5.9 NOISE
The following text summarizes potential noise impacts to onsite workers, the public, and wildlife from the construction and operations phase of each alternative. Potential construction noise impacts were compared with the General Service Administration construction noise specifications, and a bounding case scenario was evaluated to estimate the probable distance from construction activities that would be impacted. For operations phase noise, noise impacts of activities within facilities and exterior to facilities were addressed.
Potential noise impacts of all alternatives would be minor. All tank waste alternatives except the No Action alternative would involve noise generation associated with construction and operation phase activities. However, all proposed sites are a considerable distance from sensitive receptors such as residences, hospitals, and schools. None of the alternatives would have noise impacts on offsite locations, nor would any violations of Federal or State noise standards occur. The only potential onsite noise impact on human beings would be occupational noise effects on project workers from exposure to construction equipment noise and the noise of waste treatment facility operations. Noise protection measures would be used to ensure that no occupational noise standards would be violated. Noise emissions during construction activities and noise associated with borrow site activities could cause minor disturbance to sensitive wildlife species (particularly birds of prey) in the vicinity of the construction and potential borrow sites (Section 5.4.2). The affected Tribal Nations have expressed the concern that noise emissions, which would be highest during construction, could adversely impact Gable Mountain, which is used by Native Americans for religious purposes (CTUIR 1996). However, because Gable Mountain is approximately 3 km (2 mi) from TWRS areas, TWRS noise emissions would have only very minor impacts on noise levels at Gable Mountain or at Gable Butte.
During both construction and operation phases of all tank waste alternatives, there would be some increases in noise levels offsite from vehicular travel (worker vehicles and trucks) along existing roadways near the Hanford Site. The noise impacts of these incremental noise emissions would be minor because they would occur on existing roadways that currently are used extensively.
5.9.1 Construction Phase Noise Impacts
Construction phase noise impacts would result largely from noise generated by mechanized equipment such as loaders, bulldozers, cranes, and trucks. Borrow site activities would involve similar heavy equipment. The noise emissions of various alternatives likely would differ somewhat depending on the types and number of pieces of mechanized equipment in use at a given time and location and on the duration of construction and borrow site activities. Noise emission levels from all mechanized equipment used during construction and borrow site activities for all alternatives would be within the General Services Administration construction noise specifications or other similar noise standards. Table 5.9.1 lists noise specifications for some of the types of construction equipment likely to be used.
Table 5.9.1 General Services Administration Construction - Noise Specifications 1
Because of the remoteness and natural setting of much of the Hanford Site, potential noise impacts to resident wildlife species were of concern. Table 5.9.2 presents the results of this analysis, in which a scraper, bulldozer, and grader were assumed to operate concurrently at the same location. Because these pieces of equipment likely all would be in relatively constant motion, it is likely that three such pieces of equipment would be operating in close proximately to each other only for short periods of time. At a distance of 15 m (50 ft), the cumulative noise level would be 90 decibels on the A scale (dBA). The noise level would reduce to less than 74 dBA at 100 m (330 ft) and 62 dBA at 400 m (1,300 ft). To place these noise levels in perspective, 90 dBA is approximately the noise level of a food blender at a distance of 1 m (3 ft). Riding inside an automobile at 65 km (40 mi) per hour produces approximately 75 dBA. Normal speech is 60 dBA. Consequently, there would be some short-term disturbance of noise-sensitive wildlife species near the TWRS activity sites during construction and borrow site activities (Section 5.4). Construction noise levels would approach background levels at distances greater than 600 m (2,000 ft), although some species could be disturbed up to a distance of up to 800 m (2,700 ft) from the construction sites.
No Action Alternative (Tank Waste)
Because the No Action alternative would involve no new construction, there would be no construction phase noise impacts. Noise emissions from routine maintenance activities would be monitored, and appropriate noise protection measures would be taken under routine Hanford Site occupational health and safety procedures.
Long-Term Management Alternative
This alternative would have no construction phase noise impacts until the 2030's and again in the 2080's, when new underground storage tanks would be constructed to replace existing DSTs at the end of their design lives. Noise impacts would be the same as described in Table 5.9.2.
