5.7 LAND USE
This section describes the land-use impacts of the various EIS alternatives. Land-use impacts were addressed in terms of the compatibility of temporary and permanent land-use commitments under each alternative with past, present, and planned and potential future uses of the land and the surrounding area. Also addressed were potential conflicts with uses of land adjacent to the land that would be impacted under each alternative and unique land uses in proximity to the proposed TWRS sites, including the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River and the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Land Ecology Reserve. Conflicts between EIS alternatives and Federal, State, local, and Tribal Nation land-use policies, plans, and controls are described in Section 5.17.
Temporary and permanent proposed land-use commitments for remedial activities under all TWRS EIS alternatives would be consistent with past and existing land uses for the 200 Areas, as well as with proposed use of the area as an exclusive-use waste management area for Hanford Site waste disposal and environmental restoration programs. Potential land-use commitments do not conflict with land uses in the area of the Hanford Site immediately surrounding the 200 Areas, recreational resources such as the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, or the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Land Ecology Reserve. For some of the alternatives, temporary land-use commitments associated with use of potential borrow sites outside of the 200 Areas may conflict with future Site land-use plans. However, borrow sites identified in this EIS were used only to compare potential impacts associated with one closure scenario. When a final closure plan is selected, borrow material needs may be much lower, and different onsite or offsite sources of borrow material may be selected to support closure activities. In August 1996, the Hanford Site published the Draft Hanford Remedial Action EIS and Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE 1996) , which addresses future Site uses and the cleanup levels required to facilitate the uses identified for various areas of the Hanford Site, including the 200 Areas and the Central Plateau.
5.7.1 Land-Use Commitments
All major remediation activities associated with the EIS alternatives would occur within the current boundaries of the 200 Areas. However, the closure scenario used to compare impacts would result in activities at two potential borrow sites (Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch), which lie to the north and west of the 200 Areas, and at the potential Pit 30 borrow site, which is located between the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Figure 5.7.1). For more than 40 years, the 200 Areas have been used for industrial and waste management activities associated with the Hanford Site's past national defense mission and current waste management and environmental restoration cleanup mission. The 200 Areas consist of approximately 2,600 ha (6,400 ac). The tank farms where the tank waste currently is stored would be the location of the in situ remediation activities under the In Situ Vitrification and In Situ Fill and Cap alternatives. The tank farms currently are being used for waste management purposes.
All proposed permanent land-use commitments would consist of changes from existing waste management uses to waste disposal uses, which is consistent with the exclusive use for waste management designation for the Central Plateau including the 200 Areas. All EIS alternatives would result in temporary and permanent land-use commitments. Temporary land-use commitments would include currently undisturbed areas used for constructing and operating the alternatives, and construction activities associated with closure. Temporary land-use commitments would include facility footprints, parking lots, construction laydown areas, materials storage areas, facility assembly areas, new power line corridors, and areas used at the three potential borrow sites. Permanent land-use commitments would include areas that would be permanently committed to waste disposal as a result of an EIS alternative. This would include the areas committed through the remedial phase of the alternatives, such as the tank farms and the LAW vaults associated with all the ex situ alternatives (except Ex Situ No Separations) and with the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives . Permanent land use commitments associated with the closure scenario would include the areas that would be covered by the Hanford Barriers under all alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management.
It is likely that there would be some land exclusion zones or restricted use zones around areas that were permanently committed to waste disposal. No exclusion or restricted use zones have been defined, but this type of land-use issue has been addressed in the land-use planning process for the Hanford Site that is currently underway (DOE 1996c) .
Groundwater use at the Hanford Site is controlled at present because of existing groundwater contamination. Groundwater contamination has land-use implications. While some land uses might not be precluded because of underlying groundwater contamination, the value of land for potential future uses such as agriculture could be diminished or restricted because the underlying groundwater could not be used. Under all EIS alternatives, TWRS activities would contribute to future Site groundwater contamination.
