|
Chapter 4 describes the affected environment and the environmental impacts associated with stockpile stewardship and management alternatives. The chapter begins with an overview of applicable environmental assessment methodologies. The affected environment and environmental impacts of stockpile stewardship and management facilities are then discussed for each of the following sites: Oak Ridge Reservation, Savannah River Site, Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Nevada Test Site. Each discussion begins with a brief site description and the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives being considered for that site, continues with a description of the affected environment at the site, and concludes with a description of environmental impacts, a sensitivity analysis for management alternatives, and potential mitigation measures. The general potential environmental impacts of next generation stockpile stewardship facilities and underground nuclear testing are discussed in separate sections. Following the sections that address individual sites, are discussions of potential impacts from intersite transportation, cumulative impacts, and several issues that are common to all sites: unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, and facility transition. |
Discussions of the environment that may be affected at each alternative site, and the associated environmental impacts that would result from the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program make up the core of this chapter. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, the affected environment is "interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment" (40 CFR 1508.14). The environmental impacts sections provide the analytical basis for the comparisons of potential impacts of the various stockpile stewardship and management facilities and the No Action alternative that are presented in chapter 3.
Affected Environment. The descriptions of the affected environment provide a basis for understanding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed Program and alternatives. The localities and characteristics of each potentially affected environmental resource are described for each site. The scope of the discussions varies by resource to ensure that all relevant issues are included.
For land resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, and cultural and paleontological resources, discussions of each Department of Energy (DOE) site and its surroundings are included along with descriptions of the representative area within that site that could be affected by the Program alternatives. This information provides a basis for understanding both direct effects and the overall resource base that could be affected by ancillary activities that may be defined in later stages of Program development.
Ambient conditions are described for air and water resources. Discussions focus on air conditions at site boundaries and the surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers that could be affected. This information serves as a basis for analyzing key air and water quality parameters to obtain results that can then be compared to regulatory standards.
Socioeconomic conditions are described for the counties and communities that could be affected by regional population changes associated with the proposed stockpile stewardship and management facilities. The affected environment discussions include projections of regional growth and related socioeconomic indicators. Each region is large enough to account for growth related to direct project employment as well as secondary jobs that may be created by the project.
In addition to those natural and human environmental resources discussed above, the affected environment sections include a number of issues related to ongoing DOE activities at each site. These issues involve facility operations and site infrastructure, intersite transport of nuclear materials, waste management, and radiological and hazardous chemical impacts during normal operation and from accidents. Where reasonably foreseeable changes to any of these factors can be predicted, they are discussed.
Environmental Impacts . In accordance with CEQ regulations, the environmental consequences discussions provide the analytical detail for comparisons of environmental impacts associated with the various stockpile stewardship and management facilities. Discussions are provided for each DOE site and each environmental resource and relevant issues that could be affected.
For comparison purposes, environmental concentrations of emissions and other potential environmental effects are presented with appropriate regulatory standards or guidelines. However, compliance with regulatory standards is not necessarily an indication of the significance or severity of the environmental impact for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
The purpose of the analysis of environmental consequences is to identify the potential for environmental impacts. The environmental assessment methods used and the factors considered in assessing environmental impacts are discussed in section 4.1 and in the appropriate appendixes. The potential for impacts to a given resource or relevant issue is described in the introduction to each section within the site discussions (sections 4.2 through 4.9) that follow.
This section considers land use plans and policies, zoning regulations, specially protected lands, and existing land use as appropriate for all sites. The potential impacts associated with changes to land use as a result of the alternatives are discussed.
Land use changes associated with upgraded and/or experimental stockpile stewardship facilities could occur in both rural and urban settings and could affect both developed and undeveloped land. The analysis of land use considers impacts that could result from the modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities on or adjacent to each site. Potential changes in land use are expected to occur within the existing boundaries of most, if not all, DOE sites. However, the use of lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of DOE sites (i.e., non-DOE land) could be affected by these changes, including new or expanded safety zones.
The degree to which the alternatives affect future use or development of land at each DOE site is considered. Land use impacts are assessed based on the extent and type of land that would be affected. The land use analysis also considers potential direct impacts resulting from the conversion of, or the incompatibility of, land use changes with special status lands such as prime and unique farmlands, and other protected lands such as Federal- and state-controlled lands (e.g., public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management or other Government agencies).
Changes to site infrastructure are assessed by overlaying the support requirements of the respective stockpile stewardship and management facilities upon the projected site infrastructure capacities. These assessments focus upon electrical power and fuel requirements. Projections of electricity availability, site development plans, and other DOE mid- and long-range planning documents are utilized to project site infrastructure conditions. Tables are presented that depict the additional infrastructure requirements resulting from the alternatives. Mitigation considerations that could reduce impacts due to changes in infrastructure are identified on a site-by-site basis.
The air quality assessment evaluates the consequences of criteria and hazardous/toxic air pollutants associated with each alternative at each site. The criteria pollutants are specified in 40 CFR 50, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations on National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. The hazardous/toxic air pollutants are listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) (40 CFR 61), and standards or guidelines proposed or adopted by the respective states.
Air quality concentrations from modeling site emission rates projected to 2005 define No Action concentrations of pollutants. This programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) presents the estimated impacts on air quality based on No Action air quality conditions at each site and the projected impacts resulting from the alternatives and compares the total concentrations to the most restrictive Federal and/or state ambient air quality standards and guidelines.
