View the Summary Comparison Data
The figures from the document are substituted with explanations of the figures. The are denoted by the asterisks.
Introduction
The Department of Energy (DOE) is the Federal agency responsible for the management, storage, and disposition of weapons-usable fissile materials from United States nuclear weapons production and dismantlement activities. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a weapons-usable fissile material; in certain forms and concentrations, it can be used to make nuclear weapons. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the Department's NEPA Implementation Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), the Department has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for the disposition of United States-origin weapons-usable HEU declared surplus to national defense or defense-related program needs by the President.
The end of the Cold War has ended the nuclear materials production and arms race between the superpowers. As a result, significant quantities of weapons-usable fissile materials are no longer needed for defense purposes. Continued implementation of arms reduction agreements may result in additional weapons dismantlement and increases in surplus stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile materials. These excess stockpiles could pose a danger to national and international security. The dangers exist in the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons and in the potential for environmental, safety, and health consequences if this material is not properly managed. To demonstrate the United States' commitment to reducing the threat of proliferation, the President announced on March 1, 1995, that approximately 200 metric tons (t) of United States-origin fissile materials, of which 165 t is HEU, have been declared surplus to the United States' nuclear stockpile.
The Proposed Action
The Department proposes to blend down surplus HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU) to eliminate the risk of diversion for nuclear proliferation purposes and, where practical, to reuse the resulting LEU in peaceful, beneficial ways that recover its commercial value. Unlike plutonium (Pu), where all isotopes are weapons-usable, the uranium isotope that is most abundant in nature, uranium-238 (U-238), is not weapons-usable. Therefore, the weapons-usability of HEU can be eliminated by blending it with U-238 to create LEU. This isotopic blending process can be performed by blending HEU with depleted uranium (DU), natural uranium (NU), or LEU blendstock. Once HEU is blended down to LEU, it is no more weapons-usable than existing, abundant supplies of LEU. It cannot be returned to a weapons-usable form without first being re-enriched a costly, technically demanding, and time-consuming process. Therefore, blending to LEU is the most timely and effective method for eliminating the proliferation threat of surplus HEU.
The Department's inventory of surplus HEU consists of a variety of chemical, isotopic, and physical forms. If blended down, much of the resulting LEU would be suitable for commercial use in the fabrication of fuel for nuclear power plants. Other portions of the resultant LEU would contain uranium isotopes that would make it unsuitable for commercial use. These portions would need to be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Some of the material may or may not be directly suitable for commercial use because its isotopic composition would not meet industry specifications for commercial nuclear reactor fuel. Nonetheless, it could be used as fuel under certain circumstances. Because of the multiplicity of existing material forms and potential end products, disposition of the inventory of surplus weapons-usable HEU is likely to involve multiple processes, facilities, and business arrangements.
Based on the best information available at this time, it appears that about 65 percent of projected surplus HEU will have commercial value, and about 15 percent will have to be disposed of as waste. The remaining approximately 20 percent is off-specification (off-spec) material that could go either way. Consequently, the fuel/waste ratio will range from about 85/15 to about 65/35, as shown in Figure S-1.
*** Figure S-1 shows the a pie chart of the material with 65% commercial, non-commercial, and off-spec. ***
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation worldwide in an environmentally safe and timely manner by reducing stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile materials and setting a nonproliferation example for other nations and, to the extent practical, to facilitate the peaceful, beneficial reuse and recover the economic value of the material.
Comprehensive disposition actions are needed to ensure that surplus HEU is converted to proliferation-resistant forms consistent with the objectives of the President's nonproliferation policy. The alternatives considered would essentially eliminate the potential for reuse of the material in nuclear weapons. They also would demonstrate the United States' commitment to dispose of surplus HEU and encourage other nations to take similar actions toward reducing stockpiles of surplus HEU. The proposed action would reduce the Department's HEU inventory as well as costs associated with storage, accountability, and security beginning as soon as possible, rather than indefinitely storing such material. Blending down surplus HEU to make non-weapons-usable LEU is the most rapid path for neutralizing its proliferation potential.
Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement
The Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Draft Environmental Impact Statement (HEU EIS) assesses environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives for the disposition of surplus HEU. The HEU EIS assesses the disposition of up to approximately 200 t of surplus HEU, encompassing HEU that has already been declared surplus as well as additional weapons-usable HEU that may be declared surplus in the future. The material is currently located at facilities throughout the Department's nuclear weapons complex, but the majority is stored at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The HEU EIS assesses potential environmental impacts at four candidate sites where HEU conversion and blending could occur: DOE's Y-12 Plant at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina; the Babcock & Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Facility (B&W) in Lynchburg, Virginia; and the Nuclear Fuel Services Fuel Fabrication Plant (NFS) in Erwin, Tennessee. The blending processes evaluated are uranyl nitrate hexahydrate (UNH), metal, and uranyl hexafluoride (UF6). Because of the variety of existing material forms and the different end products that result (commercial reactor fuel or LLW), multiple paths and multiple disposition actions may be pursued for the surplus inventory. The HEU EIS also assesses the environmental impacts of transportation of these materials. Figure S-2 shows the location of sites that might be used for the HEU blending process(es).
The disposition of surplus HEU was originally proposed to be addressed within the scope of the single Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS), which also deals with Pu. In the course of the PEIS public scoping process, the Department concluded that it would be more appropriate to analyze the impacts of surplus HEU disposition in a separate EIS. A series of public scoping meetings was held on the PEIS from August through October, 1994. Subsequently, the Department held a public meeting on November 10, 1994, to obtain comments on this subject, and subsequently concluded that a separate EIS would be appropriate.
*** Figure S-2 shows the four HEU blending sites and the associated blending processes. ***
The decision to separate analysis of surplus HEU disposition from the Storage and Disposition PEIS was made for the following reasons:
- The disposition of surplus HEU could use existing technologies and facilities in the United States, in contrast to the disposition of surplus Pu.
- The disposition of surplus HEU will involve different alternatives, timeframes, technologies, facilities, and personnel than those required for the disposition of surplus Pu.
- Decisions on surplus HEU disposition are independently justified, would not impact, trigger, or preclude other decisions that may be made regarding the disposition of surplus Pu, and would not depend on action taken or decisions made pursuant to the Storage and Disposition PEIS.
In addition, a separate action is the most rapid path for neutralizing the proliferation threat of surplus HEU. This is consistent with and furthers the President's Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy and would demonstrate the United States' nonproliferation commitment to other nations. It is also consistent with the course of action now underway in Russia to reduce Russian HEU stockpiles.
Accordingly, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 17344) on April 5, 1995, to inform the public of the proposed plan to prepare a separate EIS for the disposition of surplus HEU. Four comments (one pro and three con) were received on the proposal. For the reasons explained above, the Department's conclusion that HEU should be treated separately was not altered. The scope of the Storage and Disposition PEIS will continue to include storage of surplus HEU before blend down and storage of most nonsurplus HEU.
Under current law, the Department is authorized to market LEU, including LEU derived from HEU, only with United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) acting as its marketing agent. Bills that would privatize USEC are currently under consideration in Congress. In addition, certain bills introduced in Congress would modify or eliminate this restriction and permit the Department under certain circumstances to market its uranium directly or through a competitive bidding process, as well as through the private successor to USEC. If such legislation is enacted, the Department could have a choice of numerous business options for HEU blend down. Even without legislative change, the Department, with USEC acting as its marketing agent, could pursue a number of different methods for contracting blending services and LEU sales. The commercial arrangements will not affect environmental impacts. The HEU EIS addresses the potential impacts associated with the various alternatives regardless of the commercial arrangements.
The exact quantity of future discrete "batches" of HEU, and the exact time at which such "batches" would be subject to disposition, would depend on a number of factors, including the rate of weapons dismantlement; the rate at which the HEU is declared surplus; market conditions, sales prices, and work orders for commercial fuel feed; and throughput capacities and capabilities of the blending facilities. The HEU EIS analyzes the blending of HEU at the facilities using technologies that are available in existing facilities today or that could be added without new construction. It analyzes the transportation of necessary materials from their likely places of origin to the potential blending sites, and from blending sites to the likely or representative destinations for nuclear fuel fabrication or waste disposal. Decisions about the details of specific disposition actions (which facility or process to use) might be made in part by the Department, USEC, or other private entities acting as marketing agents for the Department or buying the HEU for blending.
Preferred Alternative
Several representative, reasonable alternatives are described and assessed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the HEU EIS, and summarized in Tables S- 1 through S-3. In addition to the no action alternative, there are four alternatives that represent different ratios of blending to commercial use versus blending to waste, different combinations of blending sites, and different combinations of blending technologies. The Department has identified a preferred alternative that satisfies the purpose and need described previously. The preferred alternative is identified as alternative 5, variation c (the all four sites variation), in the HEU EIS. Under this alternative, the commercial use of surplus HEU would be maximized and the blending would most likely be done at some combination of commercial and DOE sites. The preferred alternative is as follows:
- To sell for use in commercial reactor fuel as much as possible of the LEU derived from surplus HEU or HEU for blend down to LEU (up to 170 t HEU, including 50 t HEU with 7,000 t NU that are proposed to be transferred to USEC over a 6-year period), using a combination of four sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) and two possible blending technologies (blend as UF6 and UNH) that best serves programmatic, economic, and environmental needs, beginning as soon as possible following the Record of Decision (ROD) and continuing over an approximate 8-year period, with continued storage of the HEU until blend down; and
- To eventually blend down surplus HEU that has no commercial value (30 t), using a combination of four sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) and two blending technologies (blend as UNH and metal) that best serves programmatic, economic, and environmental needs, potentially beginning as early as 2003 and continuing over an approximate 2- to 4-year period, to dispose of the resulting LEU as LLW, and to continue to store the HEU until blend down occurs
With respect to the HEU that could be blended to commercial fuel feed for non-Government commercial power reactors, including the 50 t of HEU (with 7,000 t of NU) proposed to be transferred to USEC, the decisions and associated contracts concerning 1) where and which facility(ies) would blend the material, and 2) marketing of the fuel, may be made by USEC under current law, or by a private corporation as successor to USEC, or by DOE, depending on subsequent legislative changes.
The Department believes the preferred alternative would best serve the purpose and need for the proposed action for several reasons. Selling as much of the surplus HEU or LEU derived from HEU as possible would serve the nonproliferation objective in the most timely fashion. It would allow for peaceful, beneficial reuse of the material as much as possible. It would generate proceeds for the Federal Treasury and reduce Government waste disposal costs that would be incurred if all (or a greater portion of) the material were blended to waste.
An indirect impact of the preferred alternative would be the creation of spent nuclear fuel (through the use of HEU-derived commercial fuel in power reactors). The domestic spent fuel would be stored, and potentially disposed of, in a repository or other alternative, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.). DOE is in the process of characterizing, and anticipates preparing an EIS concerning the potential use of, the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada as a repository. However, since the nuclear fuel derived from HEU would replace nuclear fuel that would have been created from newly mined uranium without this action, there would be no additional spent fuel generated. On the other hand, because LEU derived from HEU supplants LEU from NU, the environmental impacts of uranium mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment to generate an equivalent amount of commercial reactor fuel would be avoided (see Section 4.7 of the HEU EIS).
The proposed action is not expected to have any discernible impact on the overall economics or future of nuclear power. The LEU derived from HEU under this proposed action would constitute less than 5 percent of the annual global market for LEU (Section 4.8). Moreover, the cost to utilities of HEU-derived fuel is not expected to be lower than existing market fuel costs, and fuel costs are in any event a relatively small contributor to the overall costs of nuclear power. The proposal to transfer 50 t of HEU to USEC includes within it the transfer to USEC of title to 7,000 t of NU now owned by the Department. That action is also assessed in this EIS and included in the preferred alternative.
