5.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
This section summarizes the potential unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the EIS alternatives. Identified are those unavoidable adverse impacts that would remain after incorporating all mitigation measures that were incorporated in the development of the EIS alternatives. Potentially adverse impacts for each of the alternatives are described in other portions of Section 5.0. In Section 5.20, additional practicable mitigation measures are identified that could further reduce the impacts described in this section
Table 5.13.7 TWRS-Induced Peak Year Changes in Employment and Home Prices
5.14.1 Impact Summary
Table 5.14.1 summarizes the impacts for each tank waste alternative presented in this EIS. Impacts for each capsule alternative are summarized in Table 5.14.2. For detailed information regarding the remediation activity impacts, refer to the relevant sections of the EIS where impacts are discussed in detail. The tables identify the various areas of potential impacts (water resources, air quality, socioeconomics) for each alternative.
5.14.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for Tank Waste Alternatives
The potential unavoidable adverse impacts identified in Table 5.14.1 are summarized in the following text.
Geology and Soil
Total soil disturbance because of remediation would range from none for the No Action (Tank Waste) alternative to 66 ha (160 ac) for the Long-Term Management alternative and 200 ha ( 490 ac) for the Phased Implementation alternative. Permanent soil disturbance because of remediation activities would range from none for the No Action alternative to 38 ha ( 94 ac) for the Phased Implementation alternative.
All tank waste alternatives, except No Action and Long-Term Management, would involve excavating large volumes of borrow material at three potential borrow sites as part of the closure scenario.
Table 5.14.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Tank Waste Alternatives
Table 5.14.2 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Capsule Alternatives
Borrow material excavation would leave shallow terrain depressions at the excavation sites and other land form changes such as removing portions of the exposed basalt cliffs at the potential Vernita Quarry borrow site (Section 5.1). There also would be permanent soil disturbance (loss of soil cover) at areas that would be covered with Hanford Barriers (tank farms and LAW vaults in the 200 Areas). Placing a Hanford Barrier over each of the 18 tank farms would occur under all tank waste alternatives, except for the No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives, and would cover 25 ha (62 ac). Barriers that would be placed over the LAW vaults under the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 , and Phased Implementation alternatives would cover 5 to 14 ha (12 to 35 ac).
Air Quality
Even with the implementation of additional practicable mitigation measures, all TWRS EIS alternatives would result in substantial air emissions, although no applicable air quality standards would be exceeded. Construction and operation activities of all alternatives would result in increased levels of air emissions (Section 5.3). Construction activities would produce fugitive dust (particulates) and combustion emissions from the use of heavy equipment and motor vehicles. Operation activities would produce radionuclide emissions, combustion emissions, and hazardous air pollutants. Radionuclide emissions would include carbon-14, iodine-129, and cesium-137.
Water Resources
The vadose zone and groundwater aquifer beneath portions of the Hanford Site, including the 200 Areas, currently are contaminated at levels that exceed drinking water standards. Controls on the use of Hanford Site groundwater currently are in place and are expected to continue well into the future.
All tank waste alternatives would involve some release of waste into the currently contaminated vadose zone beneath the 200 Areas, and eventually into the underlying groundwater aquifer (Section 5.2). Under the No Action (Tank Waste) and Long-Term Management alternatives, potential contaminants released to the groundwater would result in water quality standards being exceeded for all four indicator contaminants (iodine-129, technetium-99, nitrite, and uranium-238) at 300 and 500 years into the future, but would be well within the standards at 2,500 years. This analysis assumed that the current drinking water standards would be applicable beyond 1,000 years.
All other tank waste alternatives would result in contaminant releases to the currently contaminated groundwater, although the releases would be at substantially lower levels than for the No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives. The No Action, Long-Term Management, In Situ Fill and In Situ Vitrification and Cap, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternatives would exceed water quality requirements. The LAW vaults would meet water quality requirements. Residuals left in the tanks under the ex situ alternatives would not meet water quality requirements; however, the residuals would be a addressed in a future closure plan.
Land Use
Remediation activities would result in permanent land-use commitments that would range from zero for the No Action (Tank Waste) alternative to 38 ha (94 ac) for the Phased Implementation alternative. All alternatives could result in the permanent commitment of land in the 200 Areas to waste disposal uses (Section 5.7). While the TWRS alternatives' land use would be compatible with current land use and current plans for future land use of the 200 Areas, the committed areas would be inaccessible for alternative land use. The amount of land involved would be small compared to the total Central Plateau waste management area of the Hanford Site.