The modeling of site-specific emissions was performed in accordance with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. The EPA-recommended Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST) Model (Version 2) (EPA 1992f) was chosen as the most appropriate model to perform the air dispersion modeling analysis for this PEIS because it allows for the estimation of dispersion from a combination of point, area, and volume sources. Input data for the model was provided by DOE sites. For source characteristics that are not available, characteristics were estimated based on similar source configurations at sites employing similar processes.
EPA guidelines are conservatively applied in the air quality assessment. The "highest-high" was selected for comparison to applicable standards and guidelines for all averaging times, instead of the EPA-recommended "highest-high" and "highest second highest" concentration for long-term and short-term averaging times, respectively. The concentrations evaluated are the maximum occurring at or beyond the site boundary or public access roads. It was also assumed that the toxic/hazardous emissions for DOE sites with incomplete source characteristics originate from a single point source. This assumption generally results in higher concentrations than would actually occur since emission sources are commonly geographically separated from one another.
A more detailed and quantitative assessment will be performed in site-specific NEPA documents designed to support a construction-level siting decision. This PEIS assessment of impacts from the No Action alternative and the other alternatives uses a screening level analysis and is based on conservative assumptions for modeling of potential impacts. The screening level modeling analysis presented in this document is a programmatic approach intended to provide a comparison of the air quality among each of the DOE sites. Modeled concentrations of air pollutants presented in this document that exceed the Federal or state air quality standards provide an indication of a potential problem, not a de facto exceedance. Detailed modeling and/or monitoring at each site would be required in order to obtain more accurate estimates of pollutant concentrations. The assessment in site-specific NEPA documents would be more refined with detailed design, source characteristics, and exact source locations.
Uncertainties. The performance of the ISCST Model has been evaluated with field data for its point source submodel (EPA 1977a; EPRI 1983a; EPRI 1985a; EPRI 1988a) and for its special features, such as gravitational settling/dry deposition option (EPA 1981a; EPA 1982a) and building downwash option (APCA 1986a; EPA 1981a). The ISCST Model is an extended version of the Single Source (CRSTER) Model; based on field data measured at four large power plants, it was concluded that the model was acceptable for predicting the upper percentile of the frequency distributions of 1-hour concentrations and of the corresponding distributions of 24-hour concentrations. The highest second-highest 1-hour concentrations were predicted within a factor of two at two-thirds of the field sampling sites for elevated power plant plumes. The ratio of the highest second-highest 24-hour concentration tended to be underpredicted by the model, with the ratio of predicted concentration to measured concentration ranging from about 0.2 to 2.7 at about 90 percent of the sampling sites (EPA 1977a:F-31).
In other validation studies for the Point Source Model, the CRSTER Model predicted peak short-term (i.e., 1-, 3-, and 24-hour) concentration values within 30 to 70 percent at a plain site (EPRI 1983a:7-1). The CRSTER Model predicted peak 1-hour concentrations within 2 percent and underpredicted peak 3-hour concentrations by about 30 percent at a moderately complex terrain site (EPRI 1985a:7-1). The ISCST Model overpredicts 1-hour concentrations by about 60 percent with better predictions for longer time periods at an urban site (EPRI 1988a:5-2). Uses of gravitational settling/dry deposition and building downwash options were found to improve the model performance significantly over that of the model without such features (APCA 1986a; EPA 1981a; EPA 1982a). The concentrations presented in this document are the highest concentrations predicted by the model in order to present conservative estimates of pollutant concentrations.
The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources are described using available data. Potential effects on surface water and groundwater availability and quality are assessed.
Surface Water. Local surface water resources in the project region, flow characteristics and relationships, and stream classifications are used to describe current conditions. Data used for impact assessments include rates of water consumption and wastewater discharge for both construction and operation phases. Changes in the annual low flows of surface water resulting from proposed withdrawals and discharges are determined. In cases where low flow data are unavailable, average flow data are used. The existing water supply is evaluated to determine if sufficient quantities are available to support an increased demand by comparing projected increases with the capacity of the supplier and existing water rights, agreements, or allocations.
The water quality of potentially affected receiving waters is determined by reviewing current monitoring data for nonradiological parameters. Potential impacts from radiological parameters are discussed in the radiological and hazardous chemical impacts sections of the normal operation and accidents sections. Focus is given to parameters that exceed applicable water quality criteria, as determined by the individual states. Monitoring reports for discharges permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program are examined for compliance with permit limits and requirements. The performance of each candidate DOE site in complying with the permit requirements is presented. In most cases, current design data do not include information on the constituents present or the rate of discharge. The assessment of water quality impacts from wastewater (sanitary and process) and stormwater runoff qualitatively addresses potential impacts to the receiving waters' minimum or average flow, as available and appropriate. Suitable mitigation measures for potential impacts such as stream channel erosion and sedimentation, stream bank flooding, and thermal changes are identified. Water quality management practices are also reviewed. If effluent constituent data are available, parameters with the potential to further degrade existing receiving water quality along with parameters exceeding existing NPDES permit limits are identified.
Floodplains are identified to determine whether any of the proposed stockpile stewardship and management facilities are located within a floodplain. Where possible, the proposed location is compared with the 500-year floodplain.
Groundwater. Groundwater resources are analyzed for effects on aquifers, groundwater usage, and groundwater quality within the regions. Groundwater resources are defined as the aquifers underlying the site and their extensions down the hydraulic gradients to, and including, discharge points. The affected environment discussion includes a description of the potentially affected groundwater basins. The local aquifers are described in terms of the extent, thickness, character of rock formations, and quality of the groundwater. Recharge areas are also noted. Total baseline groundwater use at the facility is compiled using the best available data. Groundwater usage is described and projections of future usage are made based on changing patterns of usage and anticipated growth patterns, whenever site-specific groundwater availability issues are identified.