Some portion of the surplus HEU (between 15 and 100 percent depending on the alternative selected) will have to be blended down and disposed of as LLW. Certain DOE LLW is currently disposed of at commercial facilities and other DOE LLW is stored and disposed of at DOE sites. A location where LLW derived from DOE's non-commercial HEU can be disposed of has not been designated. For purposes of analysis of LLW transportation impacts only, this EIS assumes use of the existing LLW facility at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) as a representative facility. No LLW would be transferred to NTS (or any alternative LLW facility) until completion of the NTS Site-Wide EIS (or other applicable NEPA documentation) and in accordance with decisions in the associated ROD(s). In addition, any LLW transferred to any LLW facility would be consistent with the Department's Waste Management PEIS and associated ROD, and any subsequent NEPA documents tiered from or supplementing the Waste Management PEIS. Additional options for disposal of LLW may be identified in other documents.
Continued storage of surplus HEU prior to blending may be required for some time (the Department estimates it may take about 8 to 46 years before all of the material can be blended, depending on the alternative). The interim storage, pending disposition (for up to 10 years) of surplus HEU at the Y-12 Plant (where most of the HEU is stored), is analyzed in the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Interim Storage of Enriched Uranium Above the Maximum Historical Storage Level at the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 1994 (Y-12 EA). Impacts from interim storage, as analyzed in the Y-12 EA and incorporated by reference herein, are briefly summarized in this EIS. Storage of fissile materials, including HEU with or without commercial value beyond the 10-year period, will be addressed in the Storage and Disposition PEIS, which is in preparation. Storage of HEU will be pursuant to and consistent with the ROD associated with the Storage and Disposition PEIS.
Screening Process Alternatives
The Department used a screening process along with public input to identify a range of reasonable options for the disposition of surplus HEU. The process was conducted by a screening committee that consisted of Department officials, assisted by technical advisors from the Department's National Laboratories and other support staff. The committee was responsible for identifying the reasonable alternatives to be evaluated. It compared alternatives against screening criteria, considered input from the public, and utilized technical reports and analyses from the National Laboratories and industry to develop a final list of alternatives.
The first step in the screening process was to develop criteria against which to judge potential alternatives. The criteria were developed for the screening process based on the President's nonproliferation policy of September 1993, the January 1994 Joint Statement Between the United States and Russia on Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Means of Their Delivery, and the analytical framework established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in its 1994 report, Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium. These criteria included nonproliferation; security; environment, safety, and health; timeliness and technological viability; cost effectiveness; international cooperation; and peaceful beneficial reuse whenever possible. The criteria were discussed at the public scoping workshops, and participants were invited to comment further using questionnaires. The questionnaires allowed participants to rank criteria based on relative importance, comment on the appropriateness of the criteria, and suggest new criteria. Details on how the screening process was developed, applied, and the results obtained were published in a separate report, Summary Report of the Screening Process to Determine Reasonable Alternatives for Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials (DOE/MD-0002).
The Department began with nine potential alternatives for disposing of HEU. These alternatives were evaluated in the screening process to identify those reasonable alternatives that merited further evaluation in this EIS on HEU disposition. The technical, economic, and nonproliferation merits of these alternatives also are being evaluated by the Department. As a result of the screening process, five alternatives were identified as reasonable alternatives for further analysis:
- No HEU disposition action
- Direct sale of HEU to a commercial vendor for subsequent blending to LEU
- Blending HEU to 19-percent assay LEU and selling as commercial reactor fuel feed material
- Blending HEU to 4-percent LEU and selling as commercial reactor fuel feed material
- Blending HEU to 0.9-percent LEU for disposal as waste
Following the screening process, these alternatives were further refined. The blend to 0.9 percent and discard as waste alternative, which was originally intended to address only material not suitable for use as commercial fuel, was expanded to include all HEU. Although this would not recover the material's economic value, it would meet nonproliferation goals and provide for a full range of alternatives. Figure S-3 provides a material flow diagram for the disposition of surplus HEU.
The blend to LEU (19-percent enrichment) and sell alternative was eliminated from analysis because LEU with an enrichment level of 19 percent cannot be used commercially as reactor fuel without further blending; it presents criticality concerns that would need to be accommodated; and it is not as economical as blending directly to 4 percent in a one-step process.
Characterization of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Material
The surplus HEU material in inventory is in varying levels of enrichment and purity (contamination with undesirable isotopes and chemicals). The predominant decision affecting the process choices for any batch of surplus HEU would depend on its disposition as fuel or waste. For the preferred alternative and other commercial use alternatives, an important factor in determining the disposition of any specific batch of HEU would be whether it can be blended to meet the chemical and isotopic specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for commercial reactor fuel. Of particular concern are the concentrations of the isotopes U-234 and U-236 relative to U-235 in the blended LEU product. Most of the surplus HEU would meet those ASTM specifications when blended with NU or LEU. The surplus HEU material could be characterized as commercial, off-spec, or non-commercial depending upon its ability to be used as reactor fuel.
Commercial Material
If the HEU material has a low U-235 assay, with a low ratio of undesirable isotopes (U-234 and U-236), it is considered a commercial quality material (in-spec). The selection of uranium blendstock of adequate quality and form would allow production of LEU that would meet the ASTM specifications for use in fabrication of commercial reactor fuel.
Off-Specification Material
If the ratio of U-234 and U-236 is high in the HEU material relative to U-235 content (off-spec), then the ability to blend to the ASTM commercial fuel specifications may be limited. If customers are found (e.g., private or public utilities) who are willing to use off-spec LEU, then this surplus HEU could be used.
Non-Commercial Material
Material containing very high ratios of U-232, U-234 and U-236 relative to U-235 content which would be impossible to use as commercial reactor fuel; this HEU material would be stored, then blended and disposed of as waste.
*** Figure S-3 shows an overview of material flow for surplus highly enriched uranium disposition. ***
Highly Enriched Uranium Disposition Alternatives
The screening process alternatives were further refined by combining the direct sale of HEU (buyer to blend HEU to LEU) alternative and the blend HEU to 4-percent LEU and sell as commercial reactor fuel feed material alternative. This was done because the potential impacts of these two alternatives are the same. They differ only in whether the HEU is sold prior or subsequent to blending.
Finally, the alternatives were modified to formulate various combinations of blending technologies, candidate sites, and end products. The possible list of combinations is infinite. The Department has formulated representative alternatives that define a matrix of reasonable alternatives and include logical choices for consideration at the time the ROD is issued. These alternatives, shown in Figure S 4 and Table S-1, are described in detail in the following section.
Several blending technologies and facilities are likely to be used for different portions of the surplus inventory, and the decisions regarding those technologies and facilities are likely to be made in part by USEC or other private entities outside the Department. Thus, specific decisions concerning the locations where the surplus HEU disposition action will be implemented will be multidimensional and will likely involve multiple decisionmakers. The alternatives as described are not intended to represent exclusive choices among which the Department (or other decisionmakers) must choose, but rather are proffered to define representative points within the matrix of possible reasonable alternatives. Section 4.5.6 of the HEU EIS explains how impacts would change if the actual allocation between alternatives, end products (commercial fuel feed or waste), blending processes, and blending sites differed from the representative reasonable alternatives.
For the commercial use alternatives, LEU material with commercial value would be transported following blending to fuel fabricators for use in fabricating commercial nuclear reactor fuel. Currently, there are five potential domestic commercial facilities that could process UNH into commercial nuclear reactor fuel and 109 domestic commercial electrical power nuclear reactors that could potentially use the commercial nuclear reactor fuel. The exact allocation, site-specific location, and timing of the eventual processing and commercial nuclear reactor use are not known at this time, have not been specifically proposed, and would be contingent upon the needs and specifications of the potential customers for the fuel. The domestic spent fuel would be stored, and potentially disposed of, in a repository or other alternative, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.). DOE is in the process of characterizing and will prepare an EIS concerning the potential use of the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada as a repository.
No Action
Under the no action alternative, the Department would continue to store surplus HEU (primarily at the Department's Y-12 Plant). Storage of surplus HEU (until disposition) is analyzed for a period of up to 10 years in the Y-12 EA. Storage of weapons-usable fissile materials, including surplus HEU beyond the 10-year period, is being addressed in the Storage and Disposition PEIS. Current operations at each of the potential HEU blending sites (Y-12, SRS, B&W, and NFS) would continue.
No Commercial Use (0/100 Fuel/Waste Ratio)
Under this alternative, the Department would blend the entire stockpile of surplus HEU (200 t) to LEU and dispose of it as waste. This would include surplus HEU with or without commercial value. The blending of all surplus HEU would be performed at all four sites. Although this alternative would not recover any of the economic value of HEU for the Government, it would satisfy nonproliferation goals and is considered for all surplus HEU to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a full range of alternatives in the HEU EIS.
Surplus HEU could be blended to waste as either UNH or as metal at a rate of up to 2.1 t/yr or 3.1 t/yr, respectively. All the blending sites have UNH blending capability. Only ORR and SRS are considered as blending sites for metal blending. The time required to blend all 200 t would be more than 64 years utilizing the metal process at only one of the DOE sites. The time required to blend all 200 t would be more than 95 years utilizing the UNH process at only one of the commercial sites. No combination of fewer than three sites could complete the task within less than 30 years. Therefore, for this scenario, all four sites would be used to blend 50 t each. If all four sites were to process material at 2.1 t/yr, it would take about 24 years to convert the 200 t of HEU to LEU as waste.
The blending of surplus HEU for waste would not be initiated before an LLW disposal facility was identified to accept the LLW. Surplus HEU would remain in storage at the Y-12 Plant or at another storage facility pursuant to the Storage and Disposition PEIS pending identification of the LLW disposal facility.
Limited Commercial Use (25/75 Fuel/Waste Ratio)
Under this alternative, the Department would blend 50 t of the HEU to commercial fuel, while the remaining 75 percent (150 t) would be blended and then disposed of as waste. First, the title to 50 t of surplus HEU and 7,000 t of NU would be transferred to USEC. USEC (or successor corporation) then would select sites for blending 50 t of surplus HEU to LEU for use in commercial fuel. The remaining 150 t would be blended to waste by DOE.
This alternative would blend 50 t of HEU at the commercial sites. The 50 t would be distributed equally between the commercial sites, each blending 25 t of material. The two DOE sites would not receive any HEU material to blend for commercial fuel. The remaining 150 t of HEU material would be blended into waste using all four blending sites. Each DOE site and commercial site would receive 37.5 t of material for blending to waste.
Utilizing the DOE and commercial sites, blending to waste would take about 20 years. The blending for commercial fuel could start as early as 1997 and would continue for 2 to 3 years.
Substantial Commercial Use (65/35 Fuel/Waste Ratio)
Under this alternative, all off-spec material would be blended to waste. It is estimated that between 15 and 35 percent (35 percent includes off- spec material) of the approximately 200 t of potentially surplus HEU contains impurities that would make it unsuitable for commercial reactor use, thus requiring blending for disposal as waste. This alternative assumes that 35 percent of the HEU would be blended to LLW and disposed of as waste, leaving 65 percent of the material available for commercial use. First, the title to 50 t of surplus HEU and 7,000 t of NU would be transferred to USEC. USEC (or successor corporation) then would select blending sites for blending 50 t of surplus HEU to LEU for use in commercial fuel. The remaining quantity of potentially commercially usable HEU (80 t), could be blended at any or all of the four sites. The LEU product would be sold for use in commercial reactor fuel. The remaining 70 t of surplus HEU would be blended to waste.
There are four variations of this alternative using different combinations of sites. These particular combinations of sites are representative only. The actual distribution among blending sites may differ, depending on programmatic, commercial, or other considerations. The first variation would blend all of the HEU at the two DOE sites, with the HEU split equally between them. ORR and SRS would each blend 65 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 35 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The second variation would blend all of the HEU at the two commercial sites, with the HEU split equally between them. Both B&W and NFS would blend 65 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 35 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The third variation would blend the HEU at all four sites, with the HEU split equally among them. Each site would blend 32.5 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 17.5 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The fourth variation would blend all of the HEU at a single site. The site would blend 130 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 70 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste.
Utilizing either the two DOE or the two commercial sites, this alternative would take about 18 to 24 years. Utilizing all four sites, this alternative would take about 12 years. Utilizing a single site, this alternative would take 36 to 46 years. The blending for commercial fuel could start as early as 1997 and would continue for 3 to 13 years.
