• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

5.19 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Based on the 1990 census, the 80-km (50-mi) area surrounding the Hanford Site had a total 1990 minority population of 86,400 and a low-income population of 77,700. Hispanics residing predominantly in Franklin, Yakima, Grant, and Adams counties are the area's principal minority group. Native Americans reside principally on the Yakama Indian Reservation. The area's low-income population is dispersed throughout the 80-km (50-mi) region with the highest concentrations occurring in Franklin, Yakima, Grant, and Adams counties. Section 4.6.1 describes minority and Native American populations and low-income populations residing in the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Hanford Site. Additional information regarding minority and Native American populations and low-income populations is provided in Volume Five, Appendix I.

For each of the areas of technical analysis presented in the EIS, a review of impacts to the human and natural environment was conducted to determine if any potentially disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority populations or low-income populations would occur. The review included potential impacts on land use, socioeconomics (e.g., employment, housing prices, public facilities, and services), water quality, air quality, health effects, accidents, and biological and cultural resources. For each of the areas of analysis, impacts were reviewed to determine if there were any potential disproportionate and adverse impacts to the surrounding population that would occur due to construction, routine operations, or accident conditions. If an adverse impact was identified, a determination was made as to whether minority populations or low-income populations would be disproportionately affected. The results of the review are presented in Table 5.19.1.

For the purposes of this EIS, disproportionate impacts are defined as impacts that would affect minority and Native American populations or low-income populations at levels appreciably greater than their effects on nonminority populations or non-low-income populations. Adverse impacts are defined as negative changes to the existing conditions in the natural environment (e.g., land, air, water, wildlife, vegetation) or in the human environment (e.g., employment, health, land use).

During consultation with affected Tribal Nations, representatives of the Yakama Indian Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation expressed the view that impacts associated with all of the in situ and ex situ alternatives may adversely impact the cultural values of affected Tribal Nations to the extent that they involve disturbance or destruction of ecological and biological resources, alter land forms, or pose a noise or visual impact to sacred sites. The level of impact to cultural values associated with natural resources would be proportional to the amount of land disturbed under each of the alternatives.

Table 5.19.1 Environmental Justice Impact Analysis

Changes to land forms would result from the construction of barriers over the tank farms and LAW vaults. However, barriers would be constructed only under closure of the tank farms, which is outside the scope of this EIS. These disturbances would largely occur in areas already disturbed and would only be visible from locations such as Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and Rattlesnake Mountain, which are sacred sites of the affected Tribal Nations. Additionally, facilities constructed under most of the alternatives would also be visible from these sacred sites. The facilities would be constructed in areas that already include several facilities of similar size and general configuration. Noise associated with construction and operation of the TWRS facilities would likely have very minor, if any, potential to impact Gable Mountain.

Under all of the alternatives, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to human health during routine operations or under accident scenarios, with the exception of a potential impact to Gable Mountain resulting from deposition of contaminants under certain accident scenarios. Such an accident is very unlikely to occur but could result in a limitation of cultural and religious practices on Gable Mountain until mitigation actions could be implemented to remediate any potential risks to human health. Under all other scenarios, there would be no risks to human health to existing populations from continued access to sacred sites and hence no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority, Native American, or low-income populations. However, the EIS does analyze potential post-remediation risks under various land-use scenarios. This assessment of risk indicates that under the closure scenario analyzed in the EIS for purpose of comparison of alternatives, post-remediation risks would exist under all land-use scenarios and that risks would be highest under the Native American scenario. Because closure is outside the scope of the TWRS EIS, future NEPA documentation will address risks associated with various closure alternatives. This analysis would be required to determine if any particular closure alternative would represent a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, Native American, or low-income populations. However, implementation of the No Action, Long-Term Management, In Situ Fill and Cap, In Situ Vitrification, and the In Situ portions of the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would preclude clean closure or modified clean closure of some or all of the tanks. For these alternatives, except for In Situ Vitrification, post-remediation health risks under the Native American scenario would be disproportionately high for Native American users of the site. Risk would be three to four times higher than under the future Site land uses analyzed. For the In Situ Vitrification alternative, risks would not be disproportionately high compared to risks under other land-use scenarios. For the alternatives involving extensive waste retrieval, the ex situ alternatives closure options that would reduce risks beyond those presented in the EIS would not be precluded. Therefore, future NEPA analysis of closure alternatives would address risks associated with various closure alternatives and potential disproportionate and adverse impacts.

Under all tank waste alternatives except the No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives, the result of implementing the alternative would be to lessen overall potential impacts to the human and natural environment resulting from future releases of tank waste into the environment. If tank waste is not stabilized and isolated (the in situ alternatives) or retrieved, immobilized, and disposed of (the ex situ alternatives), releases to the environment would pose long-term risks to biological and ecological resources and human health based on the analysis provided in Sections 5.4, 5.11, and 5.12 and Appendices D (Volume Three) and E (Volume Four). Therefore, actions to manage and dispose of tank waste would result in an overall beneficial impact to the environment compared to existing conditions or conditions that would exist in the future should no action be implemented.

Two areas of potentially disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and Native American populations or low-income populations were identified. These impacts include 1) potential increases in housing prices that could adversely impact access to affordable housing by low-income populations; and 2) continued restrictions on access to portions of the 200 Areas that could restrict access to the 200 Areas by all individuals. Access restrictions also would apply to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nations and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who have expressed an interest in access to and unrestricted use of the Hanford Site.

