Current operations at each Complex site result in the emission of pollutants to the atmosphere, discharge of pollutants in wastewater, and the generation of wastes. DOE orders require that site operations be conducted in accordance with all regulatory standards and provide for protection of the public and the environment. Monitoring is conducted at each site to determine compliance with these standards. When monitoring indicates noncompliance, DOE orders require that appropriate corrective actions and followups be performed. Monitoring activities conducted at DOE sites are reported in accordance with permit, regulatory, and DOE operational requirements. Additionally, monitoring results and analyses are included in the site's annual environmental surveillance reports, which are available to the public as required by DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program.
All sites are subject to state environmental requirements for solid mixed and hazardous waste under RCRA and regulated wastes under TSCA. Nonhazardous (sanitary) solid wastes are governed by RCRA subtitle D standards. All radioactive and mixed waste management activities at the sites are conducted primarily under DOE Order 5820.2A and RCRA. All mixed waste storage areas must meet RCRA containment system requirements. The recent Federal Facility Compliance Act (October 6, 1992) required DOE to submit site-specific plans to EPA and the states containing schedules for providing treatment capacity for mixed waste streams at DOE sites. DOE has developed proposed treatment plans that are being negotiated with EPA and the states.
In accordance with RCRA, as amended, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, and DOE Order 5400.1, all sites have an active pollution prevention and waste minimization program to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated, to the extent that is economically practical. The site programs are an organized and continual effort to systematically reduce waste generation. The overall focus of these programs is on pollution prevention, which involves the elimination/minimization of pollutant releases to all environmental media from all aspects of site operations. This includes air emissions and water discharges to sewer systems, as well as the offsite disposal of solid waste.
Some of the solvents used in the Complex and used in the nonnuclear facilities have been identified as ozone-depleting pollutants. Attempts are being made, both internationally and nationally, to reduce ozone-depleting gases. In September 1987, 27 nations, including the United States, signed the Montreal Protocol, which limits the production of chlorofluorocarbons and halogens. Schedules contained in Title VI of the CAA Amendments (November 1990) call for the phaseout of all chlorofluorocarbons and halogens between 2015 and 2030. A second meeting regarding the Montreal Protocol extended the phasing out of ozone-depleting gases into the early 21st century because of the slow development of chlorofluorocarbon alternatives. All DOE sites have, or are developing, site-specific plans to meet the CAA-mandated phaseout schedule. Potential ozone-depleting chemicals identified in 40 CFR 82 and discussed in this PEIS include 1,1,1-trichloroethane, CCI4, chlorodifluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, and trichlorotrifluoroethane.
Workplace Safety and Accidents. Operations at all DOE sites expose workers to occupational hazards during the normal conduct of their work activities. Occupational safety and health training is provided for all employees at DOE facilities and includes specialized job safety and health training appropriate to the work performed. Such training also includes informing employees of their rights and responsibilities under OSHA Executive Order 12196, which established OSHA Federal agency standards; 29 CFR 1960, OSHA Standards for Federal Agencies , which describes the safety and health programs that Federal agencies must establish and implement under Executive Order 12196; and DOE O 440.1, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees. DOE provides implementation guidance in DOE O 440.1, including the requirements and guidelines for the DOE Federal Employee Industrial Hygiene Program . The following is DOE policy:
DOE contractor operations at each site expose workers to hazardous constituents. DOE orders require that site operations have programs for the protection of workers. DOE O 441.1, Radiological Protection for DOE Activities, and DOE O 440.1, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees, establish procedures for protection of workers against radiological and hazardous materials, respectively. DOE M 232.1-1, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information, provides for reporting and guides appropriate corrective action and followup should exposure occur.
DOE O 451.1, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program; DOE O 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports; and DOE O 430.1, Lifecycle Asset Management, provide the basis for review of all planned and existing construction and operation for potential accidents and the assessment of the associated human health and environmental consequences of an accident. These reviews are required before authorization of construction or start of operation. These reviews also involve the identification of hazards and an analysis of normal, abnormal, and accident conditions. This analysis includes consideration of natural and manmade external events, including fires, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, other severe weather events, human errors, and explosions. The sites associated with the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program have complied with applicable DOE orders.