Maximum Commercial Use (85/15 Fuel/Waste Ratio Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative, the blending of surplus HEU for commercial fuel would be maximized and all of the off-spec material would be blended to fuel. This alternative assumes that only 15 percent of the HEU would be blended and disposed of as waste. First, the title to 50 t of surplus HEU and 7,000 t of NU would be transferred to USEC. USEC (or successor corporation) then would select blending sites for blending 50 t of surplus HEU to LEU for use in commercial fuel. The remaining quantity of potentially commercially usable HEU (120 t) could be blended at any or all of the four sites. The LEU product would be sold for use in commercial reactor fuel. The remaining 30 t of surplus HEU would be blended to waste.
There are four variations of this alternative using different combinations of sites. They are the same as those assessed for the previous alternative. The first variation would blend all of the HEU at the two DOE sites, with the HEU split equally between them. Both ORR and SRS would blend 85 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 15 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The second variation would blend all of the HEU at the two commercial sites, with the HEU split equally between them. Both B&W and NFS would blend 85 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel, and 15 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The third variation would blend all of the HEU at all four sites, with the HEU split equally among them. Each site would blend 42.5 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel, and 7.5 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. The fourth variation would blend all of the HEU at a single site. The site would blend 170 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel and 30 t of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste.
Utilizing either the two DOE sites or the two commercial sites, this alternative would take about 15 to 17 years. Utilizing all four sites, this alternative would take about 8 years. Utilizing a single site, this alternative would take about 27 to 31 years. The blending for commercial fuel could start as early as 1997 and would continue for about 4 to 17 years, depending on whether all or one site were used. For this alternative, the time to blend the material to commercial fuel would be increased, but the overall time would be reduced because of the decreased amount of material to be blended as waste.
Candidate Sites
Four candidate sites are analyzed in the HEU EIS for disposition (using one or more of the blending alternatives) of surplus HEU. They are the Department's Y-12 Plant at ORR, SRS, and two privately owned and operated facilities, B&W and NFS. The Y-12 Plant is the storage site for most of the surplus HEU. B&W and NFS have Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses to process HEU. All of these sites are currently performing, or until recently have performed, national security activities involving HEU.
All candidate sites currently have technically viable HEU conversion and blending capabilities and could be capable of beginning, in the relatively near future, to convert surplus HEU to proliferation- resistant forms in a reasonable time consistent with the President's Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy. New sites are not considered for conversion and blending because building new blending facilities would require substantial capital investment and may not be cost- effective. New construction would pose additional impacts to the environment, although impacts from normal operations would be similar.
There are currently two sites that have both molten metal and UNH blending capabilities. These facilities are located at Y-12 and SRS. The commercial vendor sites, B&W and NFS, have only UNH blending capability at this time. Facilities at Y-12 and SRS are currently not in operation and may require upgrading before conversion and blending operations could resume. B&W and NFS hold NRC licenses for their HEU operations, including blending. Facilities at B&W are currently processing material, whereas facilities at NFS are currently inactive.
No capability currently exists for conversion of HEU to UF6 at the candidate sites; therefore, new processing equipment would need to be installed to provide capability for UF6 blending of surplus HEU. B&W and NFS are analyzed as reasonable representative sites for new UF6 conversion and blending capability because those are the only commercial sites that currently have licenses to process HEU. UF6 conversion and blending equipment could be installed in existing buildings at those facilities, and they have indicated they would consider possible installation of such equipment.
Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Y-12 Plant is located on a 1,770hectare (ha) (4,370-acre) site within the city boundaries of Oak Ridge, approximately 19 kilometers (km) (12 miles [mi]) west of Knoxville, Tennessee. ORR's Y-12 Plant is the primary location of several Defense Program missions, including maintaining nuclear weapons fabrication capabilities, storing uranium and lithium parts, dismantling nuclear weapon components, processing special nuclear materials, and providing special production support for Departmental programs. Only facilities for UNH and metal blending currently exist at the Y-12 Plant.
Molten metal blending is performed in the Building 9212 E-Wing Casting Facility. The casting facility has 12 vacuum induction furnaces, but due to use of the facility for other missions and due to routine maintenance requirements, it is assumed that 6 of the 12 furnaces with 75-percent availability would be available to perform the blending. Blending can occur at a maximum rate of 3.1 t/yr for molten metal blending of 50- percent assay HEU to 0.9-percent assay LEU with DU operating 21 shifts per week. Use of all 12 vacuum induction furnaces with 75 percent availability would double the blending capacity.
UNH blending is performed in the Building 9212-Chemical Recovery Facility. The blending process consists of feed size reduction, oxidation, nitric acid dissolution, purification, UNH blending, and drying and crystallizing. The final product is UNH crystals. Blending can occur at a rate of 5.6 t/yr for UNH blending of 50-percent assay HEU to 4-percent assay LEU, operating 21 shifts per week or 1.5 t/yr to 0.9- percent assay LEU for waste disposal. This capacity can be doubled if a second denitrator, which has been purchased by Y-12 but not yet installed, is added to the system.
Since capabilities exist at Y-12 to perform HEU blending operations, no additional facilities need to be constructed. Minor modifications to existing buildings, such as the installation of a second denitrator that has already been acquired, may be needed to increase throughput capabilities. Y-12 facilities are currently not operating in order to improve conduct of operations and must successfully complete an Operational Readiness Review based on DOE Order 5480.31. Blending operations are expected to resume in 1997.
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. SRS occupies an area of approximately 80,100 ha (198,000 acres) located 32 km (20 mi) south of Aiken, South Carolina. The primary mission was to produce strategic isotopes (Pu-239 and tritium) used in the development and production of nuclear weapons for national defense. The current mission is to store, treat, stabilize, and dispose of waste materials; manage and dispose of nuclear materials and facilities; restore the environment and manage natural resources; develop mission-supportive partnerships; and support national security and nuclear materials requirements. SRS currently has capabilities for UNH and metal blending.
SRS has the capability to blend HEU to either 4-percent LEU as UNH for commercial reactor use or to 0.9-percent LEU as waste at the F- and H- Canyons for UNH processes, and the Building 321-M Fuels Fabrication Facility for melting and casting. Minor facility upgrades, such as loading dock modifications for F- and H-Canyons to facilitate the transfer of UNH solutions, would be required to provide blending of HEU to LEU as UNH. Blending can occur at a rate of 37 t/yr for UNH blending of 50-percent assay HEU to 4-percent LEU for commercial fuel or 7.5 t/yr to 0.9-percent assay LEU for waste disposal.
The Building 321-M Fuel Fabrication Facility has been used for fabricating production reactor fuel elements. The facility's mission has now changed to processing of the remaining HEU at SRS for shipment to Y- 12 for interim storage. Some facility upgrades or internal modifications would be required to use the facility for blending of HEU to LEU for disposal as waste. Blending could occur at a rate of 7.6 t/yr for metal blending of 50-percent assay HEU to 0.9-percent assay LEU for waste disposal. All or some of the HEU at SRS could be blended down at SRS without interim storage at Y-12.
Since UNH and metal blending capabilities exist at SRS, no new construction would be anticipated for these processes. SRS also has a complete environmental, safety, and health program to process and handle HEU.
Babcock & Wilcox Site, Lynchburg, Virginia. The B&W facility is located on approximately 210 ha (520 acres) in the northeastern portion of Campbell County, approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of Lynchburg, Virginia. Only UNH blending capability exists at B&W and the facilities are located at the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. The primary mission of B&W is the recovery and purification of HEU and scrap uranium and the removal and recovery of materials generated in manufacturing waste streams to prevent environmental degradation. The capacity of B&W for recovery and purification is about 24 t/yr of HEU.
B&W is one of only two commercially licensed facilities in the United States capable of providing HEU processing services. The license includes activities associated with both the recovery and the blending of HEU. Current blending operations are for uranium in UNH form. B&W is licensed to possess up to 60,000 kilograms (kg) (132,274 pounds [lb]) of U-235 in essentially any chemical or physical form except UF6 and at any enrichment level. The total quantities of HEU and uranium oxide blendstock required for the proposed action may exceed these limits; therefore, it would be necessary to increase the licensed possession limits or to schedule and stage the receipt of these materials so that the quantity of uranium onsite would not exceed any NRC requirements.
B&W can perform the recovery and blending of HEU to LEU as UNH with existing facilities without construction of additional buildings or infrastructure; however, no capabilities exist for the blending of HEU to UF6, and interior modifications to existing B&W facilities mainly new equipment installation would be required along with NRC license renewal before this blending process could be performed.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin, Tennessee. The NFS facility is located on approximately 26 ha (63 acres) in Erwin, Tennessee, immediately northwest of the community of Banner Hill. The primary mission of NFS is the conversion of HEU into a classified product used in the fabrication of nuclear fuel. NFS also conducts research on the development of improved manufacturing techniques; recovery and purification of scrap uranium; and removal and recovery of materials generated in manufacturing waste streams to prevent environmental degradation, and it operates a chemical laboratory. The capacity of NFS for recovery and purification is about 10 t/yr of HEU at 93-percent assay. Only UNH blending capability exists at NFS, which would occur in the 200-Complex Area.
NFS is one of only two commercially licensed facilities in the United States capable of providing HEU processing services. The license includes both the recovery and blending of HEU. NFS facilities blend uranium in UNH form. NFS is licensed to possess up to 7,000 kg (15,433 lb) of U-235 in essentially any chemical or physical form and at any enrichment. The total quantities of the HEU and uranium oxide blendstock required for the proposed action could exceed these limits. An increase in licensed possession limits or careful scheduling to ensure that the quantity of uranium on site would not exceed NRC limits may be required.
New construction of facilities would not be required at NFS to blend HEU to LEU as UNH. No capabilities exist for the blending of HEU to UF6, and modifications to the interior of buildings, mainly new equipment installation, would be required before this blending process could be performed.
Environmental Impacts
The HEU EIS assesses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives under consideration for each of the potentially affected DOE and commercial blending candidate sites.
Basis for Analysis
A number of key assumptions form the basis for the analyses of impacts presented in this EIS. If these assumptions change significantly, the Department will prepare supplemental NEPA documentation as appropriate.
- The EIS analyses are based on the disposition of up to 200 t of HEU as a maximum, bounding value. This surplus amount includes the HEU that was declared surplus by the President on March 1, 1995, as well as additional HEU that may be declared surplus in the future.
- This EIS addresses surplus HEU, in various weapons-usable forms including metals and alloys, oxides and compounds, and solutions, with enrichment levels of 20 percent or greater by weight of the isotope U- 235. To assess potential environmental impacts, 50 percent has been estimated to be the average enrichment of all surplus HEU. The 50- percent estimate is based on a review of the material declared surplus (and represents a range from 20-percent to above 90-percent enrichment).
- Surplus HEU is currently located at 11 Department of Energy sites around the country (ORR, SRS, Rocky Flats, Portsmouth, Pantex, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Idaho National Environmental Laboratory, Hanford, Argonne National Laboratory-West, and Sandia National Laboratory). Most of the surplus HEU has been (or will be) moved from these sites to the Y-12 Plant for pre-storage processing and interim storage. The Y-12 Plant provides a broad spectrum of enriched uranium handling, processing, and storage capabilities that are not available at any other single Department of Energy site. Therefore, for the purposes of this EIS, it is assumed that all of the surplus HEU will originate from the Y-12 Plant. The environmental impacts of the proposed transfer of HEU to the Y-12 Plant and its storage there are analyzed in the Y-12 EA.
- Several types of domestic blendstock material could be used during blending of HEU, such as DU, NU, or LEU. LEU in UF6 form would be shipped from Y-12; SRS; Paducah, Kentucky; or Portsmouth, Ohio. DU blendstock is available in metal, oxide, and UF6 forms and may be obtained from Portsmouth; Paducah; Y-12; SRS; Hanford; or Fernald, Ohio. The NU blendstock could be purchased from domestic uranium producers or obtained from one of the same DOE sites where LEU is available. For the purposes of the EIS transportation analyses, one route (Hanford to all potential blending sites) is used as representative for all the potential shipping routes associated with both the domestic and DOE NU blendstock suppliers, because it is the longest distance.
