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4,1-17, 1-18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-27, 1-28, 2-1,2-2, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15,2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23,2-26, 2-27, 2-29

Tritium Extraction FacilityF-v, S-1, S-2, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 2-1, 2-25,2-26, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33

tritium-producing burnable absorber rodsS-3, 1-28

U

uninvolved workerS-16, S-18, 1-4, 1-24, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15,2-16

W

wetlandsS-6, 2-13

Z

zeolite bed2-20

APPENDIX C

TRANSCRIPTS, LETTERS, AND FORMS

DOE/EIS-0271March 1999 Appendix C. Transcripts, Letter, and Forms

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Transcript from Public Hearing Session 1 ......................................................................................... C-1Written comments submitted at Public Hearing, Session 1, Economic Development Partnership ... C-22Written comments submitted at Public Hearing, Session 1, Richard J. Stuhler ................................ C-25Acknowledgement of Receipt of Draft EIS from U.S. Department of the Interior............................ C-26Acknowledgement of Receipt of Draft EIS and Discussion of Consultation Requirementsfrom the National Marine Fisheries Service ...................................................................................... C-27Letter from South Carolina Office of State Budget State Application Identifier .............................. C-28South Carolina Office of State Budget Project Notification and Review Form ................................ C-29

Transcript from Public Hearing Session 1 (Page 1 of 21)


M1-01

M1-01


M1-01


M1-02

M1-03


M1-04

M1-05


M1-06


M1-07

M1-08

M1-09


M1-10

M1-10

M1-11


M1-12


M1-13


M1-14


M2-01

M2-02

DOE/EIS-0271Appendix C. Transcripts, Letter, and Forms March 1999

C-22

Written comments submitted at Public Hearing, Session 1 (page 1 of 3)a

a. Response appears under M1-12 on page 1-3.


C-23

Written comments submitted at Public Hearing, Session 1 (page 2 of 3)


C-24



C-25


M1-15

M1-16


C-26



C-27



C-28

Letter from South Carolina Office of State Budget State Application Identifier (Page 1 of 1)


C-29

South Carolina Office of State Budget Project Notification and Review Form (Page 1 of 1)

construction and operation of a tritium extraction facility at the

Documents