In accordance with DOE O 151.1, Comprehensive Emergency Management System , emergency response planning and training are provided to mitigate the consequences of potential accidents. Additionally, should an accident occur, the incident would be reported in accordance with DOE M 232.1-1, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information. The reports would also include appropriate corrective actions and followup.
Operation Consequences Common to All Sites. Consolidating or relocating stockpile stewardship and management functions to a site could increase the emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere, discharge of pollutants in wastewater, and generation of wastes. Members of the public could be exposed to pollutants that are released to the environment. Additionally, these functions, as with all industrial processes, would have the potential for exposing workers to hazardous constituents and accidents.
The monitoring currently conducted at each Complex site would be reviewed to ensure that monitoring activities are adequate to assess whether new operations and site conditions are adversely affecting members of the public, workers, or the environment. At each site, modifications to monitoring activities would be made, as appropriate. Any modifications, as well as the bases for the modification, would be documented in the sites' Environmental Protection Program. The results of these monitoring activities and the potential for exposures to the public and workers would be reviewed, processed, and reported, as discussed earlier.
In many cases, the functions proposed for relocation are similar to or the same as activities currently being performed at the receiver site. In addition, the processes and materials associated with relocated functions are similar to or the same as those currently performed and used at the receiver sites. These processes and materials have been previously reviewed and analyzed in accordance with applicable regulatory and DOE order requirements and have been documented in various forms, including memoranda, safety assessments, and various NEPA documents. In all cases, current activities at these sites have received the appropriate authorization to operate.
The human health impacts of relocating a stockpile stewardship and management function to a receiver site were assessed in the following manner for each site: from an operational perspective, the additional impacts associated with the activity and the cumulative impacts after relocation were determined and presented; from an accident perspective, the processes to be transferred and the potential hazards they present were assessed. This assessment included the review of NEPA documents, SAR, and other applicable documents. Additionally, all proposed stockpile stewardship and management functions to be consolidated or relocated are currently being performed at existing DOE sites and do not constitute new activities within the Complex.
Potential Consequences of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program on Workplace Safety and Accidents. Downsizing and consolidating Complex missions could potentially result in increased exposure of site workers to industrial-type work hazards and accidents. In addition, levels of risk to workers in new construction increases in relation to the amount of new construction required for stockpile stewardship and management facilities. Based on the length of construction periods for new facilities, the new A/D Facility at NTS (2,768 worker years) would have the largest construction accident risk and the new Nonnuclear Fabrication Facility at SNL (781 worker years) would have the lowest construction accident risk. Table 4.14-1 shows the relative risk of fatalities due to construction (both new building and existing building modification) by alternative. Before implementing the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program alternatives at any site, the site's environment, safety, and health staff would be notified that a new process or facility was being considered for change or modification to allow them to evaluate the impact of the anticipated change on the work environment.
| Alternatives | Worker Years | Construction Period (years) | Potential Accidental Workers Deaths1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stewardship | |||
| National Ignition Facility | 1,627 | 5 | 0.358 |
| Contained Firing Facility | 60 | 2 | 0.013 |
| Atlas Facility>/td> | 53 | 4 | 0.012 |
| Management | |||
| Assembly/Disassembly | |||
| Pantex Plant | 99 | 3 | 0.022 |
| Nevada Test Site | 2,768 | 6 | 0.609 |
| Nonnuclear Fabrication | |||
| Kansas City Plant | 459 | 4 | 0.101 |
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 12 | 2 | 0.003 |
| Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | 19 | 5 | 0.004 |
| Sandia National Laboratories | 781 | 3 | 0.172 |
| Pit Fabrication | |||
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 216 | 3 | 0.048 |
| Savannah River Site | 801 | 5 | 0.176 |
| Secondary and Case Fabrication | |||
| Oak Ridge Reservation | 72 | 6 | 0.016 |
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 205 | 4 | 0.045 |
| Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | 330 | 3 | 0.073 |
| High Explosives Fabrication | |||
| Pantex Plant | 46 | 3 | 0.01 |
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 77 | 2 | 0.017 |
| Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | 19 | 1 | 0.004 |
Appropriate measures would be implemented to minimize work hazards and accidents based on this early evaluation. Once operational, as part of the Occupational Safety and Health Program at each site, ongoing surveillance of the new or modified processes or activities would be performed to identify potential health hazards. If potential health hazards are identified, a hazard evaluation would be conducted to determine the extent of the hazard and, if required, the recommended control measures. Where feasible, engineering controls would be used to protect worker health and safety. Administrative controls and personal protective equipment would supplement engineering controls, as appropriate.