Figure 5.7.1 Future Land Uses Showing Potential TWRS Borrow Sites
At some point in the future, from a few hundred to several thousand years from now depending on the alternative, contaminants from TWRS tanks would reach the groundwater and begin migrating with the underlying groundwater flow patterns toward the Columbia River (Sections 5.2 and 5.11). The size (areal extent) as well as the timing of the TWRS-related groundwater contamination would differ for each alternative. The nature, extent, and timing of TWRS groundwater contamination, and thus the potential implications for future land uses, would depend on TWRS closure decisions that have not yet been made, as well as on the future Sitewide land-use planning decisions. Likewise, many relevant decisions related to non-TWRS-related groundwater contamination and overall Hanford Site groundwater cleanup have not yet been made.
The EIS analyzes use of three potential borrow sites. F inal selection of borrow sites for TWRS uses will be made in the future after the Site land-use planning process is completed.
Temporary and permanent land-use commitments for the various alternatives are summarized in Table 5.7.1. None of the alternatives would require temporary or permanent land-use commitments that would exceed the available land for waste management within the 200 Areas. All land-use commitments would constitute a small fraction of the 200 Areas' 2,600 ha (6,400 ac). The greatest impact on land use would result from the Phased Implementation alternative. This alternative would require approximately 320 ha ( 790 ac) for temporary construction-related uses and 49 ha ( 120 ac) for permanent land uses. Approximately 40 percent of the temporary land use would be outside the 200 Areas at the potential borrow sites. Thus, the alternative would use about 6 percent of the total 200 Areas temporarily and 2 percent of the total 200 Areas for permanent land uses.
All of the ex situ alternatives and the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would involve the temporary storage of vitrified HLW onsite until a potential geologic repository was able to accept the waste for permanent disposal.
The Hanford Site has no designated prime or unique farmlands (Section 4.7). There are no known plans for agricultural use of the 200 Areas, although such future uses cannot be precluded given possible DOE or other agency land-use decisions.
No Action Alternative (Tank Waste)
The No Action alternative would involve no incremental land-use commitment, as no new construction would occur. The 17 ha (42 ac) currently used for the 18 existing tank farms would be permanently committed to waste disposal. As stated previously, and as is true for all the other alternatives described in the following text, the permanent land-use commitment areas described in this section do not include any exclusion or restricted-use zones that may be designated around the tank farms.
Long-Term Management Alternative
The Long-Term Management alternative would involve temporarily committing 50 ha ( 120 ac) of land for two new tank farms in the 200 East Area and 16 ha (40 ac) of land at the potential Pit 30 borrow site . Only 25 ha (62 ac) would be permanently committed to waste disposal; 8 ha (20 ac) at the new tank farms and 17 ha (42 ac) at the existing tank farms. Under this alternative, no other land commitments would occur.
Table 5.7.1 TWRS Alternatives Land-Use Commitments
In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative
For the remediation phase of the project, 26 ha (64 ac) would be temporarily committed and 17 ha (42 ac) of land would be permanently committed (Figure 5.7.2). For the total In Situ Fill and Cap alternative, temporary commitments would total 97 ha (240 ac) of land. Of this total, 76 ha (190 ac) would be at the three potential borrow sites with virtually all of the remaining committed land being used during construction of the Hanford Barriers. The only permanent land-use commitment would be 25 ha (62 ac) for the tank farms and Hanford Barriers over the tank farms.
In Situ Vitrification Alternative
The remediation activities would temporarily commit 110 ha (270 ac) and permanently commit 17 ha (42 ac) of land (Figure 5.7.2). For the total In Situ Vitrification alternative, temporary commitments would total 190 ha ( 470 ac) for project use, including 70 ha (170 ac) for the potential new power transmission corridors, a total of 74 ha (190 ac) at the three potential borrow sites, and 21 ha (52 ac) for constructing the tank farm confinement structures for use during remedial operations. Because there would be no new waste processing facilities, the only additional land permanently committed to waste disposal would be 25 ha (62 ac) for the tank farms and Hanford Barriers.
