• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section describes the potential impacts to the existing environment (described in Section 4.0 and discussed in further detail in Volume Five, Appendix I) of implementing each of the alternatives described in Section 3.0 and discussed in detail in Volume Two, Appendix B.

This section is divided into 20 subsections. The environmental components studied that would result in potential impacts are presented in Sections 5.1 through 5.12. The environmental components addressed include impacts of each alternative on:

• Geology and soil (Section 5.1);
• Water resources (Section 5.2);
• Air quality (Section 5.3);
• Biological and ecological resources (Section 5.4);
• Cultural resources (Section 5.5);
• Socioeconomics (Section 5.6);
• Land use and land use plans (Section 5.7);
• Visual resources (Section 5.8);
• Noise (Section 5.9);
• Transportation (Section 5.10);
• Human and ecological health effects (Section 5.11); and
• Potential accidents (Section 5.12).

This section also discusses potential cumulative impacts of each alternative when added to impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (Section 5.13), unavoidable adverse impacts (Section 5.14), the relationship between short-term and long-term impacts (Section 5.15), and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (Section 5.16). Conflicts between land use under the alternatives and other land-use plans are discussed in Section 5.17, and pollution prevention measures are discussed in Section 5.18. An analysis of environmental impacts on minority and low-income communities is provided in Section 5.19. Section 5.20 discusses measures that, if implemented, could potentially mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the alternatives.

Appendices to the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been prepared to support the more complex impact assessments for:

• Human and ecological health (Volume Three, Appendix D, which supports the discussion of health effects in Section 5.11);
• Potential accidents (Volume Four, Appendix E, which supports the discussion of accidents in Section 5.12);
• Groundwater quality (Volume Four, Appendix F, which supports the discussion of groundwater in Section 5.2);
• Air quality (Volume Five, Appendix G, which supports the discussion of air impacts in Section 5.3); and
• Socioeconomics (Volume Five, Appendix H, which supports the discussion of socioeconomics in Section 5.6).

These appendices are provided under separate cover in Volumes Three to Five of the EIS. Each appendix details the data sources, major assumptions, uncertainties, methodology, and results that are summarized in this section.

Also, Section 6.0 of the EIS contains an analysis of the regulatory compliance issues associated with each alternative. Section 6.0 of the EIS provides a summary of all applicable laws and regulations, identifies the environmental permits and approvals required to implement each of the alternatives, and for each alternative discusses impacts that would result in exceedances of standards (e.g., air, water) or would prevent implementation of the alternative due to a potential violation of a Federal or State law.

5.0.1 Comparability of Environmental Consequences

All of the alternatives have been evaluated using the same methods and data, allowing a comparison of all the alternatives on the same basis. For example, all of the alternatives used the common description of the alternatives provided in Section 3.0 and Volume Two, Appendix B and all used the common inventory of tank waste provided in Volume Two, Appendix A. When computer modeling was used to predict the environmental consequences, the same computer model was used for all alternatives.

5.0.2 Approach to Uncertainty and Bounding Analysis of Environmental Impacts

There were several uncertainties involved with calculating the impacts associated with the tank waste alternatives, including characteristics of the waste in the tanks and the specific performance capabilities of waste retrieval and processing technologies. Information needed to more thoroughly determine the characteristics of the tank waste is currently being obtained through waste characterization studies. Studies of the performance of technologies and processes are conducted throughout the process of developing a design for any complex project. The results of these studies were not necessary to develop the environmental consequence analysis in this EIS, but would be necessary to refine the process design for the alternative ultimately selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Therefore, the analyses in the following sections are based on identification of bounding waste characterization, retrieval, and processing assumptions and data to bound the impacts of actions that may be undertaken during implementation of the selected alternative. Bounding impacts represent reasonable maximum impacts that are likely to occur.

For each environmental component, where appropriate, uncertainties regarding data, technologies, or processes are identified. Each section includes a discussion of 1) the assumptions used in the impact analysis to ensure that a bounding analysis was performed; 2) implications of the assumptions used; and 3) uncertainties. Because of the uncertainties involved in calculating impacts from operational accidents and long-term human health risks, nominal impacts are also presented. Nominal impacts are based on less conservative assumptions and represent the average impacts that are likely to occur.