Transportation
All of the EIS alternatives would involve additional motor vehicle traffic, mostly from employees commuting to and from TWRS sites. For all tank waste alternatives except No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap, there would be increased traffic congestion during daytime peak hours on Stevens Road north of Richland and on Route 4 west of the Wye Barricade (Section 5.10). This congestion would occur during the peak employment periods (2001 to 2004 for most alternatives), largely associated with construction activities, and would last for several years (Section 5.10). The various ex situ alternatives would involve the largest traffic volumes and thus would have the greatest potential adverse impacts.
Noise
Because the TWRS sites would be located in the interior of the Hanford Site and would be a long distance from populated offsite areas, the only unavoidable adverse noise impact would be temporary wildlife disturbances near construction sites from heavy equipment use (Section 5.9).
Visual Resources
As described in Section 5.8, constructing facilities and performing borrow site excavation activities under all tank waste alternatives, except No Action and Long-Term Management, would affect the visual environment, particularly from elevated locations onsite (e.g., Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and Rattlesnake Mountain that are used by Native Americans for religious purposes ) and from State Route 24 near the potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites. From ground level, the In Situ Vitrification alternative would involve constructing large tank farm confinement structures that would be somewhat visually intrusive for travelers on State Route 240. Facilities developed in the 200 East Area under all alternatives would be visible in the distant background from State Route 240 and from offsite elevated locations.
Biological and Ecological Resources
All tank waste alternatives, except No Action, would affect shrub-steppe habitat in the 200 Areas and at least one of the three potential borrow sites (Vernita Quarry, McGee Ranch, and Pit 30) (Section 5.4). Shrub-steppe is a habitat that is defined as a priority habitat by Washington State. In the affected shrub-steppe habitat areas, there would be a loss of plants, loss or displacement of wildlife species (e.g., birds, small mammals), and a resulting loss of food supplies for birds of prey and predatory mammals.
A small percentage (less than one-half of 1 percent) of the Hanford Site's total shrub-steppe area would be affected, and only individual species members potentially would be impacted, rather than the species as a whole. However, a number of plant and wildlife species of concern (species that are classified as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, or as State monitor or sensitive species) potentially would be affected.
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric and historic materials and sites in the 200 Areas are scarce and the TWRS sites currently are heavily disturbed (the 18 tank farms) or partly disturbed (the proposed waste treatment facility sites). The potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites are considered potentially sensitive for both prehistoric and historic sites (Section 5.5). Important prehistoric sites may be encountered at Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch, both of which potentially would be used during closure activities for all tank waste alternatives except the No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives.
Socioeconomics
All of the tank waste alternatives, except No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap, would involve short-term socioeconomic impacts that would stem largely from rapid fluctuations in employment during construction (Section 5.6). These short-term impacts would be greatest for the Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ No Separations, and Phased Implementation alternatives. For example, increased housing prices stemming from rapid increases in local population could have particularly adverse impacts on the access to affordable housing by low-income populations in the Tri-Cities. The increases in local population also would require hiring additional local police and fire department personnel and also would lead to increased enrollment in local schools.
Health Effects
The No Action (Tank Waste) alternative followed closely by the Long-Term Management alternative, would pose the highest post-remediation cancer risk of all the tank waste alternatives. For the No Action (Tank Waste) alternative, maximum cancer risks would be 1 in 1 for the Native American and the residential farmer respectively, at 300 years after 1995, resulting in 3,300 and 600 fatalities over 10,000 years. The In Situ Vitrification alternative would result in the lowest cancer risk of the various alternatives, with a 1 in 1,700 and 1 in 40,000 risk for theNative American and the residential farmer respectively, at 5,000 years from 1995 resulting in 3 and 1 fatalities over 10,000 years.
All alternatives would pose some risks of adverse health effects. The risks during remediation would be limited mainly to workers, with the greatest risk associated with onsite transportation of waste and separations and treatment operations . The Ex Situ No Separations, Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, and Phased Implementation alternatives would have the highest fatal cancer risk to onsite remediation workers. The other ex situ alternatives would have similar lower risks to workers, while the in situ alternatives would have the lowest risk of all alternatives (Section 5.11). These higher risks would be largely the product of the substantially higher number of person-years of labor required for retrieval, treatment, and disposal of an assumed 99 percent of the tank waste.
Accidents
All alternatives would involve potential accidents. This would include occupational and transportation accidents, both onsite and offsite, that could cause injuries, illness, and a small number of fatalities (mostly from traffic accidents). These types of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities would be directly dependent on the number of person-years of labor required to complete the alternative. Thus, the more person-years of labor the more injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. As described in Section 5.12, the Long-Term Management alternative would result in the largest and the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative the fewest total number of occupational injuries and illnesses (Section 5.12).