Figure 5.7.2 Land-Use Commitments in the 200 Areas - In Situ Alternatives
Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative
Remediation activities would temporarily commit 120 ha (300 ac) and permanently commit 35 ha ( 86 ac) of land (Figure 5.7.3). For the total Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative, temporary commitments would total 240 ha ( 590 ac) of land. This would include 89 ha (220 ac) for constructing and operating waste retrieval, transfer, and processing facilities; 24 ha (59 ac) used during Hanford Barrier construction; and 130 ha (320 ac) at the three potential borrow sites (Figure 5.7.4). Permanent land-use commitments for waste disposal would total 46 ha ( 110 ac) for tank farms and LAW disposal vaults, Hanford Barriers over the tank farms and LAW vaults, and contaminated portions of the waste treatment facility site.
Ex Situ No Separations Alternative
Remediation activities would temporarily commit 170 ha ( 420 ac) and permanently commit 20 ha (4 9 ac) of land (Figure 5.7.3). For the total Ex Situ No Separations alternative, temporary commitments would total 260 ha (650 ac) of land, 70 ha ( 170 ac) for constructing and operating new waste retrieval, transfer, and processing facilities; 20 ha (49 ac) for constructing Hanford Barriers at the tank farms; and 170 ha ( 420 ac) at the potential borrow sites. A total of 28 ha (69 ac) would be permanently committed to the tank farms and Hanford Barriers over the tank farms and at contaminated portions of the waste treatment facility site.
Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative
The remediation phase activities would temporarily commit 120 ha ( 300 ac) and permanently commit 33 ha (82 ac) of land (Figure 5.7.3). For the total Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative, temporary land commitments would total 240 ha (590 ac). This would include 88 ha (220 ac) for constructing and operating waste retrieval, transfer, and processing facilities; 24 ha (59 ac) disturbed during Hanford Barrier construction at the tank farms and LAW disposal vaults; and 130 ha ( 320 ac) at the three potential borrow sites. Permanent land-use commitments would total 44 ha (110 ac) for the tank farms, the Hanford Barriers over the tank farms, the LAW vaults, and the contaminated portions of the waste treatment facility site.
Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative
For the remediation activities, 120 ha (300 ac) of land would be temporarily committed and 31 ha (77 ac) of land would be permanently committed (Figures 5.7.2 and 5.7.3). For the total Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative, temporary commitment would total 210 ha ( 520 ac) of land. This would include 85 ha (210 ac) for constructing and operating new waste retrieval, transfer, and processing facilities; 22 ha (54 ac) during Hanford Barrier construction; and 100 ha (250 ac) at the three potential borrow sites. A total of 41 ha (100 ac) would be permanently committed to waste disposal.
Figure 5.7.3 Land-Use Commitments in the 200 Areas
Figure 5.7.4 Land-Use Commitments at Potential Borrow Sites
Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 Alternative
During remediation activities, 100 ha (250 ac) of land would be temporarily committed and 25 ha (62 ac) would be permanently committed. For the total Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative, temporary land commitments would total 180 ha (440 ac). This would include 63 ha (160 ac) for constructing and operating new waste retrieval, transfer, and processing facilities; 22 ha (54 ac) during Hanford Barrier construction; and 92 ha (230 ac) at the three potential borrow sites. A total of 34 ha (80 ac) would be permanently committed to waste disposal.
Phased Implementation Alternative
Phase 1
Phase 1 of the Phased Implementation alternative would involve disturbing a total of 33 ha (82 ac) of land during construction and operation. This would include about 32 ha ( 79 ac) for new waste processing facilities at the facility site in the easternmost portion of the 200 East Area, and 1 ha (2 ac) at the potential Pit 30 borrow site to obtain sand and gravel for construction phase concrete needs. There would be no permanent land-use commitments resulting from this phase.
