ENVIRONMETNAL ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTION
AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED
FIELD RESEARCH CENTERS

March 7, 2000

5.0

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of an action considered in addition to impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions (Title 40 CFR, Part 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taken over a period of time.

5.1 Cumulative Effects of Siting and Operating an FRC on the ORNL/Y-12 Site

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Activities in the Bear Creek Valley Watershed. The RI/FS for the Bear Creek Watershed has been completed to address contamination associated with former waste disposal activities in Bear Creek Valley. The Record of Decision is scheduled to be signed in calendar year 2000. Several CERCLA remedial actions have been identified for implementation in the Bear Creek Valley Watershed. Proposed CERCLA actions that could impact levels of groundwater and soil contamination within the proposed FRC boundaries include but are not limited to the following:

1. Hot spot removal and capping of the BY/BY. The purpose of this action is to reduce the flux of uranium discharging into Bear Creek and the Maynardville Limestone through North Tributary 3 (NT-3). It is anticipated that this action would eventually decrease the concentration of uranium in Bear Creek and the Maynardville Limestone downstream from NT-3.

2. S-3 Ponds plume tributary interception. The purpose of this action is to reduce the flux of contaminants from the S-3 groundwater plume into the surface stream NT-1 and the main-stem of Bear Creek.

3. Removal of soil and sediment hot spots of contamination within the Bear Creek floodplain.

Procedures and protocol ensuring FRC activities do not interfere with CERCLA remediation activities would be described in the FRC Management Plan. In addition, "Operating Instructions" describing these procedures and protocol would be added to the CERCLA Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA).

CERCLA Waste Disposal Facility. DOE has published a RI/FS for the disposal of ORR CERCLA wastes (DOE January 1998). Alternatives in the RI/FS study include disposal of CERCLA wastes offsite and in a new disposal facility, the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMR) to be constructed on the ORR. Three alternative sites on the ORR have been considered: two just north of Bear Creek Road and the third along State Highway 95 at the interchange with State Highway 58. The Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for the CERCLA Waste Disposal Facility have not been published, so no decisions concerning the construction of this facility on the ORR have been made. It is not anticipated that the disposal cell would be constructed within the boundary of the proposed FRC. Due to controls used at the EMWMF there are no anticipated releases (DOE January 1998).

Construction and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source. DOE issued a NEPA Record of Decision on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 125) to proceed with the construction and operation of a Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) facility at ORNL. The SNS is an accelerator-based research facility that will provide U.S. scientific and industrial research communities a source of pulsed neutrons. The facility will be used to conduct research in such areas as materials science, condensed matter physics, the molecular structure of biological materials, properties of polymers and complex fluids, and magnetism. The SNS is being built near the top of Chestnut Ridge approximately four miles (6 km) southwest of the proposed FRC contaminated area. According to the EIS for the SNS (DOE 1999a), radioactive contamination of the earthen berms surrounding the SNS is expected. However, SNS is located on a ridge (away from the proposed FRC) and there is no expected contamination of groundwater. Emissions from the SNS will drain into White Oak Creek in the Bethel Valley, whereas the proposed FRC, located in the Bear Creek Valley, would drain into Bear Creek. As described in Section 4.0, virtually no impact would be expected in developing and operating the FRC. Incremental impacts would be minimal and would not be cumulative with those associated with construction and operation of the SNS. SNS and the proposed FRC are in different drainage basins of the ORR. As neither activity is expected to produce adverse impacts from its liquid emissions, it is expected that there would be no cumulative impacts from these geographically separate facilities.

Transportation of Low-Level (Radioactive) Waste and Mixed Low-Level (Radioactive) Waste from the ORR to Offsite Treatment or Disposal Facilities. DOE proposes to package and transport low level waste (LLW) and mixed LLW offsite for treatment and disposal. Onsite disposal is not available for the expected lifecycle volumes nor the technical constituents of many Oak Ridge LLW streams. Because waste disposal is critical to ongoing environmental cleanup and reindustrialization of the Reservation as well as to ongoing research and defense missions, the DOE proposes to package and transport significant quantities of existing and forecasted ORR LLW to other DOE sites or to licensed commercial facilities for treatment or disposal. There are currently two draft EAs being prepared for these projects. Based on available information, some of the contaminated wastes from research conducted at the proposed FRC would be considered both LLW and mixed LLW and could be transported to an offsite facility for treatment or disposal. However, waste quantities have been estimated to be very small (12,000 gallons [about 46,000 L] of groundwater and 20 cubic feet [0.56 cubic meters] of soil per year). These volumes are less than one percent of the total ORR wastes considered in the EAs (DOE 1999a). It is expected that wastes from the proposed FRC would not contribute to cumulative effects of transporting LLW for the ORR.