Siting, construction, modification, and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities at ORR, SRS, KCP, Pantex, LANL, LLNL, SNL, or NTS would result in adverse environmental impacts. The impact assessment conducted in this PEIS has identified these potential adverse impacts along with mitigative measures that could be implemented to either avoid or minimize these impacts. The residual adverse impacts remaining after mitigation are unavoidable and the bounding case impacts of all stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at all alternative sites are discussed below.
At NTS 18.2 ha (45 acres) of land would be disturbed to construct and operate the proposed NIF and provide additional supporting infrastructure and access roads. Loss of habitat in the disturbed area would be unavoidable. Land requirements for the proposed NIF would represent less than 11 percent of the uncommitted land at each alternative site except for the NLVF alternative at NTS where 56 percent would be required. Soil erosion in the disturbed area due to wind and stormwater runoff would be minor with appropriate sediment control measures. Small areas of potential wetlands could be unavoidably impacted, but mitigation measures approved by the U.S. Corps of Engineers would be implemented.
Construction, modification, and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants that have the potential to exceed Federal and state ambient air quality standards and guidelines. Concentrations of PM 10 and TSP are expected to be close to or exceed the 24-hour ambient PM 10 and TSP standards during peak construction periods under dry and windy conditions. Such exceedances are not uncommon for large construction projects. Air pollutant concentrations during operation are expected to remain within Federal and state ambient air quality standards, except for 1-hour ozone concentrations at KCP, 1-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations at LLNL, 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations at LANL, and annual PM 10 concentrations at KCP.
For each of the alternatives considered, use of water is unavoidable and could represent an adverse impact depending on the site. The maximum amount of surface water required for stockpile stewardship and management facilities operation would be about 1,510 MLY (400 MGY) at ORR, and the maximum groundwater requirement would be 893 MLY (236 MGY) at SNL. Increased turbidity during construction activities could impact some fish spawning and feeding habitat. It is expected that this loss would be small in comparison with resident fish populations and reproductive capabilities.
Federal-listed threatened or endangered species, such as the desert tortoise, could be affected directly or by disruptions to benthic and foraging habitats during construction and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities. Several candidate or state-listed animal species and special status plant species may also be affected at different sites. Preactivity surveys for such species would be conducted prior to the start of projects and any mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS. It may be necessary to survey the sites for the nests of migratory birds prior to construction and to avoid clearing operations during the breeding season. While such disruptions may be unavoidable, appropriate measures would be implemented and monitored to ensure that any impacts are not irreversible. Construction of new facilities would have some adverse unavoidable effects on animal populations. Larger mammals and birds would move to similar habitats nearby, while less mobile animals within the project areas, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, would be destroyed during land-clearing activities.
Some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic resources may occur within the disturbed area at each candidate site. The appropriate SHPO would be consulted to minimize unavoidable adverse impacts. Monitoring of construction activities by a paleontologist may be an appropriate mitigative measure in areas where scientifically important paleontological materials may be affected. Native American resources may be unavoidably affected by land disturbance and audio or visual intrusions on Native American sacred sites or due to reduced access to traditional use areas. DOE would consult with the affected tribes to minimize any impacts.
During construction of stockpile stewardship and management facilities, there would be no in-migration at any site. However, for operation of these facilities, there would be in-migration at some of the sites. The site and regional population would increase by as much as 1,950 (0.1 percent) during A/D operation at NTS. In most cases, vacancies in the existing housing stock would be sufficient for the in-migrating population. Some additional housing construction would be needed during operation of pit fabrication at SRS. Effects on the public finances of local governments in the ROI would be for the most part positive. An increase in vehicle traffic associated with construction and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities would affect the roads and transportation network surrounding some of the alternative sites. The resulting impacts in traffic, congestion, and road accidents resulting from socioeconomic growth is unavoidable, but can be reversed. For example, site access roads which are degraded during construction can be upgraded beyond their original condition to accommodate increased worker traffic.