For all of the tank waste alternatives the number of cancer fatalities (factoring in the probability of the accident occurring) resulting from a radiological accident during operations would range from 2 (In Fill and Cap alternative) to 16 (No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives).
There also could be accidents resulting in exposure to hazardous chemicals. The various ex situ alternatives and the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would have higher hazardous chemical risks onsite and offsite than would the In Situ Vitrification, No Action, or Long-Term Management alternatives. The higher risk would be because of the greater extent of waste retrieval and treatment under these alternatives.
Cost
Financial resource commitments would range from a low of $7.0 to 8.8 billion for the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative to a maximum of $59.2 to 74.5 billion for the Ex Situ No Separations alternative.
Commitment of Resources
All of the tank waste alternatives would consume water, concrete (except No Action), and electricity; all except No Action would use borrow materials; all would use steel (except In Situ Fill and Cap); all ex situ alternatives and the In Situ Vitrification alternative would consume process chemicals. The No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives would not use any process chemicals. The largest consumption of earthen borrow materials would occur under the Ex Situ No Separations (Vitrification) alternative; the greatest water consumption would be under the In Situ Vitrification alternative; and the greatest consumption of electricity would be under the Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative. Although all of these resource consumption impacts would be within existing capacity, the resources would be unavailable for alternative uses.
5.14.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for Capsule Alternatives
The unavoidable adverse impacts of the capsule alternatives identified in Table 5.14.2 are summarized in the following text.
Geology and Soil
A small area of soil would be permanently disturbed by the Onsite Disposal alternative. Other capsule alternatives would have no permanent impacts on .
Air Quality
Low levels of emissions of particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxides would occur during construction of facilities associated with all capsule alternatives except the No Action (Capsules) alternative. All construction phase and operations phase emissions would be within air quality standards.
Water Resources
No surface water or groundwater impacts would be expected for any of the capsule alternatives. Onsite Disposal would be the only alternative with potential to impact groundwater, but cesium and strontium would decay to nonhazardous progeny before any potential groundwater impacts could occur.
Land Use
Only the No Action and Onsite Disposal capsule alternatives would result in permanent commitment of land. The areas disturbed would be small, less than 2 ha (5 ac). The area impacted in both cases, however, would be within the 200 Areas and presently is designated for waste management.
Transportation
An increase in vehicular traffic of less than 50 vehicles per day during the morning commute would be expected for all capsule alternatives. These traffic volumes would not adversely impact traffic conditions on any transportation route.
Noise
None of the capsule alternatives would produce substantial onsite or offsite noise impacts. Noise levels would not exceed standards for any of the capsule alternatives.
Biological and Ecological Resources
Virtually all capsule alternative's activities would occur in currently disturbed areas. Minimal impacts would be expected from all alternatives except Onsite Disposal. Onsite Disposal would lead to a maximum loss of 1.8 ha (4.5 ac) of shrub-steppe habitat.
Cultural Resources
There would be a small potential to impact cultural sites during construction of the Onsite Disposal alternative's storage facility. Because the storage facility would be located in an currently disturbed area, the potential impacts would be small.
Socioeconomics
Small employment impacts would result from implementation of any capsule alternative. The greatest impact would be from the Vitrify with Tank Waste alternative, with peak year employment of less than 50 Site jobs and 100 total nonfarm jobs in the Tri-Cities. No adverse socioeconomics impacts would be expected for any capsules alternative.
Visual Resources
No offsite impacts to visual resources are anticipated for any capsule alternative.
Health Effects
No adverse health effects are anticipated for any of the capsule alternatives.
Accidents
For all alternatives, a relatively small number of occupational and transportation accidents would result in injury or illness. The Onsite Disposal alternative would have the highest potential for accidents among capsule alternatives. Injuries and illnesses resulting from occupational and transportation accidents would range from 18 for the Overpack and Ship and Vitrify with Tank Waste alternatives to 69 for the Onsite Disposal alternative.
Cost
Financial resource commitment would range from a low of $112 million for the No Action (Capsules) alternative to a high of $697 million for the Onsite Disposal alternative.
Commitment of Resources
The Onsite Disposal and Overpack and Ship alternatives would result in the consumption of water, concrete, and electricity. The Onsite Disposal alternative would result in the greatest consumption of electricity while the Overpack and Ship alternative would result in the greatest consumption of water. None of the alternatives would result in demands for resources that would adversely impact resource availability or cost.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