- The Department's NTS is used as a representative waste disposal site to evaluate transportation impacts from the blending sites to a waste disposal site. If another LLW disposal facility is identified, the route-specific transportation impacts may be provided in tiered NEPA documentation, as appropriate.
- The blending operation is assumed to start as early as 1996. The annual processing rate for evaluation of environmental impacts is assumed to be 10 t/yr for blending surplus HEU to 4-percent assay LEU (available for fabricating into commercial reactor fuel); therefore, for a single site, blending to 4-percent LEU would take 20 years and for two sites it would take 10 years. The annual rate for blending surplus HEU to 0.9-percent LEU is assumed to be 2.1 t/yr for UNH and 3.1 t/yr for metal (destined for waste disposal). The assumed blending rates are based on dilution ratios for blending and reasonable judgment about anticipated blending capability and capacity, shipping capacity, DOE's ability to make the material available for blend down, and the anticipated rate at which weapons will be dismantled and the material declared surplus. Actual blending rates will be based on market conditions, blending facility capabilities and capacities, the Department's ability to make the material available, and blending contract limitations, among other things. The blending rates analyzed do not always correspond to the actual capacities of the four sites, but are reasonable rates that have been selected for analysis to facilitate comparison of impacts among the candidate sites.
- No construction of new facilities is proposed or would be required; any expanded capabilities can be accommodated through modification or addition of process equipment in existing facilities.
- B&W and NFS are analyzed for siting new UF6 capability because these are the only domestic commercial sites that have NRC licenses to process HEU. The addition of new equipment in existing facilities would be required to provide UF6 capability at those sites. UF6 blending would not be used to blend surplus HEU to waste, since the process is similar to UNH but includes additional steps. It would not be reasonable to add UF6 blending capability at DOE sites for blending to commercial fuel feed, and this alternative is not discussed in the EIS due to the capital investment required, the limited use, if any, of such capability for other DOE missions, environmental concerns that would need to be accommodated, and the limited scope of DOE's missions and responsibilities concerning enrichment and marketing of commercial reactor fuel under the Energy Policy Act.
Summary of Alternatives Analysis
The analysis of the impacts of the alternatives in Tables S-2 and S-3 is based on four particular points on the fuel/waste spectrum: 0-percent, 25-percent, 65-percent, and 85-percent fuel use. The reader could calculate a reasonable estimate of the impacts of other points on the fuel/waste spectrum by interpolating the results presented. For example, the impacts of a 75/25 fuel/waste ratio for a given set of sites would be between those presented for alternatives 4 (65/35) and 5 (85/15) for the same sites.
The impacts at particular sites could also be approximated for different combinations of sites than those analyzed below. To determine the impacts of blending a different quantity of material at a particular site than is analyzed above, the assumed quantity can be divided by the appropriate process rate (10 t/yr for blending to fuel as UF6 or UNH, 3.1 t/yr for blending to waste as metal, and 2.1 t/yr for blending to waste as UNH) to yield the time period necessary to blend that quantity at that rate. Multiplying the resultant time period by the annual impact figures for resource areas that are additive (site infrastructure, water, radiological exposure, waste management, and transportation) yields the total impacts for that quantity and site. For the remaining resources (air quality, socioeconomics, and chemical exposure) the annual impact would be the maximum of any blending process used in that blending scenario for that site.
The analyses in this section are based in part on DOE's ability to supply HEU to one or more sites at the process blending rates. If DOE is unable to supply material to multiple sites at the blending rates analyzed (e.g., 10 t/yr to all four sites), the impacts in a given year would be reduced accordingly; however, since the impacts in this section are based upon blending the entire 200 t, they would be similar to those described in the EIS, only spread over a longer time period.
Calculating the impacts that would result from the use of different process rates is less precise, as the relationships between process rates and impacts are in some cases not linear. For example, doubling the process rate for a particular process and facility would approximately double the air emissions, water usage, and waste generation, but it would not necessarily double the required workforce. Nonetheless, as the expected impacts from all alternatives during normal operations are small, a reasonable approximation of the impacts from different process rates could be obtained by assuming linear relationships.
For most resource areas, the impacts decrease as the portion of material blended for commercial use increases. This conclusion is based on the analysis of impacts from blending operations and transportation of materials only. It does not include the impacts from the endpoints: use of commercial nuclear fuel in reactors (including spent fuel), or disposal of LLW. Those impacts are or will be assessed as part of the licensing process for nuclear plants and in DOE environmental analyses concerning spent fuel and LLW disposal. (Such DOE analyses may include an EIS concerning the Yucca Mountain Site for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, the Waste Management Draft PEIS and subsequent NEPA documents, and the anticipated sitewide EIS for NTS.) However, as the use of LEU derived from HEU in reactors supplants the use of LEU from mined uranium, the proposed action involves no incremental use of nuclear fuel (or spent fuel to be disposed). In contrast, the LLW to be disposed of from HEU that is blended to waste does represent an incremental quantity of LLW that would not have been disposed of in the absence of this proposed action. This distinction, together with the avoided environmental impacts from uranium mining, milling, and enrichment, further enhances the preferability of maximizing commercial use of surplus HEU.
The analyses show some differences between the impacts of the different blending processes. For example, for blending to waste, metal blending generates considerably more process LLW than does UNH blending.
Impacts on Uranium Mining and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Industries
Potential economic impacts on the nuclear fuel cycle industries resulting from DOE's transfer of 7,000 t of NU as UF6 and blending of up to 170 t of HEU to LEU for commercial fuel feed were evaluated for all alternatives. If DOE chooses to blend down all of the HEU to 0.9 percent and discard it as waste, there would be no impact on the nuclear fuel cycle industries except for possibly the mining and milling industry. To blend HEU to 0.9 percent will require an amount of DU, that is small compared to the approximately 500,000 t of DU in DOE's inventory.
If DOE transfers 7,000 t of NU as UF6 to USEC, and blends down 50 to 170 t of HEU to LEU for fabrication into commercial reactor fuel feed, there would be some effects on the world and U.S. uranium fuel cycle industries.
The commercial use alternatives involving blending 10 t of HEU to 4- percent LEU per year could annually displace 1.6 million kg (3.5 million lb) of uranium production. If the displaced uranium production were apportioned between foreign and domestic producers according to current market share, domestic producers would experience about a 15- to 20- percent reduction in deliveries during the blending period. This could mean that domestic producers would produce about 317,515 kg (700,000 lb) less uranium oxide annually than previously estimated, and there would be a reduction of about 90 person-years in employment.
Blending surplus HEU to LEU for commercial use also would have some effects on the conversion industry. This already oversupplied sector of the nuclear fuel cycle would remain depressed for a slightly longer period of time than if the commercial use alternatives were not implemented.
Blending down HEU is less complex than the enrichment process. If HEU is blended down, less NU material would need to be enriched to reactor fuel feed. Although blending would add new jobs, there would be little impact to enrichment-related employment because the cascade operation and maintenance would need to continue.
The fuel fabrication industry would not be affected by the commercial use alternatives. The blended surplus HEU would not affect the amount of fuel that would need to be fabricated and is not expected to change the price of fabrication.
Impacts of Transferring Natural Uranium to the United States Enrichment Corporation
The proposal to transfer title to 50 t of HEU to USEC includes within it the transfer of title to 7,000 t of NU now owned by the Department. This material is in the form of UF6 and is part of a larger quantity of UF6 that is in storage at the Department's Portsmouth and Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plants, which are currently being leased to USEC for uranium enrichment operations. The NU was originally purchased by the Department to be enriched for use in nuclear weapons but is no longer needed for that purpose.
The most likely disposition of the 7,000 t of NU is eventual use as feedstock for enrichment to nuclear power plant fuel, the usual business of the enrichment plants. If it is so used, and follows the typical path of NU that is enriched for commercial use, it would probably be enriched to about 2-percent U-235 at the Paducah Plant, then transported to the Portsmouth Plant for additional enrichment to an appropriate commercial enrichment, generally about 4 percent. From there the enriched UF6 would be transported to a commercial fuel fabrication plant for conversion and fabrication of nuclear fuel. The ongoing normal operations of the enrichment plants, including transportation of materials, are covered by existing NEPA documents.
The shipment of 7,000 t of NU (0.71-percent enrichment) in the UF6 form from Paducah to the Portsmouth plant has been evaluated. The total health risk would be 0.129 fatalities for the entire 7,000 t. If the material is enriched to 2-percent LEU before transporting, the 7,000 t of NU would be reduced to 2,490 t. The total health risk would be 0.0458 fatalities for the 2,490 t. These impacts include the loading and unloading of trucks and the return of empty vehicles to the origin.
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
An environmental justice analysis was performed to assess whether the proposed action or alternatives could cause disproportionate adverse health impacts on minority and low-income populations residing in communities around the candidate sites. The analysis was conducted using a two-step process. First, a demographic analysis was performed for all of the 1990 Census tracts located within an 80-km or 50-mi radius of the candidate sites. The demographic data were also summarized for the region of influence (ROI), the area most directly affected by the proposed actions and the area where at least 90 percent of the workers reside. The second step involved performing public health impact analyses to assess whether vulnerable populations would be disproportionately affected by facility operations through routine and accidental releases of radiation and toxic emissions.
Selected demographic characteristics of the ROI for each of the four candidate sites are analyzed to show Census tracts where racial minorities or low-income populations comprise 50 percent or more (simple majority) of the total population in the Census tract, or where racial minorities or low-income populations comprise less than 50 percent, but greater than 25 percent, of the total population in the Census tract. This analysis considers any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations that could result from the alternatives being considered.
Any impacts to surrounding communities would most likely result from toxic/hazardous air pollutants and radiological emissions. Public and occupational health impacts from normal operations show that air emissions and releases are low and are within regulatory limits. The analysis also shows that cumulative effects of continuous operation over time would result in low levels of exposure to workers and the public. The public health impact analysis conducted for all alternatives estimates that the maximum additional cancer fatalities from accident- free operational activities would occur at ORR from either the blending HEU to LEU as UNH for commercial fuel or the blending of HEU to LEU as metal. Under all blending alternatives, the maximum radiation dose to the public is 2.0 millirem (mrem) annually, and the fatal cancer risk is 2.0x10-5 for 20 years for normal operations. For postulated accidents, the maximum latent cancer fatalities per accident to the maximally exposed individual of the public ranges from 7.3x10-3 to 7.3x10-1; the total campaign risk (cancer fatality probability for the total campaign) ranges from 5.6x10-6 to 6.2x10-4. The maximum latent cancer fatalities per accident for the alternatives in the population within 80 km (50 mi) ranges from 4.3 to 31; the total campaign risk ranges from 4.4x10-3 to 2.6x10-2. The probability of the severe accidents is about 10-4 per year and ranges from about 10-3 to 10-5. Given the low probability of these accidents, there would not be any disproportionate risk of significant adverse impacts to particular populations, including low-income and minority populations, from accidents. Except for SRS, the analysis of the demographics data for the communities surrounding the candidate sites indicates that even if there were high and adverse health risks to these communities, the impacts would not appear to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations.
Comparison of Alternatives
A comparison of the site-specific environmental impacts of the HEU disposition alternatives is presented in this section. The combined impacts of each alternative for the disposition of the 200 t of surplus HEU inventory, which may involve multiple technologies, sites, and end products, are summarized. The annual operational impacts of each of the blending technologies for the resources of the candidate sites are fully described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the HEU EIS.
For each alternative analyzed other than the no action alternative, there are two potential processes for blending to commercial fuel (UNH and UF6) and two potential processes for blending to waste (UNH and metal). The impacts and, in the case of blending to waste, the processing rate of the respective processes differ. In other words, the magnitude of expected impacts and the time required to complete disposition actions depend on the process selected.
Material could be blended to waste at the two DOE sites using either UNH or metal blending. Similarly, material could be blended to commercial fuel feed at the two commercial sites using either UNH or UF6 blending. To provide conservatism in the site-specific analyses below, where there is such a choice of applicable processes at a site (i.e., for blending to waste at the DOE sites and blending to commercial fuel feed at the commercial sites), the value given for each resource area is based on whichever process produces the greatest impact.