Back to the top

5.1.1 Earth Resources

Operation of the proposed FRC would not contribute to the cumulative impact on geology or soils of the ORR or surrounding communities. As described in Section 4.1.1, no significant problems have been identified with regard to site stability or the soil medium that would constitute impacts by themselves or combined with existing or future conditions to create cumulative impacts. None of the projects or reasonably foreseeable activities described above are expected to affect the earth resources of the BCV, thus the minimal effects from proposed FRC activities would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

5.1.2 Climate and Air Quality

Operation of the proposed FRC would not contribute to the cumulative impact on the climate or air quality of the ORR. The ORR is in an attainment area for NAAQS and no activities (e.g., drilling or small-area land clearing) planned for the FRC would constitute an impact by themselves (see Section 4.1.2) or, combined with existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts. None of the projects or reasonably foreseeable activities described above are expected to affect the climate or air quality of the BCV, thus the minimal effects from proposed FRC activities would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

Back to the top

5.1.3 Water Resources

Operation of the proposed FRC would not contribute to the cumulative impact on the surface water and groundwater of the ORR or surrounding communities. The possible addition of tracers, electron donors and acceptors, nutrients and microorganisms, and other substances (see Section 4.1.3) have been shown to have little consequence on the quality of the surface water (Bear Creek) or the surrounding groundwater. These activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts. None of the projects or reasonably foreseeable activities described above are expected to affect the water resources of the BCV, thus the minimal effects from proposed FRC activities would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

As stated in the Floodplain Assessment for Site Investigation Activities at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Area of Responsibility (DOE 1996), "The activities addressed by the floodplain assessment will result in no measurable impact of floodplain cross-sections or flood stage, and thus do not increase the risk of flooding." The proposed FRC activities planned within the floodplain would be small in nature (see Section 4.1.3.2) and would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or reasonably foreseeable future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

Back to the top

5.1.4 Ecological Resources

Terrestrial and aquatic species within the area of the proposed FRC would not be impacted (see Section 4.1.4) because of measures that would be taken to avoid areas of sensitivity (e.g., the Environmental Research Park and areas used for seasonal hunting). Section 4.1.3 discusses the potential impacts to Bear Creek and demonstrates that no impacts would be expected. The addition of the proposed FRC activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts. None of the projects or reasonably foreseeable activities described above are expected to affect the ecological resources of the BCV, thus the minimal effects from proposed FRC activities would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

5.1.5 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources

According to the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer, no cultural resources have been identified within the proposed contaminated area and background area (Appendix E). In addition, no historic sites are located within the proposed boundaries of the FRC. The addition of the proposed FRC activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

Back to the top

5.1.6 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetic Resources

The land uses of the Bear Creek Valley include developed areas such as those near the Y-12 Plant, the S-3 Ponds Site, and waste control areas that are open and highly visible. In addition, there are some forested areas. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, research similar in nature to that proposed for the FRC has been taking place. There would be no major changes in the existing use of the areas proposed for the FRC and no major construction necessary for the operation of the proposed FRC. Trailers, drill rigs and other equipment would be placed in previously disturbed areas. Areas used for seasonal hunting would be avoided during hunting season. The addition of the proposed FRC activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

5.1.7 Socioeconomic Conditions

Employees of the proposed FRC would be existing employees from ORNL and researchers would be small in number (see Section 4.1.7). The addition of the proposed FRC activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts. When combined with the number of workers and researchers expected to be present at the SNS when it becomes operational, workers on the FRC could contribute to minor positive economic impacts, and only minor effects on housing availability and regional community services.

Back to the top

5.1.8 Human Health

The proposed activities conducted at the FRC would not pose any potential for adverse impacts to workers or the offsite public (see Section 4.1.8). These activities would not add any significant quantities of radioactive emissions to the air, would not impact groundwater to levels above drinking water standards, and workers would not be exposed to any doses of radiation or chemicals that would be of concern. These activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

5.1.9 Waste Control

The approximate volume of waste generated and requiring storage for the proposed FRC would be minimal (see Section 4.1.9) in comparison with quantities generated through environmental remediation activities on the ORR (DOE 1998). These activities would not constitute an impact by themselves, or combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

Back to the top

5.1.10 Transportation

The employees of the proposed FRC are currently employed by ORNL so there would be no impact to traffic within the ORR. In addition the number of expected visitors to the FRC is expected to be minimal (see Section 4.1.7). The main traffic route expected for the workers at the SNS facility will be via Bethel Valley Road and Bear Creek Road as FRC workers and researchers drive between ORNL and the FRC. It is expected that the FRC-related traffic will be very light and would not create any incremental or cumulative impacts. The majority of SNS-related traffic would occur during the construction period of the facility and then would decrease; this would occur approximately half-way through the expected ten-year life of the FRC.

Transportation of minimal quantities of hazardous materials is expected throughout the course of FRC operations (see Section 4.1.10). Transportation offsite of LLW and mixed LLW is currently being evaluated; however, the amounts generated from FRC operations would be insignificant in comparison to quantities generated by the ORR requiring transportation (DOE 1999e, DOE 1999f).

These activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.

5.1.11 Utilities and Services

Impacts to utilities and infrastructure such as housing, education, health care, police and fire protection, and water and sewage are not anticipated as a result of the small number of individuals involved in the operation or research activities of the proposed FRC. No new construction would be required for operation of the FRC. The siting of trailers and small staging areas for support equipment would be in previously disturbed areas and therefore would have impact on existing infrastructure. These activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or combined with the existing or future conditions create cumulative impacts.

5.1.12 Environmental Justice

Based on the analysis in this document as well as information derived from the SNS EIS (DOE 1999a), there would be no disproportionate risk of significantly high and adverse potential impacts to low-income and minority populations (see Section 4.1.12). There are no known subsistence populations residing in or near the BCV. Therefore, the addition of the proposed FRC activities would not constitute an impact by themselves or, combined with the existing or future conditions, create cumulative impacts.