Drawdown estimates are made both onsite and offsite. Short- and long-term impacts associated with construction withdrawals are estimated. Both proposed facilities and existing facilities are considered in determining cumulative impacts.
Available data on existing groundwater quality conditions are compared to Federal and state groundwater quality standards, effluent limitations, and safe drinking water standards. Additionally, Federal and state permitting requirements for groundwater withdraw and discharge are identified. Impacts of groundwater withdrawals on existing contaminant plumes due to construction and facility operation are assessed to determine the potential for changes in their rates of migration and the effects of any changes in the plumes on groundwater users. Impacts are assessed by the degree to which groundwater quality, drawdown of groundwater levels, and groundwater availability to other users would be affected. Impacts on groundwater quality are presented when effluent constituent data are available
Geology. Impacts to the geological environment considers destruction of or damage to unique geological features, subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal, and landslides or shifting caused by loading or removal of supporting rock or soil. The local geology that could affect the alternatives, including geomorphology, stratigraphy, structural attitude of rocks, faults and seismicity, general foundation, and boring conditions, are described as appropriate for each alternative site. The locations of faults are identified and an overview of the seismicity of the site areas, including the history and significance of earthquakes, along with their intensity and ground acceleration, is presented. Areas of potentially unstable slopes and impacts to the stability of slopes by the removal or addition of large volumes of earth in construction are characterized.
Soils. Soil types at the proposed project sites are described and the capability of supporting construction of the proposed facilities is assessed. Shrinking or swelling of ground as a result of landscaping, irrigation, or construction dewatering and soil erosion susceptibility associated with construction are also addressed.
During construction, impacts to biotic resources, including terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species, may result from land-clearing activities, erosion and sedimentation, and human disturbance and noise. Operations may affect biotic resources as a result of changes in land use, emission of radionuclides, water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and human disturbance and noise. In general, potential impacts are assessed based on the degree to which various habitats or species could be affected by an alternative. Where appropriate, impacts are evaluated with respect to Federal and state protection regulations and standards.
The analysis of impacts of project alternatives to biological resources is addressed at a level that is appropriate to the specificity of available information. In general, the analysis of impacts to biological resources presented in this PEIS is qualitative rather than quantitative. Quantitative analyses would be performed in site- and project-specific NEPA documentation.
Terrestrial Resources. Impacts of the proposed alternatives on terrestrial plant communities are evaluated by comparing data on site vegetation communities to proposed land requirements for construction and operation. The analysis of impacts to wildlife is based to a large extent on plant community loss or modification, which directly affects animal habitat. The loss of important or sensitive habitats and species is considered more important than the loss of regionally abundant habitats or species. Where appropriate, the disturbance, displacement, or loss of wildlife is evaluated in accordance with wildlife protection laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Impacts on biotic resources from the release of radionuclides are not evaluated. Radiological releases associated with the various alternatives would generally be at or below natural background levels and would be within limits established to protect workers and the public. Since humans have generally been shown to be the most sensitive organism to radiation release these levels should also be protective of biota (AEC 1968a:220; NAS 1972a:34). Radiological effects on humans are addressed in the human health sections.
Wetlands. The potential direct loss of wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed alternatives is addressed in a way similar to the evaluation of impacts on terrestrial plant communities; that is, by comparing data on site or regional wetlands to proposed land requirements. Sedimentation impacts are evaluated based on the proximity of wetlands to project areas and with the knowledge that an erosion control and sedimentation plan would be required. Impacts resulting from wastewater discharge into a wetland system are evaluated, recognizing that effluents would be required to meet Federal and state standards.
Aquatic Resources. Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sedimentation and wastewater discharge are evaluated as described for wetlands. Potential impacts from radionuclides are not addressed for the same reasons described for terrestrial resources. Where appropriate, impingement and entrainment impacts are evaluated as is compliance with protective measures, such as the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act .
Threatened and Endangered Species. Impacts on threatened and endangered species are determined in a manner similar to that used to describe terrestrial and aquatic resources since the sources of potential impacts are similar. A list of species potentially present on each site or in proximity to the site or region (appendix C) was developed using information obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and appropriate state agencies. This list, along with consideration of site environmental and engineering data, and provisions of the Endangered Species Act valuate whether the various alternatives could impact any threatened or endangered plant or animal (or its habitat).
Species that are Federal proposed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered species do not receive legal protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, the USFWS recommends that impacts to these species be considered in project planning since their status can be changed to threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. The USFWS has recently changed the classification of species under review for listing as threatened or endangered (61 FR 7596). Proposed species include those plants and animals for which a proposed rule to list as threatened or endangered has been published. Candidate species include those plants and animals for which the USFWS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat to support issuance of a proposed rule for listing as threatened or endangered. Candidate species previously included Category 1 (species appropriate for listing as protected) and Category 2 (species possibly appropriate for listing as protected). Due to the recent rule change, candidate species include only those which are appropriate for listing as protected species (i.e., species formerly listed as Category 1). The Category 2 designation has been omitted. Some of the species previously identified as Federal candidate Category 2 in the Draft PEIS also have a state status and continue to be evaluated for potential impacts. However, due to the change in candidate classification described above, many species have been eliminated from proposed site threatened and endangered species lists.
Included in these sections are evaluations of the impacts of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program alternatives on prehistoric, historic, Native American, and paleontological resources. The effects considered include those resulting directly from land disturbance during construction, visual intrusion to the settings or environmental context of historic structures, visual and audio intrusions on Native American sacred sites, reduced access to Native American traditional use areas, unauthorized artifact collecting, and vandalism. Laws, regulations, Executive orders, and DOE orders mandating protection of cultural and paleontological resources are described for each site in chapter 5.