In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative
The In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would involve minimal construction activities (i.e., only those associated with preparing to place the fill material in the tanks). This alternative would involve borrow site activities and associated noise emissions at the potential Vernita Quarry, McGee Ranch, and Pit 30 borrow sites, as well as noise emissions associated with constructing Hanford Barriers at the tank farms (during closure). Noise impacts would be as described in Table 5.9.2.
In Situ Vitrification Alternative
The In Situ Vitrification alternative would involve construction activities for constructing tank farm confinement facilities and installing vitrification equipment throughout the 200 Areas at the 18 tank farms, and along the transmission line corridors in the 200 Areas where new powerlines would be installed to supply power to the vitrification activities. Borrow site activities and noise emissions would occur at the potential Pit 30 borrow site. Noise emissions also would occur during closure at the potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites and while constructing Hanford Barriers at the tank farms. Noise impacts would be as described in Table 5.9.2.
Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative
The Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative would involve noise emissions from waste retrieval and waste processing facility construction during remediation. During closure, noise emissions would include Hanford Barrier construction at the tank farms and LAW vaults and heavy equipment activities at borrow sites. Impacts would be as described in Table 5.9.2.
Ex Situ No Separations Alternative
The Ex Situ No Separations alternative would involve construction noise emissions from all of the same activities at the same locations as the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative, except that no vault construction or Hanford Barriers would be required for LAW vaults during closure. The Ex Situ No Separations alternative would involve no long-term LAW storage on the Hanford Site.
Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative
The Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative would involve noise emissions similar to the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. This alternative would involve similar activities at the same locations (i.e., tank farms, waste processing facilities, borrow sites, and LAW vaults).
Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 Alternatives
These alternatives would involve noise emissions from waste retrieval construction and fill and cap activities at the tank farms and from constructing the proposed TWRS sites in the 200 East Area during remediation. They also would result in impacts from constructing Hanford Barriers at the tank farms as part of the closure process and from constructing Hanford Barriers at the LAW vaults following emplacement of the stabilized LAW. Noise emissions also would be generated at the potential Vernita Quarry, McGee Ranch, and Pit 30 borrow sites during closure.
Phased Implementation Alternative
Phase 1
This phase of the alternative would involve noise emissions from constructing the two demonstration separations and vitrification facilities.
Total Alternative
The Phased Implementation alternative, when fully implemented, would include the impacts for Phase 1 as well as impacts associated with the second phase of the alternative. The total alternative noise impacts would involve construction emissions from all of the same activities at the same locations as the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative.
Capsule Alternatives
All cesium and strontium capsule alternatives would have minor noise impacts during construction. The No Action alternative would involve no construction activities. The Onsite Disposal alternative would involve construction noise at a site adjacent to the western edge of the 200 East Area. The Overpack and Ship and Vitrify with Tank Waste alternatives would involve minimal construction, all of which would occur as part of developing the proposed TWRS sites in the 200 East Area associated with the various ex situ alternatives.
5.9.2 Operation Phase Noise Impacts
For all tank waste alternatives except the No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives, operation phase noise emissions would be largely related to operating process equipment (e.g., evaporator, mixer pumps, and melter and quencher). The No Action alternative would involve only the continuation of noise from ongoing, routine tank farm operations. The Long-Term Management alternative would involve operating two new tank farms, but there would be noise emissions from the existing 18 tank farms. Because the waste treatment process equipment for the various vitrification alternatives would be operating inside enclosed structures, exterior noise levels would not be substantially increased. There would be some exterior noise emissions from the emplacement of fill material in the tanks under the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative.
All facilities and working conditions would comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration occupational noise requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.95. Pursuant to these occupational noise requirements, noise exposures for an 8-hour duration would not exceed 85 dBA. In cases where the workers would be exposed to noise levels exceeding this value, administrative controls, engineering controls, or personal protective equipment use would be required to reduce the noise exposures below the allowable maximum.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