5.0.3 Presentation of Remediation and Post-Remediation Analysis

The impacts provided in this section include short-term environmental impacts and the combined impacts of remediation and post-remediation activities, which provide the long-term impacts. To provide an even comparison of the long-term impacts of the alternatives, a representative closure scenario (closure as a landfill) was assumed for all tank waste alternatives. These combined impacts are presented to provide a meaningful comparison of impacts of the total project. The impacts of remediating the cesium and strontium capsules are also provided.

The environmental impacts presented in Sections 5.1 through 5.12 can be understood, in part, by whether the impacts described would be most related to the remedial or post-remedial phase of the alternative. The environmental components analyzed in the EIS that would have their peak impacts during the remedial phase (1996 to 2096, with most impacts from 1996 to 2040) include:

• Geology and soil (except post-remediation changes to topography associated with post remediation actions);
• Air quality (most impacts directly result from routine waste management or treatment emissions);
• Biological and ecological resources (impacts largely related to remediation except post-remediation impacts related to permanent commitment of land to waste disposal);
• Socioeconomics (all impacts associated with the level of remedial activities);
• Visual resources (impacts largely related to remediation except changes to topography associated with post-remediation actions);
• Noise (all impacts associated with the level of remedial activities);
• Transportation (all impacts associated with the level of remedial activities);
• Human and ecological health effects (worker health most impacted during remedial activities); and
• Potential accidents (all impacts associated with remedial activities).

Environmental components with peak impacts during the post-remediation phase (2096 to up to 10,000 years in the future) would include:

• Water resources (impacts to groundwater would influence groundwater quality for thousands of years following completion of remediation);
• Human and ecological health effects (health of the general public most impacted by post-remediation groundwater impacts and impacts associated with contact with waste remaining onsite following remediation);
• Land use and land-use plans (permanent commitment of land in the 200 Areas to waste disposal); and
• Cultural resources (impacts would be permanent).

5.0.4 Relationships Among Key Variables and the Results of the Impact Analysis

Three variables are the most important to understanding the relationship between the impacts presented in this section and the comparison of impacts among the alternatives: 1) the amount and type of waste that remained onsite under each alternative; 2) the number of labor hours for construction, operations, and other activities under each alternative; and 3) the amount of previously undisturbed habitat that would be disturbed by each alternative. An understanding of how these variables would influence the impacts presented for each alternative would help to clarify which impacts discriminate among the alternatives and which impacts are either small or do not discriminate among the alternatives.

Amount and Type of Waste That Remains Onsite

A major variable that would influence the post-remediation risks for each alternative would be the amount of waste form remaining in the tanks or on the Hanford Site following remediation. Generally, for post remediation impacts to groundwater (Section 5.2), which would be the major contributor to post-remediation routine health risks (Section 5.11), the larger the volume of waste that remained onsite the more severe the levels of groundwater contamination would be and thus, more adverse health impacts would be expected. The No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives, which would involve no waste retrieval, would result in the highest levels of groundwater contamination and the highest levels of post- remediation health risks. On the other hand, the ex situ alternatives, which would remove an assumed 99 percent of the waste from the tanks, would have much lower levels of impacts to the groundwater and thus, much lower levels of post-remediation risk.

A related important variable would be the type of waste form that remained in the tanks or on the Hanford Site following remediation. Waste that remained onsite and was not immobilized would result in more severe levels of post-remediation groundwater contamination than would waste that was immobilized prior to disposal onsite. Thus, alternatives that would result in larger amounts of untreated waste, such as the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives, would result in more severe groundwater impacts and higher levels of post-remediation health risks. The In Situ Vitrification and the ex situ alternatives, which would immobilize most of the waste, would have much lower levels of post-remediation groundwater impacts and lower post-remediation health impacts. The Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would have impacts that would fall between the two extremes because a larger amount of the waste by volume would be left in place without treatment, while the remainder of the waste would be retrieved and immobilized.

Number of Labor Hours

Another variable that would influence many of the short-term impacts identified in the EIS would be the number of labor hours associated with each alternative. The number of labor hours for each alternative would directly affect the magnitude of many of the impacts discussed in this section. In other words, the more labor hours worked the higher the level of impact. This relationship would most directly affect the impacts addressed for nonradiological accidents during remediation (Section 5.12), routine worker health risks (Section 5.11), socioeconomics (Section 5.6), and transportation (Section 5.10).