For blending to waste at DOE sites, the UNH process would produce the greatest impact in all resource areas except four. The metal process would produce the greatest impacts for liquid LLW generated, solid LLW generated, solid LLW after treatment, and transportation. Therefore, the analyses below conservatively use the metal impacts for these four resource areas and the UNH impacts for all other resource areas.
For blending to commercial fuel feed at the commercial sites, the UF6 process would produce the greatest impacts in all resource areas except three. The UNH process would produce the greatest impacts for liquid hazardous waste generated, solid nonhazardous waste after treatment, and transportation. The analyses below conservatively use the UNH impacts for these three resource areas, and the UF6 impacts for all other resource areas.
The analyses indicate that all four sites have the capacity to process material with minimal impacts to the workers, the public, or the environment during normal operations. For the two DOE sites, the generation of waste based on an increased usage of utilities represents small increases less than 5 percent over current operations. For the two commercial sites, the generation of waste based on an increased usage of utilities represents increases of over 20 percent, but both facilities have adequate capacities to accommodate the increases since neither site is currently operating at full capacity. The NFS site would require a large increase in water usage (167 percent) and fuel requirements (933 percent). This is because NFS is not currently processing material, and therefore use of these utilities (water and fuel) is currently very low. Because the quantity of water and fuel used in the past for similar operations is comparable to that used for the proposed action and in the analyses in this EIS, it is anticipated that the increase 0in these requirements can easily be accommodated at NFS.
A comparison of the incremental environmental impacts of the HEU disposition alternatives is summarized in Tables S-2 and S-3. Table S-2 compares the total campaign and maximum incremental impacts for each resource and alternative at each of the four alternative blending sites. Table S-3 presents the summary comparison of total campaign maximum incremental impacts for each alternative. In addition, impacts associated with no action are included for a baseline comparison.
Summary Comparison of Total Campaign
Incremental Environmental Impacts for the Disposition of Surplus Highly
Enriched Uranium for Each Alternative
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Alternative 2 Limited Substantial Maximum
No Commercial Use Commercial Use Commercial Use Commercial Use
0/100 Fuel/Waste 25/75 Fuel/Waste 65/35 Fuel/Waste 85/15 Fuel/Waste
Site Infrastructure
Electricity
(MWh) 476,000 482,000 492,000 496,000
Diesel/oil(l) 18,700,000 16,420,000 17,400,000 12,900,000
Natural gas(m3)1,413,000 1,166,000 936,000 644,000
Coal (t) 17,280 12,960 16,820 11,360
Steam (kg) 836,000 668,000 406,000 274,000
Air Quality and Noise
The impacts for all four alternatives would be negligible. UNH and metal
blending would be used for alternative 2 and UNH, UF6 and metal blending
would be used for alternatives 3, 4, and 5, and give similar incremental
annual emissions. The maximum incremental annual emissions for all four
alternatives would be less than 1 percent of the NAAQS standard for all
criteria pollutants.
Water Resources
Water (million l) 1,808 1,460 894 612
Wastewater 1,784 1,440 876 596
(million l)
Socioeconomics
The impacts for all four alternatives would be negligible. For
alternative 2, the UNH blending process to 0.9-percent LEU waste gives
the maximum impacts. For alternative 2, the maximum direct employment
for any of the four sites would be 125 employees and the indirect
employment would range from 245 at SRS to 319 at YÐ12. The unemployment
changes for all four sites ranges from 0.09 percent to 0.14 percent. The
only difference between alternatives 3, 4, and 5 from alternative 2 is
the maximum direct employment at B&W and NFS would be 126 since the UF6
blending process could be used.
Radiological Exposure
Involved Workers
Total dose to
involved
workforce
(person-rem) 1,076 880 566 406
Risk (cancer
fatalities
per campaign) 0.430 0.352 0.226 0.162
Maximally Exposed
Individual of Public
Dose to maximally
exposed individual
member of the
public (mrem) 3.33 3.13 7.92 6.24
Risk (cancer
fatality
per campaign) 1.67x10-6 1.57x10-6 3.96x10-6 3.12x10-6
Population Within 80 km
Dose to population
within 80 km
(person-rem) 36.6 33.3 35.5 28.5
Risk (cancer
fatalities
per campaign) 1.83x10-2 1.67x10-2 1.78x10-2 1.43x10-2
Facility Accidents
Campaign accident
frequency b 2.4x10-3 1.8x10-3 1.7x10-3 8.5x10-4
Noninvolved Workers c
Latent cancer
fatalities
per accident 226 226 226 226
Risk (cancer
fatalities
per campaign) 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.27
Maximally Exposed
Individual of
Public
Latent cancer
fatality
per accident 8.4x10-3 0.73 0.73 0.73
Risk (cancer
fatality
per campaign) 2.0x10-5 2.0x10-4 4.8x10-4 6.2x10-4
Population Within
80 km
Latent cancer
fatalities
per accident 4.3 31 31 31
Risk (cancer
fatalities
per campaign) 1.0x10-2 8.3x10-3 2.1x10-2 2.6x10-2
Chemical Exposure
The impacts for all four alternatives would be negligible. For all four
alternatives, the maximum incremental hazard index for the maximally
exposed individual (public) is 4.76x10-4 and for workers onsite is
3.13x10-4. These values are several orders of magnitude under 1.0, the
regulatory health limit. The maximum incremental cancer risk for the
maximally exposed individual (public) is 2.08x10-10 and for workers
onsite is 8.56x10-7. These values are below 1.0x10-6, the threshold of
regulatory concern. This represents an increase cancer risk of 1 in 480
billion to the public and about 1 in a million to onsite workers.
Waste Management
Low-Level
liquid (m3) 9,924 7,706 6,620 3,060
solid (m3) 20,840 16,400 13,300 6,520
Mixed Low-Level
liquid (m3) 668 1,296 2,300 2,800
solid (m3) 0 0 0 0
Hazardous
liquid (m3) 1,048 1,228 1,512 1,652
solid (m3) 0 0 0 0
Nonhazardous (sanitary)
liquid (m3) 1,712,000 1,378,000 836,000 562,000
solid (m3) 78,000 62,800 38,000 25,600
Nonhazardous (other)
liquid (m3) 72,800 60,400 40,600 30,400
solid (m3) 0 6 14 18
Solid Low-Level
(m3) d 13,382 10,510 8,760 4,240
Solid Nonhazardous
(m3) d 56,400 45,400 27,400 18,440
LEU Low-Level
(m3) e 39,160 29,440 13,780 5,860
Transportation Risk
Accident-Free
Operations
Fatalities to the
public from
radiological
effects 0.58 0.49 0.34 0.27
Fatalities to the
crew from
radiological
effects 0.44 0.37 0.26 0.20
Fatalities to the
public from
nonradiological
effects 0.055 0.046 0.034 0.027
Accidents
Fatalities to the
public from
radiological
effects f 0.0188 0.016 0.0117 0.0092
Fatalities to the
public from
nonradiological
effects 1.83 1.54 1.09 0.84
Fatalities to the
crew from
nonradiological
effects 0.51 0.43 0.30 0.23
Total Fatalities 3.43 2.89 2.04 1.57
a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending
disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Values
shown represent total impacts over the life of campaign except for
facility accidents for which maximum values are presented over the
life of the campaign.
b Values shown for facility accidents represent maximum consequences that
could possibly occur under each alternative.
c Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are
calculated by multiplying annual frequency (104) by the total number of
years of operation.
d The noninvolved workers are workers onsite but not associated with
operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated
number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR; 19,375 at SRS; 1,675
at B&W; and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an
accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation.
e Process waste after treatment.
f End product waste as a result of blending.
g The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population
for the purposes of radiological accidents.
Table SÐ2 Summary Comparison of Maximum Incremental Impacts for Each
Alternative and Candidate Site
Alternative 1: No Action
Site Infrastructure Baseline Characteristics (No Action)
Site YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS
Electricity (MWh/yr) 421,000 659,000 64,700 21,800
Electric peak load
(MWe) 62 130 14.3 3.5
Natural gas (m3/yr) 66,600,000 0 2,850,000 12,900
Diesel/oil (l/yr) 0 28,400,000 470,000 36,000
Coal (t/yr) 2,940 210,000 0 0
Steam generation
(kg/hr) 99,300 85,400 1,460 6,260
Water usage
(l/yr) 7,530,000,000 153,687,000,000 195,000,000 57,000,000
Estimated Ambient Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants From Existing
Sources at Each Candidate Site Boundary (No Action)
Most Stringent
Averaging Regulations or
Time Guidelines YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS
Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3)(mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Carbon monoxide (CO)8 hours 10,000a 5 22 4.0 1.97
1 hour 40,000a 11 171 13.1 2.52
Lead (Pb) Calendar
Quarter 1.5a 0.05 0.0004 b b
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) Annual 100a 3 5.7 3.5 0.62
Particulate matter
(PM10) Annual 50a 1 3.0 0.02 0.03
24 hours 150a 2 50.6 0.16 0.21
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2) Annual 80a 2 14.5 0.34 0.02
24 hours 365a 32 196 2.28 0.15
3 hours 1,300a 80 823 11.8 0.35
Mandated by Tennessee, South Carolina, and Virginia
Total suspended
particulates
(TSP) Annual 60c 1 12.6 0.03 d
24 hours 150c 2 d 0.22 0.21
Gaseous fluorides
(as HF) 1 month 0.8c 0.2 0.09 b, d 0.02
1 week 1.6c 0.3 0.39 b, d e
24 hours 2.9c e 1.04 b, d 0.06
12 hours 3.7c e 1.99 b, d 0.10
8 hours 250c 0.6 b, d b, d 0.11
a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard.
b No emissions from processes used at the site.
c State standard or guideline.
d No State standard.
e Data not available. Monitoring data for 24-hour and 12-hour gaseous
fluorides concentrations are not available at YÐ12. The ISCST2 code
does not calculate weekly concentrations.
Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor
monitored by the candidate sites. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include
other ORR operations.
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.2.
Socioeconomic Parameters Baseline Characteristics (No Action)
Site ORR SRS B&W NFS
Payroll (million $) 523 1,149a 80 13.2
Regional Economic Area
Employment
1995 462,800 243,800 321,400 253,800
2000 488,700 259,400 334,800 265,500
Unemployment (%)
1994 4.9 6.7 4.9 5.9
Per capita income
1995 $18,198 $17,789 $18,041 $16,814
2000 $19,200 $18,900 $18,800 $17,600
Region of Influence
Population
1995 519,300 477,600 219,900 322,600
2000 548,200 508,200 229,000 337,500
Housing units
1995 222,000 189,400 90,500 135,700
2000 234,300 201,500 94,200 142,000
Police officers
1995 792 956 358 556
2000 836 1,020 373 582
Firefighters
1995 1,120 1,363 960 1,201
2000 1,180 1,450 1,000 1,260
Students
1995 83,400 88,200 34,200 52,500
2000 88,000 93,900 35,600 54,900
Teachers
1995 5,140 5,060 2,400 2,920
2000 5,420 5,380 2,500 3,060
Hospital occupancy (%)
1995 73 66 70 61
2000 77 70 73 64
Physicians
1995 1,290 1,350 295 859
2000 1,360 1,430 307 899
a Total payroll for 1992 is based on 1990 employee wage and 1992 total
number of employees (SRS 1995a:4).
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.2.
Potential Radiological Impacts to Workers and the Public Resulting From
Normal Operations Baseline Characteristics (No Action)
Receptor ORR SRS B&W NFS
Natural background radiation
dose (mrem/yr) 295 298 329 340
Average worker (mrem/yr) 4.0 17.9 10 50
Fatal cancer risk for
20 years 3.2x10-5 1.4x10-4 8.0x10-5 4.0x10-4
Maximum worker (mrem/yr) 2,000 3,000 3,300 470a
Maximally exposed member of
public (mrem/yr) 2.0b 0.32 5.00x10-2 3.30x10-2
Fatal cancer risk for
20 years 2.0x10-5 3.2x10-6 5.0x10-7 3.3x10-7
Total worker dose
(person-rem/yr) 68 350 18 16.3
Number of fatal cancers
for 20 years 0.54 2.8 0.14 0.13
Total population dose
(person-rem/yr) 28.0 21.5 0.35 0.20
Number of fatal cancers
for 20 years 0.28 0.22 3.5x10-3 2.0x10-3
a Representative of one-half year.
b Representative of air and liquid media only; an additional 1 mrem/yr may
be incurred due to direct exposure.