Some amount of radiation would be released unavoidably by normal stockpile stewardship and management operations. The largest annual radiation dose to the maximally exposed member of the public would be 6.7 mrem from atmospheric and liquid releases at LANL. The associated risk of fatal cancers from 25 years of operations with these doses is 8.4x10 -5 . The greatest annual population dose from total site operations through 2030 would be 40.8 person-rem at ORR; such a total dose would result in 0.52 fatal cancers over the entire 25 years of operation. The largest average annual dose to a site worker would be 380 mrem at SRS and LANL and would result in an associated risk of fatal cancer of 3.8x10 -3 from 25 years of operation. The greatest annual dose to the total site workforce would be 505 person-rem occurring at SRS and would result in 5.0 fatal cancers over 25 years of operation.
Since hazardous and toxic chemicals are present during construction and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities, worker exposure to these chemicals is unavoidable. The maximum hazard to site workers, based solely on emissions of hazardous chemicals, is represented by an HI of 2.39 at LLNL for the No Action alternative. The incremental effects of the stockpile stewardship and management alternative at SRS would not appreciably change this No Action value. The incremental cancer risks to the public and site workers are essentially zero.
Although each site would implement waste minimization techniques, generation of additional low-level, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is unavoidable. Any introduction of new waste types could be an adverse impact since treatment, storage, and disposal facilities may have to be developed and permitted to deal with certain new types of wastes. In addition, the generation of additional LLW at Pantex would require one additional shipment to NTS every 2 years. Generation of additional hazardous or mixed wastes could require expansion of existing or planned treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for these wastes at some sites. Generation of additional nonhazardous wastes may also require expansion of existing, or construction of new, liquid and solid waste treatment facilities, or reduce the lifetimes of current solid waste landfills.
The use of land on any of the eight alternative sites being considered for stockpile stewardship and management facilities would enhance the long-term productivity on each site in two ways. First, stockpile stewardship and management missions represent long-term R&D and production functions compatible with historic nuclear weapons support and require a technically competent, skilled and stable workforce. Second, in light of current reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile, the lack of new weapons development or production, the moratorium on nuclear testing, and concerns about safety and reliability in the aging stockpile, DOE plans to downsize or consolidate existing facilities. In addition, DOE plans to provide upgraded or new experimental and computational capabilities that will enhance the long-term productivity of the selected sites.
Each alternative requires the use of additional land for increased disposal of radiological and hazardous materials. Such short-term usage would remove this land from other beneficial uses indefinitely because of the presence of long-lived hazards. Disposal of solid nonhazardous waste generated from facilities construction and operations would require additional land at onsite sanitary landfills. Solid nonhazardous waste generated from these facilities would continuously require additional land at a sanitary landfill site that would be unavailable for other uses in the long term. LLW would require additional space for onsite storage and waste processing and would involve the commitment of associated land, transportation, processing facilities, and other disposal resources. Creation of land disposal facilities allows the site to be productive for the long term by protecting the overall environment and complying with Federal and state environmental requirements.
One specific activity has been identified that requires short-term resource use that could compromise long-term productivity. The range of the endangered desert tortoise lies in the southern third of NTS. Construction and operation of new facilities associated with the A/D mission have the potential to impact the Federal-listed threatened desert tortoise. Measures designed to avoid impacts to the desert tortoise from previous projects at NTS have been implemented with mitigation measures developed in consultation with USFWS.
Losses of other terrestrial and aquatic habitats from natural productivity to accommodate new facilities and temporary disturbances required during construction are possible. Land clearing and construction activities resulting in large numbers of personnel and equipment moving about an area would disperse wildlife and temporarily eliminate habitats. Although some destruction would be inevitable during and after construction, these losses would be minimized by site selection and through environmental reviews at the site-specific level. In addition, short-term disturbances of previously undisturbed biological habitats from the construction of new facilities could cause long-term reductions in the biological productivity of an area. These long-term effects could occur, for example, at facilities located in arid areas of the western United States such as SNL, LANL, LLNL, and NTS, where biological communities recover very slowly from disturbances.