Prehistoric Resources. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records. They are generally identified as either isolated artifacts or sites. Sites may contain concentrations of artifacts (e.g., stone tools and ceramic sherds), features (e.g., remains of campfires and houses), and plant and animal remains. Depending on their age, complexity, integrity, and relationship to one another, sites may be important for and capable of yielding information about past populations and adaptive strategies. The affected environment section for prehistoric resources includes a brief overview of the number and types of prehistoric sites in the project areas, if known, and their status on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The overview consists of a summary of existing information about prehistoric resources in the region and a discussion of types of sites that are likely to occur.
Impact assessments for prehistoric resources focus mainly on those properties likely to be eligible for the NRHP. Impacts are assessed by considering whether or not the proposed action could substantially add to an existing disturbance of resources in the project areas, adversely affect NRHP-eligible resources, or cause loss of or destruction to important prehistoric resources.
Historic Resources. Historic resources consist of physical properties that postdate the existence of written records. In the United States, historic resources are generally considered to be those that date from 1492 onward. Historic resources include architectural structures or districts (e.g., buildings, dams, and bridges), objects, and archaeological features (e.g., foundations of mills or residences, trails, and trash dumps). Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic for analytical purposes, but exceptions can be made for younger properties if they are of exceptional importance (e.g., structures associated with Cold War themes [36 CFR 60]). The affected environment section for historic resources includes a brief overview of the number and types of historic sites in the project areas, if known, and their status on the NRHP. The overview consists of a summary of existing information about historic resources in the region and a discussion of the types of sites that are likely to exist.
Impact assessments for historic resources focus mainly on those properties likely to be eligible for the NRHP. Impacts are assessed by considering whether or not the proposed action could substantially add to an existing disturbance of resources in the project areas, could adversely affect NRHP-eligible resources, or could cause loss of or destruction to important historic resources.
Native American Resources. Native American resources are sites, areas, or materials important to Native Americans for religious or heritage reasons. In addition, cultural values are placed on natural resources such as plants, which have multiple purposes within various Native American groups. Of primary concern are concepts of sacred space that create the potential for land-use conflicts. Native American concerns would be identified through direct consultation with tribal representatives and field visits with tribal religious specialists during preparation of project-specific tiered NEPA documents. Contacts would be identified by reference to the ethnographic literature, by state and national pantribal organizations, and by agency and academic anthropologists.
The individual resource type, the proximity of impact areas to the resources, and the likely duration of impacts are considered in the analysis of Native American resources. Specific concerns include the relative importance of the resource in the Native American physical universe or religion, the distance at which activities in the vicinity of a sacred area constitute a disturbance, the extent to which affected resources may be restored, and the extent to which alternative sources for raw materials are available and/or suitable. Impacts to Native American resources are assessed by considering whether or not the proposed action has the potential to affect sites important for their position in the Native American physical universe or belief system, or the possibility of reducing access to traditional use areas or sacred sites.
Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are the physical remains, impressions, or traces of plants or animals from a former geological age. They include casts, molds, and trace fossils such as burrows or tracks. Fossil localities typically include surface outcrops, areas where subsurface deposits are exposed by ground disturbance, and special environments favoring preservation, such as caves, peat bogs, and tar pits. Paleontological resources are important mainly for their potential to provide scientific information on paleoenvironments and the evolutionary history of plants and animals. The affected environment section for paleontological resources includes a description of known paleontological localities and geological formations in the project areas that may be fossil bearing.
Impact assessments for paleontological resources are based on the numbers and kinds of resources that could be affected, as well as the quality of fossil preservation in a given deposit, particularly in deposits with high research potential. Such deposits include poorly known fossil forms; well-preserved terrestrial vertebrates; unusual depositional contexts; assemblages containing a variety of fossil forms, particularly associations of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants; or deposits recovered from poorly studied regions or in unusual concentrations.
These sections describe and assess impacts on local and regional socioeconomic conditions and factors including employment, economy, population, housing, and public finance. This PEIS assesses the socioeconomic impacts of both the gains and losses of missions at each site. The potential for socioeconomic impacts on population, housing, and local government finance is greatest in those local jurisdictions immediately adjacent to each site and those that are the residential locations of the majority of DOE site employees. Potential socioeconomic impacts on the economy (employment and income) are not bounded by local government jurisdictions but rather by industrial linkages to a regional market. Therefore, potential socioeconomic impacts are assessed using two geographic regions, a regional economic area, and a region of influence (ROI). Regional economic areas are used to assess potential effects on the economy. ROIs are used to assess effects which are more localized in political jurisdictions surrounding the sites.
The regional economic area for each site encompasses a broad market that involves trade among and between regional industrial and service sectors. It is characterized by strong economic linkages between the communities located in the region. These linkages determine the nature and magnitude of multiplier effects on economic activity (i.e., purchases, earnings, and employment) at each candidate site. Regional economic areas are defined by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis as consisting of an economic node that serves as the center of economic activity and the surrounding counties that are economically related and include the places of work and residences of its labor force.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis measures multiplier effects of interindustry linkages with the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). RIMS II is based on an accounting framework called an input-output table. An input-output table shows, for each industry, industrial distributions of inputs purchased and outputs sold. RIMS II Total Direct-Effect Multipliers are used in this PEIS to estimate additional regional employment and income generated by employment and income directly associated with the proposed alternatives. RIMS II is also used to estimate the effects of jobs and income lost in a region due to downsizing or phaseout.
