-----, -------- ---- ,--, -- - - - 1 DOE/EIS-0014 FILE' Final Environmental ImPactStatement Mound Facility Miamisburg, Ohio u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY June 1979 - --- ---- --- Ava i1 ab 1 e from: National Technical Information Service ( NTIS ) u.s. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy: $9.00 Microfiche: $9.00 DOE/EIS-0014 DOE/EIS-0014 UC-2, 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Mound Facility Miamisburg, Ohio Responsible Official u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, D.C. 20545 � (, Assistant.� Secretary Ruth for Environment C. Clusen bt£ June 1979 FOREWORD This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA 42 U.S.C. 4231) by the U. S. Departme nt of Energy (DOE ) to assess the environmental implications of its continuing and future programs at the Mound Facility (forme rly de signated Mound Laboratory), located in Miamisburg , Oh io . Mound Faci lity is operated by Monsanto Re search Corporation under contract to the DOE . The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued revised Guidelines for the Prepara­ tion of Environmental Impact Statements (40 CFR 1500 , FR Vo l. 38, No . 147) on August 1, 1973 , which required all Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of ongoing programs that were initiated prior to the promulgation of NEPA . In compliance with CEQ guidelines , the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA , who se functions were ab sorbed by the DOE on October 1, 1977) issued an Omnibus Environmental Assessment in July 1975 for activi ties conducted at Mound Facility . On July 8, 1976 , ERDA announced its intent to publish an EIS for the Mound Facility operations and in­ vited predraft comments and suggestions for consideration in preparation of a draft of the environmental impact statement (DE IS) . The Omnibus Environmental As sessment and other related documents to be used in the preparation of the DEIS were made avail­ ab le to the public for review. Comments were received from five entities and were included in the preparation of the DEIS . The DEIS was prepared in accordance with specific guide lines for preparation of envi­ ronmental statements , as amended in "Guidelines for Environmental Review ," 10 CFR 711 (42 FR 482 6) , and issued on April 27, 1978, for public review and comment (43 FR 17995). N:i,.ne comment let�r's were recei.ve.d dur:i,.ng the public review pe"riod and the substan.tive issues raised in those letters have been considered in the preparation of thi s EIS . The major issues raised in the letters of comment concerned the effects of tritium release ; plutonium- 238 release and toxicity ; additional data for releases in air and water effluents ; occupational exposure of Plant workers ; cr iteria for the evaluation of the effects of fire and storms ; stabilization of contaminated soil; impacts of transportation of radioactive waste ; waste disposal ; and Mound 's me teoroloqical program. The se letters wi th DOE responses are presented in Section 10, and specific references are made in that section to the text where the issues contained in the se letters are addressed . This document describes the activities performed at Mound Facility and discusses the ir actual and potential primary and secondary impacts on the surrounding environment . Im­ pacts of routine and accidental releases are addressed. The existing environmental setting is de scribed and the cumulative impact of Mound's mission is evaluated . Data pr.esented are the latest available at the time of publication and include CY-1977 en­ vironmental information. Environmental studies are continuing as part of Mound 's moni­ toring surveillance and environmental protection program. These are published annually . Anticipated improvements to Facility operations and practices are designed to reduce even the existing minor releases to as low as practicable based on the best technology currently available . The alternatives considered include continued operations , relocation of operations , decrease and discontinuation of operations . A concerted effort has been made to present the information in a straightforward manner, comprehensible to the nontechnical reader. To aid in understanding the text , a glossary of technical terms is included and a Table of Contents has been included to aid the reader in identifying topics of special interest. i CONTENTS Page Section I SUMMARY . • 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE . 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND •• 1-1 1.2.1 Detailed Description. 1-2 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT •. 1-2 1.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1-4 1.5 ALTERNATIVES •••••••.•• 1-4 1.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. • 1-5 1.7 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS , POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ••••.•••.••• 1-5 1.