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.2.
Potential Hazardous Chemical Impacts to Workers and the Public Resulting
From Normal Operations Baseline Characteristics (No Action)
Receptor ORR SRS B&W NFS
Maximally Exposed
Individual Total site a Total site a Total site a Total site a
Hazard index b 0.198 0.522 1.15x10-5 9.55x10-2
Cancer risk c 0 1.24x10-5 1.68x10-8 0
Onsite Worker
Hazard index d 0.246 0.836 4.07x10-3 7.57x10-3
Cancer risk e 0 2.27x10-3 3.94x10-5 0
a Total site includes any background emissions that would be present in
the absence of site operations plus site emissions that exist at the
present time.
b Hazard index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (noncancer
adverse health effects) for MEI.
c Cancer risk for MEI: (Emissions of Concentrations) x (0.286 [converts
concentrations to doses]) x (Slope Factor).
d Hazard index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (noncancer
adverse health effects) for workers.
e Cancer risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr.) x (0.286 [converts
concentrations to doses]) x (0.237 [Fraction of year exposed]) x (0.571
[Fraction of lifetime working]) x (Slope Factor).
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.2.
Baseline Characteristics for Annual Waste Generated (No Action)
Category ORR SRS B&W NFS
Low-Level
Liquid (m3) 2,576 76,000 50,005 18,900
Solid (m3) 8,030 23,800 620 850
Mixed Low-Level
Liquid (m3) 84,210 1,040 0 <1
Solid 690 28 14 <1 Hazardous Liquid (m3) 32,640 Included in solid 55,115 <1 Solid (m3) 1,434 88 0 <1 Nonhazardous Liquid (m3) 1,3288,000 700,000 64,970 56,700 Solid (m3) 52,730 85,300 3,060 2,300 Derived from tables in Section 4.2.
Table SÐ2 Summary Comparison of Maximum Incremental Impacts for Each
Alternative and Candidate Site
Alternative 2: No Commercial Use (0/100 Fuel/Waste Ratio)
Total Campaigna Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using All Four
Sites (200 t to waste)
Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total
Electricity (MWh) 119,000 119,000 119,000 119,000 476,000
Diesel/oil (l) 1,350,000 1,350,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 18,700,000
Natural gas (m3) 471,000 0 b 471,000 471,000 1,413,000
Coal (t) 8,640 8,640 0 c 0 c 17,280
Steam (kg) 209,000 209,000 209,000 209,000 836,000
a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending
disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Annual
values are presented in Section 2.2.2.
b Natural gas is not available at SRS; therefore, liquid petroleum gas
(approximately 671,000 l) would be substituted for a natural gas
requirement of 471,000 m3.
c Fuel oil is considered the primary fuel at B&W and NFS; therefore,
blending facility coal requirements have been converted to a fuel oil
energy equivalent. Fuel oil energy content is assumed to be 40,128
BTUs/l, and the coal energy content is assumed to be 30.9 million BTUs/t.
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3.
Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to
waste)
Most Stringent
Regulation or
Averaging Time Guidelines YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS
Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)(mg/m3)
Carbon monoxide
(CO) 8 hours 10,000a 11.5 0.01 5.22 0.60
1 hour 40,000a 53.0 0.01 16.96 0.77
Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 a b b b b
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) Annual 100a 1.33 0.01 0.10 0.02
Particulate matter
(PM10) Annual 50a 0.03 <0.01 0.02 <0.01
24 hours 150a 0.37 <0.01 0.16 0.02 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80a 2.46 0.02 0.27 0.04 24 hours 365a 29.3 0.32 1.82 0.27 3 hours 1,300a 161 0.71 9.41 0.64 Mandated by South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60c d 0.05 0.02 d 24 hours 150c 80.16 d 0.16 0.02 Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 0.8c b b b, d b 1 week 1.6c b b b, d b 24 hours 2.9c b b b, d b 12 hours 3.7c b b b, d b 8 hours 250c b b, d b, d b a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No emissions from UNH and metal blending process. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate sites. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include other ORR operations. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Resource YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Water (million l) 452 452 452 452 1,808 Wastewater (million l)a 446 446 446 446 1,784 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Direct employment 125 125 125 125 Indirect employment 319 245 283 251 Total jobs 444 370 408 376 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Involved Workers Total dose to involved workforce a (person-rem) 269 269 269 269 1,076 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.430 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed individual member of the public (mrem) 0.928 5.95x10-2 4.52x10-2 3.33 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 4.64x10-7 2.98x10-8 2.26x10-8 1.67x10-6 NA b Population Within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmca (person-rem) 3.81 3.81 0.405 28.6 36.6 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 1.91x10-3 1.91x10-3 2.03x10-4 1.43x10-2 1.83x10-2 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending and 72 for metal blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI cannot be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site-specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W, and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Campaign accident frequency 2.4x10-3 2.4x10-3 2.4x10-3 2.4x10-3 Noninvolved Workers Latent cancer fatalities per accident 84 226 0.72 2.2 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 0.20 0.53 1.7x10-3 5.3x10-3 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 4.3x10-3 1.1x10-4 1.7x10-4 8.4x10-3 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 1.0x10-5 2.6x10-7 4.1x10-7 2.0x10-5 Population Within 80 km Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.8 4.3 5.6x10-2 0.45 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 9.0x10-3 1.0x10-2 1.3x10-4 1.1x10-3 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 50 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at each site). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers onsite but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR, 19,375 at SRS, 1,675 at B&W, and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W; and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) YÐ12 a SRS a B&W a NFS a Maximally Exposed Individual (Public) b Hazard index c 7.70x10-5 8.50x10-6 3.85x10-7 5.60x10-4 Cancer risk d 4.76x10-15 5.17x10-16 2.33x10-17 1.25x10-15 Onsite Worker Hazard index e 3.13x10-4 2.47x10-4 1.43x10-4 1.95x10-4 Cancer risk f 4.76x10-15 1.65x10-13 9.58x10-13 4.82x10-15 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed]) x(0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(Slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Waste a YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 4,510 4,510 452 452 9,924 solid (m3) 8,780 8,780 1,640 1,640 20,840 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 167 167 167 167 668 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 262 262 262 262 1,048 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 428,000 428,000 428,000 428,000 1,712,000 solid (m3) 19,500 19,500 19,500 19,500 78,000 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 18,200 18,200 18,200 18,200 72,800 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Solid Low-Level (m3)b 5,810 5,810 881 881 13,382 Solid Nonhazardous (m3)b 14,100 14,100 14,100 14,100 56,400 LEU Low-Level (m3)b 9,820 9,820 9,760 9,760 39,160 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process which produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (200 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.58 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.44 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.011 0.015 0.017 0.012 0.055 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.0043 0.0048 0.0050 0.0048 0.0188 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.40 0.48 0.50 0.45 1.83 Fatalities to the crew from nonradiological effects 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.5 Total Fatalities 0.77 0.90 0.93 0.84 3.43 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G. Table SÐ2 Summary Comparison of Maximum Incremental Impacts for Each Alternativbe and Candidate Site Alternative 3: Limited Commercial Use (25/75 Fuel/Waste Ratio) Total Campaigna Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Electricity (MWh) 89,000 89,000 152,000 152,000 482,000 Diesel/oil (l) 1,010,000 1,010,000 7,200,000 7,200,000 16,420,000 Natural gas (m3) 354,000 0 b 406,000 406,000 1,166,000 Coal (t) 6,480 6,480 0 c 0 c 12,960 Steam (kg) 156,000 156,000 178,000 178,000 668,000 a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Annual values are presented in Section 2.2.2. b Natural gas is not available at SRS; therefore, liquid petroleum gas (approximately 504,000 l) would be substituted for a natural gas requirement of 354,000 m3. c Fuel oil is considered the primary fuel at B&W and NFS; therefore, blending facility coal requirements have been converted to a fuel oil energy equivalent. Fuel oil energy content is assumed to be 40,128 BTUs/l, and the coal energy content is assumed to be 30.9 million BTUs/t. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Most Stringent Regulation or Averaging Time Guidelines YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hours 10,000 a 11.5 0.01 5.43 0.62 1 hour 40,000 a 53.0 0.01 17.63 0.80 Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 a b b b b Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 a 1.33 0.01 0.14 0.03 Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 a 0.03 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 24 hours 150 a 0.37 <0.01 0.19 0.03 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 2.46 0.02 0.40 0.05 24 hours 365 a 29.3 0.32 2.74 0.40 3 hours 1,300 a 161 0.71 14.11 0.96 Mandated by South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 c d 0.05 0.03 d 4 hours 150 c 80.16 d 0.19 0.03 Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 0.8 c b b trace d,e trace e 1 week 1.6 c b b trace d,e trace e 24 hours 2.9 c b b trace d,e trace e 12 hours 3.7 c b b trace d,e trace e 8 hours 250 c b b, d trace d,e trace e a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No lead emissions from any of the blending processes and no gaseous fluoride emissions from UNH and metal processes. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. e Hydrofluorination is anticipated to be a closed system with a scrubber filter exhaust system. Therefore, emission of gaseous fluorides is estimated to be a trace amount. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate site. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include other ORR operations. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50Ê t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Resource YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Water (million l) 340 340 390 390 1,460 Wastewater (million l)a 336 336 384 384 1,440 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Direct employment 125 125 126 126 Indirect employment 319 245 285 253 Total jobs 444 370 411 379 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites(50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Involved Workers Total dose to involved workforce a (person-rem) 202 202 238 238 880 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 8.08x10-2 8.08x10-2 9.52x10-2 9.52x10-2 0.352 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed individual member of the public (mrem) 0.698 4.48x10-2 4.27x10-2 3.13 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 3.49x10-7 2.24x10-8 2.14x10-8 1.57x10-6 NA b Population Within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmc (person-rem) 2.86 2.86 0.384 27.2 33.3 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 1.43x10-3 1.43x10-3 1.92x10-4 1.36x10-2 1.67x10-2 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending, 126 for UF6 blending, and 72 for metal blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI cannot be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site-specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W; and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 to waste)a Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Campaign accident frequency b 1.8x10-3 1.8x10-3 1.8x10-3 1.8x10-3 Noninvolved Workers c Latent cancer fatalities per accident 84 226 58 190 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 0.20 0.53 1.5x10-2 5.1x10-2 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 4.3x10-3 1.1x10-4 6.9x10-3 0.73 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 7.7x10-6 2.0x10-7 2.0x10-6 2.0x10-4 Population Within 80 km d Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.8 4.3 3.4 31 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 6.8x10-3 7.6x10-3 9.5x10-4 8.3x10-3 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 25 t HEU to 4percent LEU as UF6 fuel and 37.5 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at B&W and NFS, and 37.5 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at YÐ12 and SRS). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers onsite but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR, 19,375 at SRS, 1,675 at B&W, and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12, 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W; and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 a SRS a B&W a NFS a Maximally Exposed Individual (Public) b Hazard index c 5.69x10-5 6.13x10-6 2.89x10-7 4.20x10-4 Cancer risk d 1.52x10-15 1.69x10-16 2.86x10-10 1.80x10-15 Onsite Worker Hazard index e 2.29x10-4 1.80x10-4 1.07x10-4 1.46x10-4 Cancer risk f 6.87x10-14 5.41x10-14 5.39x10-14 2.72x10-15 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for Workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed])x (0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Waste a YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 3,390 3,390 463 463 7,706 solid (m3) 6,600 6,600 1,600 1,600 16,400 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 125 125 523 523 1,296 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 197 197 417 417 1,228 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 322,000 322,000 367,000 367,000 1,378,000 solid (m3) 14,700 14,700 16,700 16,700 62,800 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 13,700 13,700 16,500 16,500 60,400 solid (m3) 0 0 3 3 6 Solid Low-Level (m3) b 4,370 4,370 885 88 10,510 Solid Nonhazardous (m3) b 10,600 10,600 12,100 12,100 45,400 LEU Low-Level (m3) c 7,380 7,380 7,340 7,340 29,440 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process that produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (50 t to fuel and 150 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.49 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.37 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.008 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.046 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effects a 0.0032 0.0036 0.0047 0.0045 0.016 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.30 0.36 0.46 0.42 1.54 Fatalities to the crew from nonradiological effects 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.43 Total Fatalities 0.58 0.67 0.85 0.78 2.89 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G.