Additional potential demographic impacts were assessed on a smaller geographic area (ROI) where the housing market and community public finances could be most affected. Proposed Program alternatives at alternative sites were assessed using a site-specific ROI, comprising those local jurisdictions likely to experience the greatest socioeconomic impacts. The ROI is defined as those counties where approximately 90 percent of the current DOE and contractor employees reside. This residential distribution reflects existing commuting patterns and attractiveness of area communities for people employed at each site, and is used to estimate the future distribution of direct workers with the proposed alternative. The evaluation of impacts is based on the degree to which changes in employment and population affect the regional economy, housing market, and public finance. It is assumed that most new or lost jobs would occur within the ROI where the majority of DOE and contractor employees live. The changes to these factors are projected to 2030 because the projected life of the DOE facilities for the alternatives under study is 25 years starting in 2005. The following sections discuss each of the socioeconomic conditions and factors considered.
Employment. The construction and operation of stewardship and management technologies and facilities could affect employment at DOE sites. Changes in site employment would, in turn, directly affect local and regional populations, economies, housing, and public finance. Current employment at each site is described, as well as projected employment associated with other planned DOE initiatives. Socioeconomic trends and the relationship of site employment to these trends are examined for each potentially affected socioeconomic region. Emphasis is placed on evaluating total direct and indirect employment changes and impacts associated with potential mission relocations.
Economy. The regional economies surrounding each site are characterized. Emphasis is placed on the measurement of the relative contribution and importance of each site's employment payroll and purchases to the economy. Changes to regional economic conditions are evaluated based on each site's relative contribution and changes to employment. Emphasis is placed on the economic effects of mission changes associated with the operation of stewardship and management technologies and facilities.
Population. The demographic changes in the ROI surrounding each site are described and assessed. Demographic characteristics are presented for the site's ROI to support the assessment of socioeconomic impacts. Trends are identified and used to project demographic changes over the environmental baseline period. Cumulative population impacts include the population impacts of other DOE actions under consideration, including planned environmental restoration activities.
Housing. Changes in employment at each site would affect the demand and supply of housing units, including the need for temporary housing (e.g., rental units) to support in-migrating construction workers. Trends in the housing availability within each site's socioeconomic ROI are characterized and evaluated. Numbers of in-migrating and out-migrating site employees associated with each of the alternatives are then used to evaluate housing impacts.
Public Finance. Each site is located on land owned by the Federal Government, which exempts these lands from state and local taxation. However, all employee income, property, and purchases are subject to applicable Federal, state, and local taxation requirements.
The additional workforce associated with any of these alternatives is small, and would require few in-migrating workers. For that reason, there would be little increased demand on specific community services. However, there would be fiscal impacts associated with additional missions or the phaseout of existing missions which could affect the community's ability to provide basic infrastructure and services. Therefore, the fiscal impacts on each site's ROI are assessed for counties, cities, and school districts, rather than the change in demand for specific community services. For a more detailed discussion of public finance, see appendix D.
Public Health Risks. The risks to the general public during the 25-year operational interim are determined in three ways. Radiological releases/doses, which are conveyed in site-specific reports, are used to calculate risks associated with predicted baseline (No Action) operations in 2005. Incremental radiological/chemical doses and respective subsequent risks for management alternatives associated with each applicable site examined in this PEIS are calculated (modeled) via predicted release quantities supplied by "technology-specific" data reports and from site-dependent parameters. Incremental radiological/chemical doses and respective subsequent risks associated with certain proposed stewardship alternatives (on a per site basis) pursuant to this PEIS, are directly referenced from technology-specific or site-specific data reports.
Radiological Impacts. The assessment of incremental (or decremental) impacts incurred at each of the DOE sites are performed using the GENII computer code. This type of assessment uses such site-dependent factors as meteorology, population distributions, agricultural production, and an assumed facility location on a given site. Health risks to the maximally exposed individual and population within 80 kilometers (km) (50 miles [mi]) at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), Savannah River Site (SRS), Pantex Plant (Pantex), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and Nevada Test Site (NTS) are analyzed for each management and/or stewardship alternative, with the assumption that any two or more alternatives (with the exception of No Action) are not concurrently existing. At Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) however, a cumulative calculation is provided which includes all possible alternatives simultaneously existing at each respective site.
Resulting doses are compared with regulatory limits, and for perspective, are also compared with background radiation levels in the area of the site. These doses are then converted into the projected number of fatal cancers using a dose-to-risk conversion factor of 500 fatal cancers per 1,000,000 person-rem (5x10-4 fatal cancers per person-rem) derived from data presented in a report prepared by the National Research Council's Committees on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR V) and also cited in the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection . The calculated health effects from each of the alternatives are then compared to one another (including the No Action alternative).
Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Public health risks from hazardous chemical releases during normal operation at the respective DOE sites are assessed by essentially the same analytical approach using conservative assumptions. This conservative approach is applied uniformly to all alternative sites using guidance provided under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The initial assessment in risk analysis is considered a screening step that was determined to be the appropriate level of analysis for this PEIS. Under this guidance, if the Hazard Index (HI) is 1x10-6 (the default value, not a regulatory standard), no further analysis is indicated. A cancer risk of 1x10-6 is considered acceptable by EPA (40 CFR 300.430) because this incidence of cancers cannot be distinguished from the cancer risk for an individual member of the general population.