Total Alternative
The Phased Implementation alternative, when fully implemented, would include the impacts detailed for Phase 1 as well as impacts associated with Phase 2 of the alternative. During remediation activities alone, 200 ha ( 490 ac) of land would be temporarily committed and 38 ha ( 94 ac) of land would be permanently committed (Figure 5.7.3). The total alternative land-use commitments would temporarily commit 320 ha ( 790 ac) of land: 150 ha ( 380 ac) for constructing and operating new facilities; 24 ha (60 ac) for Hanford Barrier construction at the tank farms; and 140 ha ( 350 ac) at the potential borrow sites. A total of 49 ha ( 120 ac) would be permanently committed to surface barriers over the tank farms, the LAW vaults, and at contaminated portions of the vitrification facility sites.
Capsules Alternatives
The cesium and strontium capsule alternatives all would involve relatively few land-use commitments. The capsules No Action alternative would involve no incremental land-use commitment because all activities would take place within the current footprint of the existing WESF site. Permanent land-use commitment at this site would total 0.6 ha (1.5 ac). The Onsite Disposal alternative would temporarily commit 4 ha (10 ac) and permanently commit 1.8 ha (4.4 ac) of land for the disposal facility. The Overpack and Ship and Vitrify with Tank Waste alternatives temporarily would commit approximately 2 ha (5 ac) for the handling and processing facilities. The Overpack and Ship and Vitrify with Tank Waste alternative would have minimal permanent land-use commitments. These land areas are included within the areas that would be committed for the ex situ alternatives because the facilities for these alternatives would be located within the proposed tank waste treatment facility complex.
5.7.2 Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
As designated by the Hanford Site Development Plan (DOE 1993e), current and planned land uses that surround the 200 Areas would include research and development, engineering areas, and a buffer zone (undeveloped areas) (Figure 5.7.1). Research and development and engineering areas include developing scientific and engineering technology and managing waste. The waste management use of the 200 Areas would be within the overall Central Plateau use as a waste management area. Under the Hanford Site Development Plan, the Central Plateau waste management area would consist of approximately 11,700 ha (28,800 ac). Waste management would take place on 4,900 ha (12,200 ac) of the area while the remaining 6,700 ha (16,600 ac) would be designated for use as a buffer zone. The 200 Areas constitute approximately 2,600 ha (6,400 ac) of the waste management area (53 percent).
The buffer undeveloped areas would provide a land-use transition between the waste operations of the 200 Areas and other more sensitive use areas. Similar uses have occurred in these locations for over 40 years without land-use conflicts. Thus, the EIS alternatives' activities in the 200 Areas would be consistent with existing and currently planned land uses in surrounding Hanford Site areas. None of the alternatives would directly or indirectly impact current or planned land uses in surrounding areas. The Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, which was released for public comment in August 1996, designate s future land-use plans for the Site under various alternatives .
5.7.2.1 Recreational Resources and the National Environmental Research Park
Although the Hanford Site is designated as a National Environmental Research Park (Section 4.7), the 200 Areas do not contain any designated or protected wildlife areas, wildlife refuges, or recreational areas. However, the 200 Areas do contain shrub-steppe habitat of ecological value. The 200 Areas have been used for more than 40 years for defense production and waste management purposes. All EIS alternatives would continue past and current land uses and would not conflict with the goals of the National Environmental Research Park.
The Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Land Ecology Reserve is located approximately 3 km (2 mi) southwest of the 200 Areas. The Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) north of the 200 Areas. The Wahluke Slope Wildlife Recreation Area is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) northeast of the 200 Areas. The McNary National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 20 km (13 mi) southeast of the 200 Areas. The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, which is proposed for designation as a Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, is located approximately 11 km (7 mi) from the 200 Areas. Implementing any of the EIS alternatives would not preclude or adversely affect the current or planned use of any of these sensitive wildlife or recreational areas.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
