B.7.0 SITING OF FACILITIES
This section describes the preliminary siting study that was performed to develop a representative site for impact assessment purposes.
The site optimization process would be implemented to ensure that new facilities would be located at a site that meets facility requirements and minimizes the impacts associated with construction and operations. The site optimization process would involve identifying and evaluating sites based on selection criteria that incorporate stakeholder values.
The site optimization process for the TWRS sites is an ongoing program whose function is to identify a site that best meets the selection criteria. The in situ alternatives would be sited at the existing tank farms and would require site selection for support facilities. For the ex situ alternatives, the area proposed for potential sites has been restricted to in and around the 200 East Area. The 200 Areas have been heavily used for fuel reprocessing and waste management and disposal activities. The 200 East Area location was selected for the following reasons.
- Based on the TWRS Facility Configuration Study (Boomer et al. 1994) and the TWRS Process Flowsheet (Orme 1994), pretreating tank waste (if done in an existing tank) would be done by the in-tank sludge washing process in the 200 East A Farm Tank Complex. Tank waste from the 200 West Area would be retrieved to the SY Tank Farm and transferred cross-site to the AW Tank Farm where in-tank sludge washing would be performed. Waste in the 200 East Area would be retrieved to the AN Tank Farm where it would be washed and separated into HLW and LAW streams. The LAW streams would be pumped to the AP Tank Farm and then to the pretreatment and LAW vitrification facilities. The HLW streams would be pumped directly from the AN and AW Tank Farms to the HLW vitrification facility or to interim storage.
- The Hanford Site has consolidated activities over the past 20 years in the 200 East Area, as opposed to the 200 West Area, which has placed much of the necessary facilities and infrastructure in and around the 200 East Area.
- There is more available, useable land in the 200 East Area than the 200 West Area (i.e., land that is unused or is not reserved for other use).
B.7.1 SELECTION CRITERIA
Hanford Site evaluation criteria used for evaluating potential sites considered stakeholder values, regulatory compliance issues, costs, and risks. In a site selection study the selection criteria described in the following sections have been based on stakeholder values, regulatory compliance, and cost and risk reduction (Shord 1995 and Jacobs 1996).
B.7.1.1 Protect the Environment
Cultural, Archeological, and Historical Sites
The TWRS remediation site shall not have any areas of cultural, archeological, or historical significance that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
Ecological
The TWRS remediation site shall not have any areas of ecological impact that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
Groundwater Protection
The Columbia River shall be protected, and groundwater contamination will be dealt with realistically and forcefully. This issue concerns the ability of the Hanford Site to meet Federal, State, and local requirements for protecting groundwater. Factors include the 1) impact of previous Hanford Site practices (e.g., liquid effluent discharges, SST leaks, disposal actions) on groundwater under the Site; 2) hydrology of the Site; and 3) the impact of the Site on proposed future Hanford Site disposal operations (e.g., LAW disposal).
Harm During Cleanup
Establishing the TWRS complex (on the particular site) shall cause no irreparable harm to the environment.
Natural Resource Damage
The TWRS remediation site shall minimize and avoid any impacts to natural resources.
B.7.1.2 Protect Public/Worker Health and Safety
Transportation
Waste will be transported safely, and measures will be taken to prepare for emergencies. The transportation of radioactive and hazardous waste and material through populated areas will be kept to a minimum.
Exposures
Exposures will be as low as reasonably achievable. The TWRS remediation site shall minimize the adverse impacts on the health and safety of personnel. The concept of reducing the exposure of workers to radiological and hazardous substances to as low as reasonably achievable principles will be considered.
Accidents on the TWRS Complex
The TWRS remediation site will minimize the effects of possible accidents at adjacent facilities on the TWRS complex.
Accidents from the TWRS Complex
The TWRS remediation site will minimize the effects of possible accidents at the TWRS complex and its associated facilities (e.g., transfer lines) on adjacent facilities.
B.7.1.3 Use the Central Plateau Wisely for Waste Management
Land use planning for the TWRS remediation site should be in concert with and not conflict with other land use planning documents.
B.7.1.4 Promote Local Economic Development
The TWRS remediation site will capture economic development opportunities locally by being conducive to privatization of facilities.
B.7.1.5 Support the Tri-Party Agreement
The TWRS remediation site will support meeting the Tri-Party Agreement schedule and get on with cleanup to achieve substantive progress in a timely manner.
B.7.1.6 Consider Cost Impacts
The following cost impacts shall be considered.
Construction Costs
Utilities
The installation/upgrade costs of electricity, raw water, sanitary water, steam, and telecommunications. Existing and planned utilities will be considered.
Railroads
The installation/upgrades costs of rail and roads.
Liquid Effluent Disposal
The installation of liquid effluent disposal lines from the complex to the liquid effluent disposal system.