Engineering designs used for the stockpile stewardship and management process and/or storage facilities include the anticipated emissions of hazardous chemicals. From emission data, concentrations at the site boundary are assumed to represent the maximum that any member of the public will encounter; therefore, the site boundary concentrations are derived through the ISCST Model (version 2) recommended by EPA. The noncancer risks of the maximally exposed individual of the public will consist of hazard quotients (HQs) that compare chemical exposure levels to the reference concentration values published by EPA in the Integrated Risk Information System. The cancer risk to the maximally exposed individual is calculated from the doses derived from modeling exposure levels, using slope factors or unit risks for individual chemicals published in the Integrated Risk Information System or the health effects summary tables. The health effects summary tables are the yearly summary of EPA's regulatory toxicity data. The HI values (i.e., the sum of the HQs) and cancer risks are conservative because a single source and a single point at the site boundary are chosen for the calculations. The cancer risks are also conservative due to the single point concentration and the position where the exposure is assumed to occur. The HI is independent of the cancer risk.
The HIs and cancer risks are used as screening tools to identify potential health concerns that may require further analysis. If the HI meets OSHA standards and cancer risks are within the default value, then further analysis is most likely not warranted. However, if in the conservative approach, there are sites or activities wherein the HI and/or cancer risk exceed acceptable limits, then these sites or activities become candidates for further in-depth analysis. The in-depth analysis should identify the individual chemicals that contribute to substantial adverse HI and/or cancer risk impacts, starting with those chemicals showing the highest HQs and/or cancer risk and grouping them according to their specific health effects. These chemicals then may be identified for inclusion in more specific site analyses. It should be noted that when the OSHA standards for HIs and/or the cancer risk default value are exceeded, a health concern may not necessarily exist. This PEIS does not purport to provide the level of detail needed to go beyond a conservative screening process for hazardous chemicals. As such, the analysis in this PEIS for the No Action alternative should not be relied upon as a basis for judging whether the sites have a health concern. The model used to calculate HI and cancer risk in this PEIS only establishes a baseline for comparison of alternatives among different sites. The baseline is then used to determine the extent to which each alternative adds or subtracts from the No Action HI and cancer risk to the public at each site.
Information pertaining to OSHA-regulated permissible exposure limits, reference concentrations, reference doses, cancer slope factors (if any), and toxicity profiles for all hazardous chemicals described in this PEIS may be found in the Chemical Health Effects Technical Reference (TTI 1996b.)
Occupational Health Risks. Health risks are assessed for two types of workers. The first type is the involved worker who would be located inside a facility that is involved with any of the given alternatives being examined. The second type is the noninvolved worker who would be located somewhere else on a given site but is not involved with occupational tasks associated with any of the given alternatives.
Radiological Impacts. Involved worker exposures are either based on values reported in technology-specific data reports or in occupational dose histories for similar operations. The doses to noninvolved workers at each respective site are determined based on occupational dose histories; in most cases for these workers, impacts associated with normal operation for each management and/or stewardship alternative are assumed to be negligible compared with those associated with their primary onsite activities. Worker impacts associated with each alternative at ORR, SRS, Pantex, SNL, and NTS are analyzed with the assumption that any two or more alternatives (with the exception of No Action) are not concurrently existing. At LANL and LLNL however, a cumulative calculation is reported that includes all possible alternatives simultaneously existing at each respective site.
The worker doses are converted into the number of projected fatal cancers using the dose-to-risk conversion factor of 400 fatal cancers per 1,000,000 person-rem (4x10-4 fatal cancers per person-rem) given in ICRP Publication 60. This lower risk estimator, compared with that for members of the public, reflects the absence of children in the workforce.
Hazardous and Toxic Chemical Impacts. Since direct chemical monitoring data on worker exposure is not available for specific operations, the onsite worker is assumed to receive the maximum exposure any involved or noninvolved onsite person will receive. OSHA-regulated levels (i.e., permissible exposure levels) are applied to all hazardous chemicals that are released at the site. This includes both the project-specific releases as well as those that are a result of other site operations. All onsite exposures are assumed to occur at a distance of 100 meters (m) (330 feet [ft]) from a centralized point of release, which will yield a conservative concentration level for each chemical. The concentrations are derived through the ISCST Model recommended by EPA. The noncancer risks to the onsite worker consist of HQs that compare chemical exposure levels to the permissible exposure level values established by OSHA. The HI for each alternative is the sum of all HQs for the alternative. The cancer risks to the onsite worker are calculated from doses derived from modeled exposure level, using slope factors or unit risks for individual chemicals published in the Integrated Risk Information System or the health effects summary tables . The worker exposure is based on an 8-hour day and 52 weeks of 40 hours each (i.e., 0.237 fractional year). The HI values and cancer risks are conservative because a single point at 100 m (330 ft) from a centralized source term is chosen for the calculations. The cancer risks are conservative due to the single point concentration and the position where the exposure is assumed. The HI is independent of cancer risk. The cancer risks to the facility worker for each chemical are computed from the dose (converted from air concentrations) and the unit risk or slope factors to yield a probable risk. The risks are also conservative because a single point at or near the maximum onsite concentration is selected for calculating the exposure of the facility worker.
As described for public health risks, this conservative approach is applied uniformly to workers at all sites using guidance under CERCLA. Under this guidance, if the HI is 1x10-6 (the default value, not a regulatory limit), no further analysis is indicated. If the HI exceeds the OSHA standards and/or the cancer risk exceeds the default value, a need for a more in-depth analysis of the data is indicated. It should be noted that when the OSHA standards for HIs and/or the cancer risk default value are exceeded, a health concern may not necessarily exist. The model used to calculate HI and cancer risk in this PEIS only establishes a baseline for comparison of alternatives among different sites. The baseline is then used to determine the extent to which each alternative adds or subtracts from the No Action HI and cancer risk for workers at each site.