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND ,IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. • • • •• 1-5 1.9 • • • •. • . • . • • . • • •• 1-5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS . • � " 1.10 DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT . 1-6 Section 2 BACKGROUND . · 2-1 2.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PLANT AND OPERATION • 2-1 2.1.1 Plant Mission · 2-1 2.1. 2 Plant Location. 2-1 2.1. 3 Plant History · 2-4 2.1. 4 Plant Operations . 2-7 2.2 CONTINUING AND ANTICIPATED BENEFITS 2-26 2.2.1 National Defense ••.•••••. 2-26 2.2.2 Other Benefits •••.•••••• 2-26 2.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT.• 2-27 2.3.1 General Description and Demography . 2-27 2.3.2 Historic and National Landmarks 2-3 6 2.3.3 Geology •• 2-37 2.3.4 Seismology . 2-44 2.3.5 Hydrology . 2-48 2.3.6 Meteorology 2-60 2.3.7 Flora and Fauna 2-68 2.3.8 Archeology . 2-69 REFERENCES • • • • • 2-69 Section 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION . 3-1 3.2 LAND USE ••• • 3-1 3.3 RESOURCES AND ENERGY . 3-2 3.3.1 Plant Water Usage . 3-2 3.3.2 Energy and Fuel Usage . 3-4 3.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 3-7 3.4.1 Impact •••••.• • 3-7 3.4.2 Future Construction Activity. 3-7 ii Page 3.5 OPERATIONAL CHEMICAL EFFLUENT (NONRADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS ). 3-7 3.6 WASTE DISPOSAL (NONRADIOACTIVE) 3-13 3.6.1 Liqu id Wastes . 3-13 3.6.2 Waste Solvents . 3-13 3.6.3 Solid Wastes .. • 3-14 3.6.4 Test-Firing Operations . 3-16 3.6.5 Processing of High Explosive s 3-16 3.7 RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENTS AND IMPACT 3-16 3.7.1 Tritium . 3-17 3.7.2 Plutonium 3-42 3.7.3 Polonium •• 3-55 3.7.4 Other Isotopes .. 3-55 3.8 WEED , PEST, AND ICE CONTROL 3-59 3.9 SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT. 3-59 3.9.1 Sociological Impact 3-59 3.9.2 Economic Impact .. 3-61 3.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS .. 3-62 3.10.1 Fire in a P.lutonium Facility 3-62 3.10.2 Accidental Release of Tritium. 3-6 5 3.10.3 Nuclear Criticality Accident . 3-66 3.10.4 Nuclear Explosion ....... 3-68 3.10.5 Detonation of High Explosives . 3-68 3.10.6 Onsite Transportation Accident 3-69 3.10.7 Power Outage ...... 3-70 3.10.8 Natural Disasters .... 3-70 3.11 EMERGENCY PLANNING SYSTEM . 3-77 3.12 SAFEGUARDS PROGRAM 3-79 3.13 TRANSPORTATION .. 3-81 3.13.1 Common Commodities 3-81 3.13.2 Explosives .. 3-82 3.13.3 Radioactive Materials. 3-83 REFERENCES . 3-89 Section 4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...........•..4-1 Section 5 ALTERNATIVES . 5-1 5.1 CONTINUE OPERATIONS 5-1 5.2 DISCONTINUE OPERATIONS . 5-1 5.3 RELOCATE OPERATIONS . 5-2 5.4 DECREASE WORK LEVELS . 5-3 5.5 CONTINUE OPERATIONS WITH PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 5-3 5.5.1 Water Recycling . 5-5 5.5.2 Energy Conservation . 5-6 5.5.3 Incineration of Wastes •• 5-7 iii Page Section 6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . 6-1 Section 7 RELAT IONSHIP OF PRESENT ACTIONS TO ANY OTHER LAND USE PLANS , POLICIES , AND CONTROLS . 7-1 Section 8 IRREVERS IBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 8-1 Section 9· ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS . 9-1 9.1 CONT INUE PRESENT OPERATIONS 9-1 9.1.1 Co sts •• 9-1 9.1.2 Risks •••.• 9-3 ••. 9.1.3 Benefits ,. 9-4 9.2 DISCONTINUE OPERATIONS 9-5 9.2.1 Costs .• 9-5 9.2.2 Risks •.•.... 9-5 9.2.3 Benefits .•.•• 9-6 9.3 RELOCATE OPERATIONS•• 9-6 9.4 DECREASE THE WORK LEVELS 9-6 9.5 CONTINUE OPERATIONS WITH PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS. 9-7 9.5.1 Costs . 9-7 9.5.2 Risks . 9-7 9.5.3 Benefits . 9-7 Section 10 DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOE/EIS-0014-D • • . • . • . • . 10-1 APPENDIX A FLORA AND FAUNA OF THE MIAMI VALLEY . A-l A-l Mammal Checklist A- l A-2 Bird Checklist A-2 A-3 Fish Checklist • A-8 A-4 Amphibians and Reptiles Checklist. A-10 A-5 Checklist of Vascular Flora . • . • A- 12 APPENDIX B ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION CALCULATIONS . B- 1 APPENDIX C CALCULATIONS FOR RADIONUCLIDE UPTAKE C-l APPENDIX D PLUTONIUM TOXICITY . • • . • • • . D-l APPENDIX E METHODS FOR CALCULATING POTENTIAL DOSE COMMITMENTS E-l APPENDIX F PROPERTY LOSSES , LOST TIME INJURIES , AND RADIATION EXPOSURES REPORTED THROUGH CY-1977 F-l APPENDIX G GLOS SARY G- l lV LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1 Southwe stern Ohio and Location of Mound Facility . 2-2 Figure 2-2 Mound Facility and Immediately Adj acent Areas . 2-3 Figure 2-3 Aerial View of Mound Facility Looking Toward the South 2-5 Figure 2-4 Process Flow Diagram for Low-Level Plutonium-238 Liquid Waste Disposal at Mound Facility 2-16 Figure 2-5 Flow Diagram for Handling "High Activity" Plutonium-238 Liquid Waste at Mound Facility 2-17 Figure 2-6 Disposition of Low-Level Tritiated Water at Mound Facility 2-19 Figure 2-7 Offsite Air Sampling Locations 2-24 Figure 2-8 Offsite Water and Silt Sampling Locations .