5.15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
For this EIS, short-term was considered the period of the EIS alternatives' construction and operation phases (scheduled to be completed by 2028) and the monitoring and maintenance phase that would continue throughout the 100-year institutional control period. Most short-term environmental impacts would occur during the construction and operations phases of each alternative. Under the No Action and Long-Term Management tank waste alternatives, the tank waste in their current form would be managed for 100 years. For this EIS, long-term referred to the period after the end of the 100-year institutional control period. This section describes both the natural environment (e.g., air, water, and biological resources) and the human environment (e.g., employment, population, public facilities, and services issues).
5.15.1 Short-Term Impacts
For all tank waste alternatives except No Action, there would be increased air emissions and noise, solid and liquid waste generation, and increased risks of accidents and illness, primarily to workers involved in implementing the alternatives. The ex situ alternatives, in cluding the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternatives would involve more accidents than the in situ alternatives, mostly industrial and transportation accidents. The No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would involve nearly the same number of accidents as the ex situ alternatives because their operations would last 100 years, by far the longest of all the tank waste alternatives. The No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would be expected to lead to the highest number of latent cancer fatalities of 16 (factoring in the probability of the accident); Phased Implementation would have 5; Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ No Separations, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternatives would have 4 latent cancer fatalities; In Situ Vitrification alternative would have 3 latent cancer fatalities ; and In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would have 2 latent cancer fatalities. All alternatives would consume both natural and human-made resources (e.g., fuels, concrete, steel, and chemicals), but none of the alternatives would be expected to cause shortages or price increases as a result of their resource consumption.
Over the short-term, land areas would be committed to EIS alternatives' activities. This would affect biological resources under all tank waste alternatives except No Action, because shrub-steppe habitat would be disturbed. A portion of the areas that would be affected by the EIS alternatives currently is disturbed (e.g., the tank farms and parts of the proposed waste treatment facilities sites for the various ex situ alternatives and the Phased Implementation alternative). Access and uses for other purposes would be restricted, while these areas are being used for the EIS alternatives' construction and operation. Access to these areas has been restricted since the early 1940's.
The various ex situ alternatives, Phased Implementation, and Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would have relatively similar short-term land requirements and biological resources impacts in the same areas of the Hanford Site. The in situ alternatives would have smaller land requirements because no large TWRS waste processing facility sites would be required. However, the In Situ Vitrification alternative would require a new power line transmission corridor development dispersed through the 200 Areas, and thus land-use impacts would be more dispersed.
With respect to effluents, emissions, and land requirements, the No Action (Tank Waste) and Long-Term Management alternatives would have the fewest short-term natural environment impacts of any of the tank waste alternatives because they would involve the lowest activity levels during both construction and operation. Effluents, emissions, biological impacts, and health effects of the various action alternatives would be fairly similar to each other.
In terms of the human environment, all of the EIS alternatives would involve the expenditure of Federal funds in the Tri-Cities. There would be increased employment and economic activity associated with these expenditures. This would result in increased population and population growth impacts such as increased traffic, impacts on the price and availability of housing, and impacts on public facilities such as schools. For all tank waste alternatives except No Action, Long-Term Management and Phased Implementation , the largest impacts would occur in the early period of the project, before 2010.
The impacts on the human environment of the EIS alternatives would be driven largely by their levels of employment. Because they would involve the least number of jobs, the In Situ Fill and Cap, No Action, and Long-Term Management tank waste alternatives would have the least short-term impacts. The No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would have the longest lasting and most stable employment and related impacts because they would last for 100 years, whereas the other alternatives would be complete in approximately 30 years.
The Phased Implementation , Ex Situ Extensive Separations and Ex Situ No Separations alternatives would have the most intense short-term impacts on the human environment because they would have the sharpest short-term fluctuations in employment, population, and associated impacts on public services. Rapid growth in employment and population that drops off sharply, such as would be the case with these alternatives' construction phases particularly, can cause socioeconomic disruption as well as economic benefits. The Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2, and In Situ Vitrification alternatives would have somewhat less intense construction phases, which would allow for better planning to accommodate the impacts of both increases and subsequent decreases in employment construction and operation. Effluents, emissions, and risks of the various action alternatives would be similar to each other.
5.15.2 Long-Term Impacts
The long-term impacts on the natural environment of the EIS alternatives would be related in large part to how much waste remained on the Hanford Site after the alternatives were fully implemented, and how much of the remaining waste had been treated (vitrified) or left untreated. Future decisions on the ultimate closure of the tank farms that are beyond the scope of this EIS would have an effect on long-term impact issues. The long-term impacts of the EIS alternatives also must be considered in the context of decisions to be made concerning other contamination in the 200 Areas that is unrelated to the waste tanks or capsules, such as from the large 200 Areas processing facilities. Regardless of which EIS alternative is selected, the vicinity of the tank farms and proposed tank waste treatment facilities still would be contaminated. This would affect long-term health risks and future land uses of the 200 Areas, which would be the primary areas of long-term impacts associated with the EIS alternatives.
The tank waste No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would leave the waste totally unremediated. The capsules No Action alternative would have the same effect. The No Action, Long-Term Management and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives would have the largest long-term health risk impacts of any of the EIS alternatives because contaminants would be released from the tanks into the groundwater at levels that would exceed drinking water standards and pose substantial health risks to future Site users. The tank farms would be permanently committed to waste management use, preventing use of the land for alternative purposes. Future users of the Hanford Site lands ( Native Americans , residential farmers, workers, or recreational users) potentially would experience increased health risks over a time period extending thousands of years into the future.
All of the other EIS alternatives also would permanently commit small amounts of land to waste disposal use at the tank farms, and in some cases at waste treatment facility sites or onsite LAW vaults. The maximum permanent land commitment for remediation activities would be 38 ha (94 ac ) for the Phased Implementation alternative. The permanently committed lands would be unavailable for alternative uses.
The alternatives also would have potential small long-term health effects on future Hanford Site users because of eventual contaminant release to the groundwater. However, these impacts would be fewer and further in the future than under the No Action, Long-Term Management , and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives. Impacts would be fewer because less contamination would remain onsite and untreated. The Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternatives would leave the tank waste onsite and untreated. These two alternatives would have higher long-term health risks than the ex situ, Phased Implementation, or In Situ Vitrification alternatives, although risks would be lower than for the No Action or Long-Term Management. The In Situ Vitrification alternative would have the lowest long-term health effect potential of any of the EIS alternatives. The ranking of tank waste alternatives from greatest to lowest total health effect for the entire 10,000 years for the residential farmer scenario would be: No Action, Long-Term Management, In Situ Fill and Cap, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 , Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Phased Implementation, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ No Separations, and In Situ Vitrification. Only the No Action, Long-Term Management, and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives would have long-term health effects for the future downriver user of the Columbia River.
In terms of long-term human environment impacts, all of the tank waste alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management would have similar and negligible impacts because there would be no long-term employment following the loss of institutional control in 100 years. For No Action and Long-Term Management, a post-remediation accident would result in fatalities. Also, under all disposal alternatives, post-remediation intrusion into waste remaining onsite would be highest for all alternatives that dispose of all or portions of the HLW onsite.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