Information pertaining to OSHA-regulated permissible exposure limits, reference concentration, reference doses, cancer slope factors (if any), and toxicity profiles for all hazardous chemicals described in this PEIS may be found in the Chemical Health Effects Technical Reference (TTI 1996b).
Epidemiological Studies . In March 1990, the Secretary of Energy announced that DOE would turn over responsibility for analytical epidemiologic research on long-term health effects on workers at DOE facilities and the public in surrounding communities to the Department of Health and Human Services. Further, DOE directed that this worker and public health and exposure data be released. A Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services was signed in January 1991. The Department of Health and Human Services is now conducting the ongoing health effects research program. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also initiated a study in 1994 but does not expect the results before 1997. Discussions are presented of past and ongoing health studies for each site.
Accident Analysis for Postulated Accident Scenarios. The relative consequences of postulated accidents in the evaluation of each alternative are considered. In evaluating the magnitude and consequences of each alternative, a suitable accident analysis is performed to produce results for decision-making purposes. Although the concepts used are analogous to a formal Probabilistic Risk Assessment, which would be appropriate for a project-level analysis, the accident analysis involves considerably less detail and only addresses a representative spectrum of beyond design-basis accidents (high-consequence, low-probability) and a representative spectrum of possible operational accidents (low-consequence but high-probability of occurrence). The technical approach for the selection of accidents is consistent with the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (May 1993), which recommends consideration of two major categories of accidents: within design-basis accidents and beyond design-basis accidents.
For the purpose of this assessment, risk is defined as the mathematical product of the probability and consequences of an accident. Both probability and consequences are presented in this PEIS. The risk-contributing scenarios consider both design-basis and severe accidents. The specific accidents consider the types of facilities. Examples of accidents include those resulting from operator errors, spills, criticalities, fires, explosions, airplane crashes, common-cause failures, collocated facilities, severe weather, earthquakes, and transportation. Information on potential accidents includes those that have been postulated and analyzed for similar facilities. The risks of the various stockpile stewardship and management facilities are evaluated in terms of the incremental increase in risk and the cumulative effect of that risk with respect to normal day-to-day risks to which the general population is exposed.
For each alternative, a number of evaluation and beyond evaluation accidents have been identified and are generally referred to as the composite set of accidents. Two subsets of the composite set are also referred to as the composite set of evaluation basis accidents (EBAs) and the composite set of beyond evaluation basis accidents (BEBAs). Impacts are presented for the composite set of accidents to reflect the combined impacts of EBAs and BEBAs. The impacts for the composite set of EBAs are also provided to reflect the impacts of high-frequency/low-consequence accidents. Impacts for the composite set of BEBAs are provided to show the impacts of low-frequency/high-consequence accidents. EBAs are generally in a frequency range greater than 10-6 per year, while BEBAs are generally in a frequency range of 10-7 to 101x10-6 per year. In some cases, accidents less than 10-7 are included in the composite set of BEBAs.
Accident risk to collocated workers was calculated for a hypothetical worker at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) from the facility, or at the site boundary, whichever is closer. For distances less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft), the screening model techniques used in the programmatic level analyses are less effective because of the effects of buildings on meteorology and dispersion.dent scenarios addressed in this PEIS. Where information is available, risks to involved workers from accidents are presented. It should be noted that the purpose of this PEIS is to assist the decisionmaker in making programmatic site selection decisions. Since the activities are the same for a given stockpile management function regardless of location, the risk to involved workers would be independent of site location and would not be a discriminating factor for programmatic siting decisions. Risk to workers from radiological accidents would be addressed in greater detail in site-specific tiered NEPA documents when more detailed information is available.
Sensitivity Analysis. Adequate data is not available to support a quantitative sensitivity analysis for accident impacts; therefore, a discussion of the subject is not presented in the accident discussion for the management alternatives in this PEIS. However, it is expected that higher case workloads could increase the quantity of hazardous materials at risk in an accident and the accident frequency. Therefore, this could result in a corresponding increase in accident impacts.
Uncertainties . The sequence of analyses performed to generate the radiological impact estimates from normal operation and facility accidents include selection of normal operational modes and accident sequences, estimation of source terms, estimation of environmental transport and uptake of radionuclides, calculation of radiation doses to exposed individuals, and estimation of health effects. There are uncertainties associated with each of these steps. Uncertainties exist in the way the physical systems being analyzed are represented by the computational models and in the data required to exercise the models due to measurement errors, sampling errors, or natural variability.
The analysis is designed to ensure--through judicious selection of release scenarios, models, and parameters--that the results represent the potential risks, and that there is a consistent basis for comparing alternatives. This is accomplished by making conservative assumptions in the calculations at each step.
The risk analysis presented in this PEIS is not a complete risk assessment in the sense of identifying and analyzing all physically possible accidents including those high consequence accidents whose probability is so remote as to render them not reasonably foreseeable. The accident analyses do include, however, a spectrum of reasonably foreseeable accidents including high consequence accidents and their associated risks for the technologies and facilities. These severe accidents have low accident frequencies, often less than 1.0x10-6 per year. The accident analyses also include higher frequency accidents (evaluation-basis and other operational 1x10-6 per year.
In summary, the radiological and hazardous chemical impact estimates presented in this document were obtained by:
Emergency Preparedness. Emergency preparedness and planning has the effect of mitigating the consequences of facility accidents. Emergency preparedness plans exist for all sites and are summarized for each site.