Potential termination of DP activities at ORR, KCP, and Pantex offers the possibility of restoring existing facilities at these sites to other purposes. Environmental restoration activities could have minor or short-term impacts similar to those normally associated with construction activities such as habitat disturbance and soil erosion. If contaminated structures were removed and site areas restored to a natural state, these areas could provide improved conditions for the long term.
This section describes the major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that can be identified at this programmatic level of analysis. A commitment of resources is irreversible when its primary or secondary impacts limit the future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources neither renewable nor recoverable for later use by future generations.
The Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program was initiated to ensure the safety and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. As such, the programmatic decisions resulting from this PEIS will ensure the commitment of resources to the new construction or modification of facilities that are essential to the efficacy and efficiency of the Complex. This section discusses three major resource categories that are committed irreversibly or irretrievably to the proposed action: land, materials, and energy. Values for irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are shown in tables 4.17-1 through 4.17-4.
Land Use . The land that is currently occupied by, or designated for, future stockpile stewardship and management facilities, could ultimately be returned to open space uses if buildings, roads, and other structures were removed, areas cleaned up, and the land revegetated. Alternatively, the facilities could be modified for use in other nuclear programs. Therefore, the commitment of this land is not necessarily irreversible.
However, land rendered unfit for other purposes, such as that set aside for radiological and hazardous chemical waste disposal facilities, represents an irreversible commitment because wastes in below-ground disposal areas may not be completely removed at the end of the project. The land could not be restored to its original condition or to minimum cleanup standards, nor could the site feasibly be used for any other purposes following closure of the disposal facility. This land would be perpetually unusable because the substrata would not be available for other potential intrusive uses such as mining, utilities, or foundations for other buildings. However, the surface area appearance and biological habitat lost during construction and operation of the facilities could be restored to a large extent.
Material . The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources during the entire lifecycle of stockpile stewardship and management existing or proposed facilities includes construction materials that cannot be recovered or recycled, materials that are rendered radioactive but cannot be decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste. Where construction is necessary, materials required include wood, concrete, sand, gravel, plastics, steel, aluminum, and other metals. At this time, no unusual construction material requirements have been identified either as to type or quantity. The construction resources, except for those that can be recovered and recycled with present technology, would be irretrievably lost. However, none of these identified construction resources is in short supply and all are readily available in the vicinity of locations being considered for new functions. The commitment of materials to be manufactured into new equipment that cannot be recycled at the end of the project's useful lifetime is irretrievable. Consumption of operating supplies, miscellaneous chemicals, and gases, while irretrievable, would not constitute a permanent drain on local sources or involve any material in critically short supply in the United States as a whole. Materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste, such as uranium, are also irretrievably lost. However, strategic and critical materials, or resources having small natural reserves, are of such value that economics promotes recycling. Plans to recover and recycle as much of these valuable, depletable resources as is practical would depend on need. Each item would be considered individually at the time a recovery decision is required.
Energy. The irretrievable commitment of resources during construction and operation of the facilities would include the consumption of fossil fuels used to generate heat and electricity for the sites. Energy would also be expended in the form of diesel fuel, gasoline, and oil for construction equipment and transportation vehicles. The amounts of irretrievable energy required to construct and operate new or modified facilities are estimated in chapter 3. These estimates are roughly comparable to past energy requirements for the Complex.