Table SÐ2 Summary Comparison of Maximum Incremental Impacts for Each
Alternative and Candidate Site
Variation c) All Four Sites
Total Campaigna Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using All Four
Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste)
Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total
Electricity (MWh) 54,700 54,700 123,000 123,000 355,400
Diesel/oil (l) 658,000 658,000 4,360,000 4,360,000 10,036,000
Natural gas (m3) 220,000 0 b 234,000 234,000 688,000
Coal (t) 4,210 4,210 0 c 0 c 8,420
Steam (kg) 101,000 101,000 101,000 101,000 404,000
a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending
disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Annual
values are presented in Section 2.2.2.
b Natural gas is not available at SRS; therefore liquid petroleum gas
(approximately 313,000 l) would be substituted for a natural gas
requirement of 220,000 m3.
c Fuel oil is considered the primary fuel at B&W and NFS; therefore,
blending facility coal requirements have been converted to a fuel oil
energy equivalent. Fuel oil energy content is assumed to be 40,128
BTUs/l, and the coal energy content is assumed to be 30.9 million BTUs/t.
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3.
Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to
fuel and 70 t to waste)
Most Stringent
Regulation or
Averaging Time Guidelines YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS
Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Carbon monoxide
(CO) 8 hours 10,000 a 11.5 0.01 5.43 0.62
1 hour 40,000 a 53.0 0.01 17.63 0.80
Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5 a b b b b
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) Annual 100 a 1.33 0.01 0.14 0.03
Particulate matter
(PM10) Annual 50 a 0.03 <0.01 0.03 <0.01
24 hours 150 a 0.37 <0.01 0.19 0.03 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 2.46 0.02 0.40 0.05 24 hours 365 a 29.3 0.32 2.74 0.40 3 hours 1,300 a 161 0.71 14.11 0.96 Mandated by South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 c d 0.05 0.03 d 24 hours 150 c 80.16 d 0.19 0.03 Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 0.8 c b b trace d,e trace e 1 week 1.6 c b b trace d,e trace e 24 hours 2.9 c b b trace d,e trace e 12 hours 3.7 c b b trace d,e trace e 8 hours 250 c b b,d trace d,e trace e a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No lead emissions from any of the blending processes and no gaseous fluorides from UNH and metal blending processes. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. e Hydrofluorination is anticipated to be a closed system with scrubber filter exhaust system. Therefore, emission of gaseous fluorides is estimated to be a trace amount. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate sites. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include other ORR operations. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Resource YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Water (million l) 220 220 224 224 888 Wastewater (million l)a 218 218 219 219 874 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. b Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Direct employment 125 125 126 126 Indirect employment 319 245 285 253 Total jobs 444 370 411 379 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Involved Workers Total dose to involved workforce a (person-rem) 131 131 141 141 544 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 5.24x10-2 5.24x10-2 5.65x10-2 5.65x10-2 0.218 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed individual member of the public (mrem) 0.452 2.90x10-2 2.73x10-2 1.98 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 2.26x10-7 1.45x10-8 1.37x10-8 9.94x10-7 NA b Population Within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmc (person-rem) 1.86 1.86 0.246 17.5 21.5 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 9.30x10-4 9.30x10-4 1.24x10-4 8.80x10-3 1.08x10-2 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending, 126 for UF6 blending, and 72 for metal blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI can not be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W, and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130t to fuel and 70 t to waste) a Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Campaign accident frequency b 8.3x10-3 8.3x10-3 8.3x10-3 8.3x10-3 Noninvolved Workers c Latent cancer fatalities per accident 84 226 58 190 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 8.7x10-2 0.23 1.9x10-2 6.3x10-2 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 4.3x10-3 1.1x10-4 6.9x10-3 0.73 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 4.6x10-6 1.1x10-7 2.3x10-6 2.4x10-4 Population Within 80 km d Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.8 4.3 3.4 31 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 3.8x10-3 1.6x10-4 1.1x10-3 1.0x10-2 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 32.5 t HEU to 4percent LEU as UFH fuel and 17.5 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at YÐ12 and SRS, and 32.5 t HEU to 4percent LEU as UF6 fuel and 17.5 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU and UNH waste at B&W and NFS). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers onsite but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR, 19,375 at SRS, 1,675 at B&W, and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W, and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 a SRS a B&W a NFS a Maximally Exposed Individual (Public) b Hazard index c 6.52x10-5 7.25x10-6 3.27x10-7 4.76x10-4 Cancer risk d 5.47x10-16 6.08x10-17 2.74x10-18 1.47x10-16 Onsite Worker Hazard index e 2.65x10-4 2.09x10-4 1.21x10-4 1.66x10-4 Cancer risk f 2.48x10-14 1.95x10-14 1.22x10-14 5.68x10-16 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for Workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed])x (0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Waste a YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 1,640 1,640 319 319 3,918 solid (m3) 3,300 3,300 1,050 1,050 8,700 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 210 210 583 583 1,586 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 382 382 382 382 1,528 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 209,000 209,000 209,000 209,000 836,000 solid (m3) 9,510 9,510 9,510 9,510 38,040 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 8,870 8,870 10,100 10,100 37,940 solid (m3) 0 0 3 3 6 Solid Low-Level (m3) b 2,170 2,170 601 601 5,542 Solid Nonhazardous (m3) b 6,860 6,860 6,860 6,860 27,440 LEU Low-Level (m3) c 3,420 3,420 3,400 3,400 13,640 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process which produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Impacts Using All Four Sites (130 t to fuel and 70 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.34 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.24 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.033 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effects a 0.0026 0.0029 0.003 0.0028 0.0113 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.26 1.06 Fatalities to the crew from nonradiological effects 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.30 Total Fatalities 0.45 0.52 0.53 0.49 1.99 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G. Variation d) Single Site The incremental impacts of blending all surplus HEU to LEU at a single DOE site are the same as either the total or maximum impacts presented in Variation a. Blending all at a single commercial site can be obtained from Variation b. The only exception is the normal operations dose and risk to the maximally exposed individual of the public. The dose to the maximally exposed individual for YÐ12, SRS, B&W, and NFS are 1.81, 0.116, 0.109, and 7.92 mrem, respectively. The risk of cancer fatalities per campaign for YÐ12, SRS, B&W, and NFS are 9.06x10-7, 5.80x10-8, 5.46x10-8, and 3.96x10-6, respectively. Table SÐ2 Summary Comparison of Maximum Incremental Impacts for Each Alternative and Candidate Site Alternative 5: Maximum Commercial Use (85/15 Fuel/Waste Ratio) Variation a) Two Department of Energy Sites Total Campaigna Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS Total Electricity (MWh) 69,700 69,700 139,400 Diesel/oil (l) 889,000 889,000 1,778,000 Natural gas (m3) 286,000 0 b 286,000 Coal (t) 5,680 5,680 11,360 Steam (kg) 137,000 137,000 274,000 a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Annual values are presented in Section 2.2.2. b Natural gas is not available at SRS; therefore, liquid petroleum gas (approximately 407,000 l) would be substituted for a natural gas requirement of 286,000 m3. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Most Stringent Regulation Averaging Time or Guidelines YÐ12 SRS Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hours 10,000 a 11.5 0.01 1 hour 40,000 a 53.0 0.01 Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5 a b b Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 a 1.33 0.01 Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 a 0.03 <0.01 24 hours 150 a 0.037 <0.01 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 2.46 0.02 24 hours 365 a 29.3 0.32 3 hours 1,300 a 161 0.71 Mandated by South Carolina and Tennessee Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 c d 0.05 24 hours 150 c 80.16 d Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 0.8 c b b 1 week 1.6 c b b 24 hours 2.9 c b b 12 hours 3.7 c b b 8 hours 250 c b b, d a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No lead emissions from any of the blending processes and no gaseous fluoride emissions from UNH and metal blending processes. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate sites. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include other ORR operations. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Resource YÐ12 SRS Total Water (million l) 297 297 594 Wastewater (million l) a 293 293 586 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS Direct employment 125 125 Indirect employment 319 245 Total jobs 444 370 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.09 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS Total Involved Workers Total dose to involved workforcea (person-rem) 176 176 352 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 7.05x10-2 7.05x10-2 0.141 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed individual member of the public (mrem) 0.608 3.90x10-2 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 3.04x10-7 1.95x10-8 NA b Population Within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmc (person-rem) 2.50 2.50 5.00 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 1.25x10-3 1.25x1 2.50x10-3 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending and 72 for metal blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI cannot be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site-specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12 and 710,000 for SRS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste)a Receptor YÐ12 SRS Campaign accident frequencyb 8.5x10-4 8.5x10-4 Noninvolved Workersc Latent cancer fatalities per accident 84 226 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 0.11 0.27 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 4.3x10-3 1.1x10-4 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 5.6x10-6 1.2x10-7 Population Within 80 kmd Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.8 4.3 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 4.2x10-3 4.4x10-3 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 85 t HEU to 4 percent as UNH fuel and 15 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at each site). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers on site but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR and 19,375 at SRS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12 and 710,000 for SRS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12a SRSa Maximally Exposed Individual (Public)b Hazard indexc 6.55x10-5 7.23x10-6 Cancer riskd 4.05x10-15 4.39x10-16 Worker Onsite Hazard indexe 2.66x10-4 2.10x10-4 Cancer riskf 1.79x10-1 1.40x10-13 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for Workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed])x (0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Waste a YÐ12 SRS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 1,530 1,530 3,060 solid (m3) 3,260 3,260 6,520 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 441 441 882 solid (m3) 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 826 826 1,652 solid (m3) 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 281,000 281,000 561,000 solid (m3) 12,800 12,800 25,600 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 12,000 12,000 24,000 solid (m3) 0 0 0 Solid Low-Level (m3)b 2,120 2,120 4,240 Solid Nonhazardous (m3)b 9,220 9,220 18,440 LEU Low-Level (m3)c 2,930 2,930 5,860 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process that produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Incremental Impacts Using Two Department of Energy Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.12 0.14 0.26 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.08 0.08 0.17 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.011 0.014 0.025 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effects a 0.0041 0.0047 0.0087 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.38 0.43 0.81 Fatalities to the crew from nonradiological effects 0.11 0.12 0.23 Total Fatalities 0.70 0.79 1.49 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G. Variation b) Two Commercial Sites Total Campaign Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Characteristic B&W NFS Total Electricity (MWh) 248,000 248,000 496,000 Diesel/oil (l) 6,450,000 6,450,000 12,900,000 Natural gas (m3) 322,000 322,000 644,000 Coal (t) 0 a 0 a 0 Steam (kg) 137,000 137,000 274,000 a Fuel oil is considered the primary fuel at B&W and NFS; therefore, blending facility coal requirements have been converted to a fuel oil energy equivalent. Fuel oil content is assumed to be 40,128 BTUs/l, and the coal energy content is assumed to be 30.9 million BTUs/t. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Most Stringent Regulation Averaging Time or Guidelines B&W NFS Pollutant (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hours 10,000 a 5.43 0.62 1 hour 40,000 a 17.63 0.80 Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter 1.5 a b b Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 a 0.14 0.03 Particulate matter (PM10) Annual 50 a 0.03 <0.01 24 hours 150 a 0.19 0.03 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 0.40 0.05 24 hours 365 a 2.74 0.40 3 hours 1,300 a 14.11 0.96 Mandated by Tennessee and Virginia Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 c 0.03 d 24 hours 150 c 0.19 0.03 Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 1.2 c trace d, e trace e 1 week 1.6 c trace d, e trace e 24 hours 2.9 c trace d, e trace e 12 hours 3.7 c trace d, e trace e 8 hours 250 c trace d, e trace e a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No emissions from UF6 and UNH blending process. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. e Hydrofluorination is anticipated to be a closed system with scrubber filter exhaust system. Therefore, emission of gaseous fluoride is estimated to be a trace amount. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate sites. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Resources B&W NFS Total Water (million l) 306 306 612 Wastewater (million l)a 296 296 592 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Characteristic B&W NFS Direct employment 126 126 Indirect employment 285 253 Total jobs 411 379 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.12 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor B&W NFS Total Involved Worker Total dose to involved workforcea (person-rem) 203 203 406 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign 8.12x10-2 8.12x10-2 0.162 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed individual member of the public (mrem) 4.32x10-2 3.12 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 2.16x10-8 1.56x10-6 NA b Population Within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmc (person-rem) 0.393 28.1 28.5 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 1.97x10-4 1.41x10-2 1.43x10-2 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending and 126 for UF6 blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI cannot be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site-specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 730,000 for B&W and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts for Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste)a Receptor B&W NFS Campaign accident frequency b 8.5x10-4 8.5x10-4 Noninvolved Workers c Latent cancer fatalities per accident 58 190 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 4.9x10-2 0.16 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 6.9x10-3 0.73 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 5.8x10-6 6.2x10-4 Population Within 80 kmd Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.5 31 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 2.9x10-3 2.6x10-2 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 85 t HEU to 4 percent as UF6 fuel and 15 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at each site). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers on site but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 1,675 at B&W, and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 730,000 for B&W and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor B&W a NFS a Maximally Exposed Individual (Public) Hazard index c 2.50x10-7 3.64x10-4 Cancer risk d 9.46x10-18 5.59x10-17 Onsite Worker Hazard index e 9.26x10-5 1.27x10-4 Cancer risk f 2.21x10-14 1.12x10-15 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed]) (0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Waste a B&W NFS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 551 551 1,102 solid (m3) 1,720 1,720 3,440 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 1,400 1,400 2,800 solid (m3) 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 826 826 1,652 solid (m3) 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 281,000 281,000 562,000 solid (m3) 12,800 12,800 25,600 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 15,200 15,200 30,400 solid (m3) 9 9 18 Solid Low-Level (m3) b 1,020 1,020 2,040 Solid Nonhazardous (m3) b 9,220 9,220 18,440 LEU Low-Level (m3) c 2,910 2,910 5,820 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process that produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Incremental Impacts Using Two Commercial Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor B&W NFS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.14 0.13 0.27 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.10 0.10 0.20 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.015 0.012 0.027 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effectsa 0.0048 0.0044 0.0092 Fatalities to the public from nonradiological effects 0.43 0.41 0.84 Fatalities to the crew from nonradiological effects 0.12 0.11 0.23 Total Fatalities 0.81 0.76 1.57 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G.