Housing Cost Impacts on Low-Income Populations

Housing prices in the Tri-Cities are projected to increase steadily from 1997 through 2040 under baseline conditions. All of the tank waste alternatives, except No Action, would result in additional increases in housing prices (Section 5.6.2.2). The levels of increase would vary substantially and housing prices would fluctuate depending on the levels of employment for each TWRS alternative as well as non-TWRS related fluctuations in Hanford Site and area employment. For example, the EIS analysis did not address the reduction of Hanford Site employment by 4,500 jobs that occurred in 1995, and future projections of baseline conditions were based on funding of the Hanford Site waste management and environmental restoration program as defined in the Tri-Party Agreement.

Additional reductions in Site employment resulting from funding reductions could minimize the potential adverse impacts on housing prices resulting from proposed TWRS activities. The No Action, Long-Term Management, and the In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives would have minor impacts on housing prices and hence would not adversely impact the access of low-income populations to affordable housing. The alternatives with the greatest potential impacts on housing prices include the following:

• In Situ Vitrification alternative - 9.3 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2001 (the peak year of impacts);
• Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative - 14.5 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2001 (peak year);
• Ex Situ No Separations alternative - 17.5 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2000 (peak year);
• Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative - 25.1 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2004 (peak year);
• Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative - 8.8 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2001 ( peak year ) ;
• Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative - 8 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2001 or 2002 (peak year);
• Phased Implementation alternative (Phase 1) - 12.9 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2000 (peak year); and
• Phased Implementation alternative (total alternative) - 19.9 percent increase in the average purchase price of a home above baseline conditions in 2011 (peak year).

For each of these alternatives, housing price increases would exceed baseline conditions for a number of years depending on employment levels and construction and operation schedules.

Higher housing prices related to the alternatives would have a negative impact on low-income home buyers and renters in the Tri-Cities. Historically, rental prices increase consistent with the price of single-family homes. Low-income families would be adversely and disproportionately impacted in their ability to purchase affordable housing or rent housing at affordable prices.

The baseline conditions used in the impact analysis of the alternatives on the housing market in the Tri-Cities assumed Hanford Site employment at levels projected in the Tri-Party Agreement and did not assume any increase in low-income housing or rental units or housing cost subsidies or assistance by Federal, State, or local low-income housing agencies or programs. Changes from these baseline conditions or other substantial changes in the Tri-Cities economy could substantially modify the net impact of the alternatives on the housing market. If the housing market in the Tri-Cities does not experience the levels of price increases shown in the EIS, the disproportionate impact on low-income communities would be reduced.

Continued Restrictions on Access to Portions of the 200 Areas

Access to the Hanford Site has been restricted since the Hanford Site was established in 1943. However, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have expressed a desire to have access and use of the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site in the future. The Tribal Nations have also expressed an interest in long-term ownership of lands on the Hanford Site. All of the EIS alternatives would have long-term land-use impacts that would continue restrictions on access by all individuals, including Tribal Nation members, to portions of the 200 Areas permanently committed to waste management and disposal.

Approximately two-thirds of the land that would be restricted from future access is land that has previously been disturbed by Hanford Site activities, including the tank farms. Table 5.19.2 summarizes the extent of the land that would be subject to long-term land-use restrictions. The total land that would continue to be subject to access restrictions as a result of EIS alternatives represents less than 1 percent of the total Hanford Site and less than 2 percent of the 200 Areas (Section 5.7). The relatively small amount of land that would be subject to continued restrictions could result in small disproportionate impacts to Tribal Nation land use and ownership interests.

The amount of land that would be restricted from future access is based on land-use restrictions that would result from implementing the TWRS alternatives. Additional land-use restrictions and potential groundwater-use restrictions might be required based on the ultimate closure action implemented for the tank farms. However, future NEPA documentation will be prepared to address the closure action. That document will address various closure alternatives and analyze the associated impacts including land use and groundwater restrictions. The analysis would also address the extent to which any of the alternatives would pose a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority, Native American, or low-income populations.

Table 5.19.2 Comparison of Land Area Requiring Continued Access Restrictions

The No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would leave all tank waste intact in their current location and form indefinitely, thereby restricting land access and use indefinitely. All of the other tank waste alternatives would leave the tank farms in place following remediation. Under the closure scenario, the tanks would be covered with Hanford Barriers with varying amounts of waste remaining in the tanks. All of the alternatives would require long-term land-use restrictions. The In Situ Fill and Cap and In Situ Vitrification alternatives would leave essentially all waste in the tanks, requiring long-term land-use restrictions because all of the waste would be permanently disposed of onsite. The least amount of waste would remain onsite under the Ex Situ No Separations alternative because there would be no LAW disposed of onsite, as all waste retrieved from the tanks would be disposed of offsite. For the capsule alternatives, only the Onsite Disposal alternative would require future land access and use restrictions. However, because all of the tank waste alternatives would require future closure decisions, the final nature and extent of the land-use restrictions cannot be determined at this time.

The overall issue of access to the tank farm portions of the Central Plateau is linked to the ultimate land-use plan for the 200 Areas. Access to the tank farm areas would be limited by the level of cleanup accomplished for the surrounding area. The tank farms are in an area that currently is designated as a waste management area by DOE. DOE is preparing a Comprehensive Land-Use Plan for the Hanford Site, and final decisions regarding the level of cleanup required to support the land-use plan for the Central Plateau will impact the final decisions regarding the closure of the tank farms and future access to the 200 Areas.