Table 4.17-1.--
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Construction Resources for Assembly/Disassembly, Nonnuclear Fabrication, and Stockpile Stewardship Facilities
| Contained Firing Facility | National Ignition Facility 2 | Atlas Facility | Assembly/Disassembly | Nonnuclear Fabrication | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | Pantex | NTS3 | KCP | LANL4 | LLNL3 | SNL3 | ||||
| Resource Requirements | ||||||||||
| Electrical energy (MWh) | 64 | 24 | 520 | 609 | 38,000 | 0 | 0.105 | 21 | 46.8 | |
| Liquid fuel (L) | 56,800 | 1,500,000 | <1,000 | 28,800 | 3,030,000 | 0 | 0 | 19,900 | 2,600,000 | |
| Concrete (m3) | 3,000 | 60,000 | <100 | 840 | 75,000 | 286 | 0 | 7.6 | 12,800 | |
| Carbon and stainless steel (t) | 1,500 | 10,000 | <10 | 15 | 16,300 | 220 | 0 | 7.3 | 5,440 | |
| Industrial gases (m3) | 4,300 | 9,000 | 0 | 600 | 65,100 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 | 0 | |
| Water (L) | 3,790,000 | 1.43x107 | <10,000 | 1,400,000 | 9.84x1077 | 0 | 9,500 | 79,500 | 2,200,000 | |
| Employment | ||||||||||
|
Total employment (worker years) |
60 | 1,627 | 53 | 99 | 2,768 | 459 | 12 | 19 | 781 | |
| Construction period (years) | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
| Pit Fabrication and Modification | Secondary and Case Fabrication | High Explosives Fabrication | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | SRS5 | LANL6 | ORR | LANL7 | LLNL7 | Pantex | LANL8 | LLNL8 | ||
| Resource Requirements | ||||||||||
| Electrical energy (MWh) | 15 | Minimal | 2.7 | 4,130 | 3,500 | 257 | Minimal | 15 | ||
| Liquid fuel (L) | 175,000 | Minimal | 10,000 | 22,700 | 908,000 | 12,200 | Minimal | 9,500 | ||
| Concrete (m3) | 1,600 | Minimal | 100 | 245 | 612 | 356 | Minimal | 190 | ||
| Carbon and stainless steel (t) | 249 | Minimal | 20 | 54 | 73 | 6 | Minimal | 15 | ||
| Industrial gases (m3) | 3,780 | Minimal | 300 | 11,500 | 142 | 258 | Minimal | 3 | ||
| Water (L) | 30,000,000 | Minimal | 2,000,000 | 4,160,000 | 8,710,000 | 644,000 | Minimal | 1,230,000 | ||
| Employment | ||||||||||
|
Total employment (worker years) |
801 | 216 | 72 | 205 | 330 | 46 | 77 | 19 | ||
Construction period (years) |
5 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Contained Firing Facility | National Ignition Facility9 | Assembly/Disassembly | Nonnuclear Fabrication | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operations | Atlas Facility | Pantex | NTS10 | KCP | LANL11 | LLNL11 | SNL11 | |||
| Resource Requirements | ||||||||||
| Electrical energy (MWh/yr) | 1,600 | 58,000 | 5,360 | 43,000 | 45,000 | 225,000 | 525 | 108 | 39,700 | |
| Fuel, gas (m3/yr) | 0 | 1,100,000 | 0 | 7,150,000 | 3,680,000 | 18,900,000 | 340 | 28,900 | 3,270,000 | |
| Liquid fuel (L/yr) | 2,650 | 5,820 | 0 | 740,000 | 432,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Coal (t/yr) | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Total water (L/yr) | 2.3x106 | 1.52x108 | 10,000 | 1.96x108 | 9.84x107 | 1.34x109 | 4.83x107 | 3,790,000 | 8.93x108 | |
| Liquid chemicals (kg/yr) | 0 | 0 | 90 | 49,216 | 18,979 | 15,259,650 | 8,343 | 283,203 | 15,259,650 | |
| Solid chemicals (kg/yr) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70,068 | 11,027 | 0 | 124,860 | 0 | 0 | |
| Gaseous chemicals (kg/yr) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65,772 | 65,772 | 9,305 | 0 | 135 | 9,305 | |
| Plant Footprint (ha)12 | 0.4 | 20 | 0.3 | 13 | 4.3 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 9 | |
| Employment | ||||||||||
| Total workforce | 26 | 267 | 15 | 1,266 | 1,093 | 2,257 | 315 | 114 | 1,160 | |
| Pit Fabrication and Modification | Secondary and Case Fabrication | High Explosives Fabrication | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operations | SRS 14 | LANL 15 | ORR | LANL 16 | LLNL 16 | Pantex | LANL 17 | LLNL 17 | ||
| Resource Requirements | ||||||||||
| Electrical energy (MWh/yr) | 9,700 | 5,480 | 118,000 | 36,000 | 15,000 | 3,250 | 5,600 | 4,300 | ||
| Fuel, gas (m3/yr) | 0 | 30,900 | 1.7x107 | 0 | 566,000 | 500,000 | 3,650,000 | 0 | ||
| Liquid fuel (L) | 28,400 | 0 | 250,000 | 100,000 | 85,200 | 55,600 | 94,600 | 53,100 | ||