Sanitary Sewer
The installation costs of a sanitary sewer to tie into the planned 200 East Area sanitary sewer system (Project L-116).
Storm Water Runoff
The installation costs of a system to channel stormwater away from the site.
Construction Proximity
The ability to locate temporary construction support facilities close to the facilities being constructed and the availability of adequate laydown and construction support areas.
Construction Commonality
Maximize the use of common construction support needs (laydown areas, utilities, parking, batch plant, offices, shops, warehouse, and change rooms) between project or construction phases of multiple facilities of the same project.
Site Preparations
Costs associated with earth-moving activities necessary to complete construction. Factors include topography, site irregularities, and finish grade elevation. The removal/relocation of existing structures are additional factors.
Operating Costs
Operating costs between the various sites shall be qualitatively assessed and shall include items such as facility and feed/waste transfer costs of flushing, diluting waste, concentrating diluted waste (evaporating waste to manage DST space), and line drain back.
B.7.1.7 Provide Flexibility
Provide flexibility in the following areas.
Site Expansion
Adequate expansion area should be available for future TWRS facility needs. Although the expansion area cannot be quantified at this point, more potential expansion area is preferable to less.
Facility Relationships
The TWRS remediation site should allow the interacting of process facilities to maximize use of common support facilities and utilities and facilitate flows (tank waste transfers, raw materials, effluent disposal, process waste streams) between process facilities and related operations.
Compatibility
The TWRS remediation site should be compatible with ongoing programs, current construction projects, and planned projects.
Proximity
The TWRS remediation site should possess the ability to 1) move the vitrified waste to HLW interim storage and subsequently to final storage offsite; and 2) retrieve LAW from onsite disposal for repackaging for offsite shipment.
Contracting Flexibility
The TWRS remediation site should be conducive to the use of innovative contracting concepts such as 1) fixed-price contracts for design, construction, startup, and initial operations; and 2) privatization. Ease of access, interfaces with site operations, and the potential to encounter unforeseen conditions are to be considered.
B.7.1.8 Reduce Risks
Reduce risks (technical, regulatory, operational, construction, and planning) in the following areas.
Hydraulics
The potential for transfer line plugging should be minimized to the extent possible. Factors to be considered should include waste transfer system configuration (i.e., number of process pits), line traps, quantity of flush water after each transfer, line drain back to low point, number of low points in system, dilution requirements to mitigate plugging of transfer system, pumping requirements (to minimize the use of pump booster stations), and siphoning effect between the shipping location and the processing facilities. In essence, the inner tank/facility piping should be free draining (to the extent practical) to the transfer destination.
Proximity to Existing Facilities
The distance between the processing facilities for pretreatment/LAW treatment and HLW, and the DSTs existing in the 200 East Area (A Farm Complex) shall be kept to a practical minimum.
Interferences and Contamination
Minimize potential problems to be encountered during construction and operation due to existing above or belowground structures or radioactive/hazardous contamination.
Seismic
The distance to known earthquake faults shall be taken into consideration.
Site Activities
The impact on other Hanford Site activities and operating facilities during construction and operation should be kept to a minimum.
Decontamination and Decommissioning
The decontamination and decommissioning activities in the 200 East Area should be considered in siting the TWRS complex. This would include the decontamination and decommissioning impact of other facilities in the area on the TWRS complex and the ultimate decontamination and decommissioning of the TWRS complex.
Design
The need for new technology/design complexity should be minimized.
B.7.2 RECOMMENDATION
The final site selection for the facilities associated with the ex situ alternatives has not been made. However, a recommended site has been nominated based on the applicability of the eight criteria that were given previously and adopted for use in this EIS. The selection process focused on six alternate layouts in the 200 East Area. Each layout was evaluated and given a numerical ranking for each of the eight criteria. Comparison matrix was then constructed to compare the ranking of each layout. The location and size of the highest ranking layout are shown as Site C in Figure B.7.2.1. Sites A, B, and D included alternate layouts that did not score as high for locating the full-scale treatment facilities.
Figure B.7.2.1 Potential Site Location
For purposes of the EIS, a combination of Site B and Site C has been assumed to be a representative site capable of accommodating the full-scale processing facilities, LAW disposal, and HLW temporary storage for all ex situ alternatives. Site B has been assumed to be a representative site for locating the Phase 1 treatment facilities under the Phased Implementation alternative (WHC 1996). These sites are considered to be representative sites for the purpose of alternative evaluation. This does not preclude other sites from ultimately being selected and appropriate NEPA analysis will be completed prior to final site selection . To support the analysis of environmental impacts in this EIS, the representative site is used as the location where each of the ex situ alternatives would be located. All of the ex situ alternatives will be treated as if they were located on the representative site.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