Nonradiological accidents during remediation would include workplace injuries or fatalities associated with constructing or operating the facilities and injuries and fatalities to workers driving to and from work. In each of these cases, the higher the number of labor hours the higher the number of injuries or fatalities. For each of these short-term impacts of the alternatives it is important to note that the accidents and fatalities identified would not be based upon the unique problems associated with working with tank waste. Rather, they would be products of working in a construction or industrial environment or driving to and from work. These same impacts would be associated with any similarly sized construction project or industrial facility operations. The number of fatalities associated with construction provides a good example of this relationship. The number of construction fatalities for each alternative was calculated by multiplying the historic construction fatality rate (0.0032 fatalities per 100 worker years) by the number of worker years estimated for each alternative. If an alternative required 100,000 worker years for construction, the number of expected fatalities would be approximately 3 (100,000 worker years 0.0032 fatalities per 100 worker years = 3.2 fatalities). However, if the alternative required 700,000 worker years, the expected number of worker fatalities would be 22, or about seven times the number of fatalities for 100,000 worker years (700,000 worker years 0.0032 fatalities per 100 worker years = 22.4 fatalities). This same relationship (the more hours worked the higher the impact) would exist for injuries associated with construction and injuries and fatalities associated with operating facilities.

For worker transportation injuries and fatalities, the number of fatalities and injuries is based on the number of kilometers (miles) driven to and from work by the employees. Based on Washington State highway accident reports, for every kilometer driven, there would be 8.98E-09 fatalities. The number of employee transportation fatalities was therefore calculated by multiplying the number of kilometers that the workers would drive to and from work by the historic fatality rate. In this case, a doubling of the number of kilometers driven would result in a doubling of the number of employee transportation fatalities and injuries.

Impacts that would not be directly related to the number of labor hours would tend to be associated with differences in technologies and processes unique to each alternative or the post-remediation amount of waste or waste form remaining onsite. Impacts that would be largely independent of the influence of labor hours worked would include 1) post-remediation health risks (Section 5.11); 2) remediation-phase radiological and chemical accidents (Section 5.12); and 3) the ability of an alternative to comply with environmental regulations such as air quality (Section 5.2), water quality (Section 5.3), and hazardous and radiological waste storage, treatment, and disposal (Section 6.0).

Amount of Habitat Disturbance

Another variable that would influence several of the environmental impacts addressed in this section would be the amount of habitat disturbance associated with the alternatives. The amount of impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat and archeological and cultural sites would be directly related to the amount of undisturbed land required to implement each alternative. Much of the Hanford Site has been undisturbed by Site activities and the native habitat remains intact. However, in the 200 Areas, where the remediation activities addressed in this EIS would occur, a sizable portion of the land has been previously disturbed by the construction of roads, processing facilities, pipelines, and other facilities and infrastructure associated with the production of plutonium and waste management.

Alternatives such as No Action, Long-Term Management, In Situ Fill and Cap, and In Situ Vitrification, which would focus much of their activities directly at the tank farms, would disturb relatively small amounts of previously undisturbed land and consequently would have low levels of biological and ecological or archeological and cultural site impacts. The ex situ alternatives, which would require the construction of waste treatment facilities and new onsite disposal facilities, would require varying levels of disturbance to previously undisturbed habitat and consequently would have relatively larger biological and ecological and archeological and cultural site impacts. The vast majority of the habitat disturbances would occur in areas close to previously disturbed areas and within the 200 Areas, which have been identified as the area in which DOE should consolidate as much waste management and environmental restoration activities as possible to minimize potential impacts to the remainder of the Hanford Site.

For all in situ and ex situ alternatives, except No Action and Long-Term Management, the post-remediation scenario evaluated (closure of the tank farms by filling the tanks and capping the tanks and onsite disposal facilities) would result in impacts to habitat outside the 200 Areas. These impacts would be associated with securing borrow material (gravel, sand, and stones) to fill the tanks and construct the caps. While the decisions regarding closure would not be supported by this EIS, data regarding impacts associated with closure were presented to permit a balanced comparison of all known and potential impacts associated with each alternative. For all alternatives with substantial habitat impacts, the dominant impacts presented in the EIS were related to potential borrow sites. It is important to note that the final decision regarding closure of the tank farms is many years in the future and that the final closure decision could require substantially less borrow material and have less impacts to borrow sites. Also, borrow materials could be secured from alternative sites that would not involve the same level of adverse impacts to undisturbed habitat.