| Coal (t/yr) | 1,090 | 0 | 500 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||
| Total water (L/yr) | 4.62x107 | 3.02x107 | 1.51x109 | 5.5x107 | 1.94x108 | 1.25x107 | 1.3x107 | 5.82x107 | ||
| Liquid chemicals (kg/yr) | 9,191 | 57,772 | 199,466 | 153,728 | 58,107 | 8,050 | 9,049 | 2,776 | ||
| Solid chemicals (kg/yr) | 7,138 | 99,278 | 54,223 | 56,340 | 15,845 | 51,480 | 49,669 | 76,159 | ||
| Gaseous chemicals (kg/yr) | 52,521 | 1,533,089 | 6,488,333 | 1,568,333 | 1,883,037 | 1,810 | 1,361 | 885 | ||
|
Plant Footprint |
18 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 0.8 | ||
| Employment | ||||||||||
Total Workforce |
813 | 628 | 1,376 | 523 | 760 | 37 | 200 | 232 | ||
The final disposition of all Complex facilities is the responsibility of DOE. DOE is committed to remediate these sites, to comply with all applicable environmental requirements, and to protect public and worker health and safety. DOE is currently considering many technologies for the treatment of contaminated materials and equipment, and for the long-term management of sites. DOE is preparing a PEIS to identify configurations for selected waste management facilities. The term "configurations" as used in this context means the arrangement of facilities and related activities at one or more DOE sites for a specific waste type. The selected waste management facilities for each of these waste types are: interim storage facilities for treated HLW; treatment and storage facilities for TRU waste in the event that treatment is required before disposal; treatment and disposal facilities for LLW; interim storage facilities for commercial Greater-Than-Class C LLW; treatment and disposal facilities for mixed LLW; and treatment facilities for hazardous waste.
Interim Management of Nuclear Materials Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0220) dated October 20, 1995, categorized certain isotopes of plutonium, neptunium, americium, and curium as programmatic, leaving the issue of long-term use of these materials to various Program offices within DOE. The ROD for the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS dated December 12, 1995, left programmatic decisions for the plutonium-242 material to DP. DP has determined that the plutonium-242 from SRS would be useful for future R&D activities. The issue for this PEIS concerns where to store the plutonium-242 material for such use. This section provides an analysis of the alternatives for storing SRS plutonium material for future R&D use. Further information regarding use of this material is contained in a classified appendix to this PEIS.
As discussed in the ROD for the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS, existing plutonium-242 in nitrate solutions at H-Canyon will be stabilized by conversion to plutonium oxide in the HB-line. The portion of the HB-line where the conversion to oxide will occur is called Phase III. Phase III is being used to produce plutonium-238 for National Aeronautic and Space Administration for use as a thermal power source. The plutonium-242 in solution will be converted to oxide form (stabilized) between July and December 1996. The oxide will then be stored at existing facilities at either FB-Line or Building 235F at SRS.
A new DOE standard entitled DOE Criteria for Safe Storage of Plutonium Metals and Oxides (DOE-STD-3013-94) requires the handling and packaging of plutonium without the use of plastic and other organic materials (e.g., rubber or elastomeric seals). The ROD for the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS determined that a new Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility will be constructed in the F-Area at SRS to allow for packaging this oxide as specified in the above-mentioned standard. The Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility is planned to be a fiscal year 1997 construction line item and construction completion is expected by May 2001. If the plutonium oxide were to remain at SRS, the material would be transferred from its storage location at FB-Line or Building 235F to the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility once construction is completed.