A major effort of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program has been and would continue to be the minimization of waste generation. The proposed alternatives would incorporate waste minimization and pollution prevention practices to the maximum extent practicable. Waste minimization efforts and the management of Program-related wastes are discussed for each DOE site. Waste management facilities that would support stockpile stewardship and management facilities would treat and package waste into forms that would enable long-term storage or disposal. For sites under consideration that do not have existing or planned onsite low-level waste (LLW) disposal, the number of additional shipments required to transport LLW from the site to a DOE LLW disposal facility is estimated. For example, for purposes of this analysis it is assumed that Pantex would ship its LLW to NTS as per current practice. The risks associated with additional shipments are addressed as part of the intersite transport assessment (section 4.10). Waste management activities that would support the Program are assumed to be per current site practice and are contingent upon decisions to be made through the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS-0200-D, August 1995). Any future waste management facilities that may be required to support the Program would be coordinated with any decisions resulting from the Waste Management PEIS and any respective site-specific NEPA documentation.
The construction and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities would generate several types of wastes. Generation points are in some cases different among alternative sites depending upon specific siting of various facilities. Construction wastes are similar to those generated by any construction project of comparable scale. Wastes generated during the operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities consist of five primary types: transuranic (TRU), low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes. The types and amounts of waste vary according to the alternative and facility. For example, the Pit Fabrication Facility is the only facility projected to generate any TRU waste.
The nuclear weapons facilities provide for the short-term stabilization, staging, storage, and management of waste, including the means to minimize waste generation, until DOE either disposes of the waste or places it in long-term storage. To provide a framework for addressing the impacts of waste management for stockpile stewardship and management facilities, descriptive information is presented on the waste management activities anticipated for each DOE site. The volumes of each type of waste generated are estimated by facility and DOE site. These estimates have included waste minimization provisions. The impact assessment addresses the waste types and projected waste volumes from the various stockpile stewardship and management facilities at each site compared to No Action. Impacts are assessed in the context of existing site practices for treatment, storage, and disposal, including the applicable regulatory setting and requirements. Existing permits, compliance agreements, and other site-specific waste management practices were reviewed and analyzed to assess the ability to conduct the required activities.
Decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities are also addressed. Such activities depend upon the historic use of the facility and the final disposition of a facility. D&D activities could range from performing a simple radiological survey to completely dismantling and removing a radioactively contaminated facility. The D&D waste volumes from transition facilities no longer required for stockpile stewardship and management missions are estimated.
This PEIS assesses the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations in accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations . Because both the Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice and DOE are still in the process of developing guidance on criteria for identifying effects to these populations, the approach taken in this PEIS analysis may differ somewhat from whatever guidance may be issued.
This PEIS environmental justice analysis addressed selected demographic characteristics of the ROI (80 km [50 mi]) for each of the eight alternative sites. The analysis identified census tracts where racial or ethnic minorities comprise 50 percent, or a simple majority, of the total population in the census tract, or where racial or ethnic minorities comprise less than 50 percent but greater than 25 percent of the total population in the census tract. The analysis also identified low-income communities where 25 percent or more of the population is characterized as living in poverty (yearly income of less than $8,076 for a family of two). Impacts are assessed based on the analysis presented for each resource and issue area for each of the proposed alternatives at each site. Any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations are discussed.
Cumulative impacts address the incremental effects of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (43 FR 55978; 40 CFR 1500-1508).
Other DOE programs (including environmental management missions) and other Federal, state, and local development programs all have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on DOE sites. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). To the extent information was available for these other actions at a given site, the cumulative impacts are presented.
Continuing Department of Energy Missions . Continuing DOE missions and any reasonably foreseeable changes to these missions are addressed as part of the affected environment baseline. Continuing missions at each site are discussed in the site infrastructure section of the affected environment discussion for each DOE site. These missions provide the baseline against which the stockpile stewardship and management facilities are compared. For example, water requirements for the proposed stockpile stewardship and management facilities are combined with requirements of continuing missions to assess the total impact to water resources.
Environmental Management Missions . Any planned and reasonably foreseeable new or modified waste handling facilities are discussed in the waste management section for each site. In addition, to the extent that other environmental management missions or strategies are planned and defined, they are also discussed as bounding environmental impacts of waste management actions. Specific waste management activities are being addressed in the Waste Management PEIS being prepared by the DOE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM).
Other Federal and State Programs. Other Federal and state programs are identified, but only planned, reasonably foreseeable programs are considered. Typical programs in this category include public works projects and military base closures and reuse projects. Potential consequences of any major programs that increase impacts when combined with the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives are presented.
Local Development Programs. Local development programs are not specifically identified. However, socioeconomic projections take into account anticipated regional growth. Local development programs are a part of this growth and are addressed collectively using growth as a substitute. Socioeconomic projections form the baseline for much of the environmental analysis presented in this document.
Approach for Cumulative Impact Assessments. There is no generic methodology for the assessment of cumulative impacts. Therefore, the following approach represents a design for analyzing programmatic cumulative impacts relative to past, present, and probable future activities. It incorporates a wide ranging view of DOE defense programs, environmental management, and other outside interactions. This strategy is integrated with detailed resource-specific assessment methods where appropriate, and can be developed further in site-specific tiered NEPA documentation to ensure compatibility across the DOE Office for the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP), EM, and other programs.
The rationale for this approach is that this PEIS is a programmatic document. The reference condition for cumulative effects is the No Action alternative. The strategy has four major components:
This method is flexible and allows for the assessment of cumulative impacts to regulated resources at a lower level of analysis due to the protection afforded to them through applicable regulations. In addition, the method recognizes that the focus on a given resource may vary according to site-specific characteristics of the local environment. Where these types of variations are identified, a level of analysis would be performed commensurate to the importance of the potential cumulative impacts on that resource.