Variation c) All Four Sites
Total Campaigna Site Infrastructure Incremental Impacts Using All Four
Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste)
Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total
Electricity (MWh) 34,900 34,900 124,000 124,000 317,800
Diesel/oil (l) 444,500 444,500 3,230,000 3,230,000 7,349,000
Natural gas (m3) 143,000 0 b 161,000 161,000 465,000
Coal (t) 2,840 2,840 0 c 0 c 5,680
Steam (kg) 68,500 68,500 68,500 68,500 274,000
a Total campaign refers to the time required to complete blending
disposition actions evaluated for alternatives 2 through 5. Annual
values are presented in Section 2.2.2.
b Natural gas is not available at SRS; therefore, liquid petroleum gas
(approximately 204,000 l) would be substituted for a natural gas
requirement of 143,000 m3.
c Fuel oil is considered the primary fuel at B&W and NFS; therefore,
blending facility coal requirements have been converted to fuel oil
energy equivalent. Fuel oil energy content is assumed to be 40,128
BTUs/l, and the coal energy content is assumed to be 30.9 million BTUs/t.
Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3.
Maximum Air Quality Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to
fuel and 30 t to waste)
Most Stringent
Regulation or
Averaging Guidelines YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS
Pollutant Time (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)(mg/m3)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hours 10,000 a 11.5 0.01 5.43 0.62
1 hour 40,000 a 53.0 0.01 17.63 0.80
Lead (Pb) Calendar qtr. 1.5 a b b b b
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 a 1.33 0.01 0.14 0.03
Particulate matter
(PM10) Annual 50 a 0.03 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 24 hours 150 a 0.37 <0.01 0.19 0.03 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 80 a 2.46 0.02 0.4 0.05 24 hours 365 a 29.3 0.32 2.74 0.40 3 hours 1,300 a 161 0.71 14.11 0.96 Mandated by South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 60 c d 0.05 0.03 d 24 hours 150 c 80.16 d 0.19 0.03 Gaseous fluorides (as HF) 1 month 0.8 c b b trace d,e trace e 1 week 1.6 c b b trace d,e trace e 24 hours 2.9 c b b trace d,e trace e 12 hours 3.7 c b b trace d,e trace e 8 hours 250 c b b,d trace d,e trace e
a Federal standard is the most restrictive standard. b No lead emissions from any of the blending processes and no gaseous fluoride emissions from UNH and metal blending processes. c State standard or guideline. d No State standard. e Hydrofluorination is anticipated to be a closed system with scrubber filter exhaust system. Therefore, emission of gaseous fluorides is estimated to be a trace amount. Note: Ozone, as a criteria pollutant, is not directly emitted nor monitored by the candidate sites. Concentrations shown for YÐ12 include other ORR operations. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Water Resources Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Resource YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Water (million l) 149 149 153 153 604 Wastewater (million l)a 148 148 150 150 596 a Includes sanitary and nonhazardous, nonradioactive (other) liquid discharges after treatment. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Socioeconomic Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Characteristic YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Direct employment 125 125 126 126 Indirect employment 319 245 285 253 Total jobs 444 370 411 379 Unemployment rate change (percent) 0.09 0.14 0.0012 0.14 Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Normal Operations Radiological Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Involved Worker Total dose to involved workforcea (person-rem) 89 89 103 103 384 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 3.56x10-2 3.56x10-2 4.12x10-2 4.12x10-2 0.154 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Dose to maximally exposed per campaign) of the public (mrem) 0.308 1.98x10-2 2.19x10-2 1.58 NA b Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 1.54x10-7 9.90x10-9 1.10x10-8 7.90x10-7 NA b Population within 80 km Dose to population within 80 kmc (person-rem) 1.26 1.26 0.199 14.2 16.9 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 6.30x10-4 6.30x10-4 9.95x10-5 7.10x10-3 8.45x10-3 a The involved workforce is 125 for UNH blending, 126 for UF6 blending, and 72 for metal blending. b The dose and the latent cancer fatality for the MEI cannot be totaled since they are based on maximum exposure to an individual at each site using site-specific information. c The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W; and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Facility Accidents Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170Ê t to fuel and 30Ê t to waste)a Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Campaign accident frequency b 4.3x10-4 4.3x10-4 4.3x10-4 4.3x10-4 Noninvolved Workers c Latent cancer fatalities per accident 84 226 58 190 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 5.3x10-2 0.13 2.4x10-2 8.1x10-2 Maximally Exposed Individual of Public Latent cancer fatality per accident 4.3x10-3 1.1x10-4 6.9x10-3 0.73 Risk (cancer fatality per campaign) 2.8x10-6 6.1x10-8 2.9x10-6 3.1x10-4 Population Within 80 km d Latent cancer fatalities per accident 3.8 4.3 3.4 31 Risk (cancer fatalities per campaign) 2.2x10-3 2.1x10-4 1.4x10-3 1.3x10-2 a The risk values for this alternative are based on the most conservative combination of the options within the alternative (i.e., blending 42.5 t HEU to 4percent LEU as UNH fuel and 7.5 t HEU to 0.9percent LEU as UNH waste at YÐ12 and SRS, and 42.5 t HEU to 4percent LEU as UF6 fuel and 7.5 t HEU to 0.9-percent LEU as UNH waste at B&W and NFS). b Values shown represent probability for the life of campaign which are calculated by multiplying annual frequency (10-4) by the total number of years of operation. c The noninvolved workers are workers on site but not associated with operations of the blending and conversion facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers is 16,875 at ORR, 19,375 at SRS, 1,675 at B&W, and 325 at NFS. Involved workers, those that are near an accident, will be exposed to lethal doses of radiation. d The population within 80 km in the year 2010 is 1,040,000 for YÐ12; 710,000 for SRS; 730,000 for B&W, and 1,260,000 for NFS. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Maximum Chemical Exposure Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 a SRS B&W a NFS a Maximally Exposed Individual (Public) b Hazard index 6.50x10-5 7.25x10-6 3.21x10-7 4.76x10-4 Cancer risk d 2.47x10-15 2.74x10-16 2.89x10-17 1.92x10-16 Worker Onsite Hazard index e 2.66x10-4 3.70x10-4 1.65x10-4 1.66x10-4 Cancer risk f 6.38x10-14 5.02x10-14 2.17x10-15 7.41x10-16 a Incremental: Impacts due to the activity alone. b MEI: Maximally exposed individual of the public. c Hazard Index for MEI: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for MEI. d Cancer Risk for MEI: (Emissions Concentrations)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(slope factor). e Hazard Index for Workers: Sum of Individual Hazard Quotients (Noncancer adverse health effects) for Workers. f Cancer Risk for Workers: (Emissions for 8-hr)x(0.286 [converts concentrations to doses])x(0.237 [fraction of year exposed])x (0.571 [fraction of lifetime working])x(slope factor). Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Waste Generation Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Waste a YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Low-Level liquid (m3) 767 767 279 279 2,092 solid (m3) 1,640 1,640 872 872 5,024 Mixed Low-Level liquid (m3) 223 223 709 709 1,864 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous liquid (m3) 418 418 418 418 1,672 solid (m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Nonhazardous (sanitary) liquid (m3) 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 568,000 solid (m3) 6,480 6,480 6,480 6,480 25,920 Nonhazardous (other) liquid (m3) 6,060 6,060 7,710 7,710 27,540 solid (m3) 0 0 4 4 8 Solid Low-Level (m3)b 1,060 1,060 516 516 3,152 Solid Nonhaz (m3) b 4,670 4,670 4,670 4,670 18,680 LEU Low-Level (m3) c 1,480 1,480 1,480 1,480 5,920 a Waste volumes are based on the blending process that produces the highest volume for each category. b Process waste after treatment. c End product waste as a result of blending. Source: Derived from tables in Section 4.3. Total Campaign Transportation Risk Incremental Impacts Using All Four Sites (170 t to fuel and 30 t to waste) Receptor YÐ12 SRS B&W NFS Total Accident-Free Operations Fatalities to the public from radiological effects 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.27 Fatalities to the crew from radiological effects 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.18 Fatalities to the public from non- radiological effects 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.02 Accidents Fatalities to the public from radiological effectsa 0.0021 0.0024 0.0024 0.0022 0.0091 Fatalities to the public from non- radiological effects 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.83 Fatalities to the crew from non- radiological effects 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.23 Total Fatalities 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.39 1.55 a The transportation crew and the public are considered as one population for the purposes of radiological accidents. Source: Derived from tables in Appendix G. Variation d) Single Site The incremental impacts of blending all surplus HEU to LEU at a single DOE site are the same as either the total or maximum impacts presented in Variation a. Blending all at a single commercial site can be obtained from Variation b. The only exception is the normal operations dose and risk to the maximally exposed individual of the public. The dose to the maximally exposed individual for YÐ12, SRS, B&W, and NFS are 1.22, 0.078, 0.0864, and 6.24 mrem, respectively. The risk of cancer fatalities per campaign for YÐ12, SRS, B&W, and NFS are 6.08x10-7, 3.9x10-8, 4.32x10-8, 3.12x10-6, respectively.