The alternatives being evaluated in this Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS for the plutonium-242 oxide are to leave the material in place at SRS (the No Action alternative) or transport the material to LANL or LLNL for use in R&D. Both LANL and LLNL have a history of working with plutonium (including plutonium oxide) for research purposes. LANL currently performs most of the plutonium research for the Complex and has the necessary analytical facilities for plutonium. LLNL, although a reasonable alternative, is currently reducing its inventory of plutonium.
Environmental Impacts. The plutonium-bearing nitrate solutions in the F- and H- Canyons at SRS are being converted to plutonium oxide to stabilize the material in accordance with the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials and the F-Canyons Plutonium Solutions RODs. As stated above, the plutonium oxide will be stored at existing SRS facilities.
Under the No Action alternative, the material would be stored at FB-Line or Building 235F until it could be treated and then stored in the new Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility at SRS in accordance with newly developed standards. At LANL, TA-55 is the expected location for storing the material. The potential storage location at LLNL is Building 332 within the high security Superblock Complex. Regardless of the storage location for this material, there would be negligible environmental impacts. At SRS, LANL, or LLNL, this small quantity of plutonium oxide is within the historical quantities stored at these sites. Previous environmental analyses (LLNL and SNL Final EIS [DOE/EIS-0157, August 1992], Final EIS Interim Management of Nuclear Materials [DOE/EIS-0220, October 1995], and the Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Material Storage for TA-55 [DOE/EA-0273, November 1985]) provide the NEPA documentation for continued storage of radioactive materials. No new additional risks to workers or the public would result from storage of this material at any of the three sites. No wastes are generated from storing the material. No additional site infrastructure or workers are required. No additional air or liquid releases would occur from normal operation. Therefore, this Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS analyzes the transportation from SRS to LANL or LLNL, against the No Action alternative of not transporting the plutonium oxide.
Transportation. The No Action alternative is to leave the plutonium oxide stored at SRS in the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility. Under No Action, there would be no transportation impacts, and thus, no further environmental impacts associated with this storage.
Transportation of this plutonium oxide from SRS to either LANL or LLNL would only require a fraction of one safe secure trailer shipment. Although the material could be packaged in a small number of containers, for the purposes of this analysis, a safe secure trailer loaded with 26 containers was assumed. The actual quantity of plutonium-242 is much less than is assumed for this analysis. Thus, these stated risks conservatively bound the true risk of transportation. The potential total health impacts of transportation of one such safe secure trailer shipment from either SRS to LANL, or SRS to LLNL, are shown in table 4.19-1. There could be a total health impact of 6.63x10-4 deaths from a one-time shipment of 26 canisters of plutonium-242 from SRS to LLNL. A one-time shipment of the same material from SRS to LANL could result in a total health impact of 4.14x10-4 deaths. The risks from transportation to LLNL are slightly higher only because of the greater distance traveled from SRS to LLNL. This table indicates that there are essentially no impacts from either alternative.
| Route | Health Effects 20 | ||
| Accident | Accident-Free | Total | |
| SRS to LLNL | 5.10x10-4 | 1.53x10-4 | 6.63x10-4 |
| SRS to LANL | 3.17x10-4 | 9.70x10-5 | 4.14x10-4 |
2 NIF values reflect nonsite-specific requirements. See appendix I for site-specific information.
3 Values reflect requirements if Pantex is phased out.
4 Values reflect requirements if KCP is phased out. Derived from text.
5 Values reflect requirements if SRS receives this mission.
6 Values reflect requirements if LANL receives this mission.
7 Values reflect requirements if ORR is phased out.
8 Values reflect requirements if Pantex is phased out. Derived from text.
9 NIF values reflect nonsite-specific requirements. See appendix I for site-specific information.
10 Values reflect requirements if Pantex is phased out.
11 Values reflect requirements if KCP is phased out.
12 In addition to existing facilities.
13 Existing facilities would be used. NA - not applicable. Derived from text.
14 Values reflect requirements if SRS receives this mission.
15 Values reflect requirements if LANL receives this mission.
16
Values reflect requirements if ORR is phased out.
17 Values reflect requirements if Pantex is phased out.
18 In addition to existing facilities.
19 Existing facilities would be used.
NA - not applicable.
Derived from text.
20 Assumes all plutonium-242 would be transported in one truckload.
RADTRAN model results.