6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 6 examines the cumulative environmental impacts which could result by
adding the impacts of the proposed alternatives to past, present, and future
actions at the Hanford Site. The impacts of implementing any of the
alternatives, as discussed in Chapter 5, would not significantly alter the
existing environment. However, if these impacts to the environment were added
to all the other actions proposed at the Hanford Site, the impacts on the
environment could be amplified.
The cumulative impacts of future activities at the Hanford Site are not fully
known and the detailed planning and analysis to estimate cumulative impacts
have not yet been performed. However, there is strong evidence that the
potential impacts from the alternatives in this EIS would be small compared to
the potential cumulative impacts of all the other proposed actions. Most of
the land use, soils, and ecological impacts would be isolated to the Central
Plateau of the Hanford Site which has been recognized as an area where waste
management activities would continue for a number of years. Furthermore,
there would be no liquid releases to surface or groundwater, and air emissions
from the proposed alternatives would be considerably less than site-wide
emissions. Finally, both radiation and toxic substance exposures for all
projects are limited by federal and state regulations, which are established
to minimize impacts to workers and the general public.
The no action alternative would not alter existing environmental conditions
because there would be no change from present operations. Environmental
effects from ongoing operations of Tank 101-SY are part of the annual
assessment of the environmental impacts for the Hanford Site which have been
addressed in Section 5.5 and, therefore, will not be considered further.
Other than the alternatives described in this EIS, actions proposed at the
Hanford Site that could impact the environment include:
. Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)
. Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP)
. Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)
. HRA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) for operable units (OUs)
. TWRS
. PFP Cleanout
. K Basin Spent Fuel Management
. Solid Waste Operations Complex, Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste
Storage Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, and Central Waste Support
Complex
. 200 Area Sanitary Sewer System
. Disposal of Naval Reactor Plants
Most of these actions are necessary to decontaminate and decommission Hanford
facilities and remediate contaminated sites as discussed in Section 6.1.
These actions are briefly summarized in Section 6.2 to provide a basis for a
qualitative evaluation in Section 6.3 of the potential cumulative impacts if
some or all of these proposed actions were implemented.
6.1 CONTEXT FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Most of the environmental modifications that have occurred at the Hanford Site were associated with the production of special nuclear materials for national defense. These actions include the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, separations facilities, fabrication facilities, waste disposal areas (burial grounds), waste management tanks, power plants, transmission lines, laboratories, roads, and office buildings necessary to support the Site's defense mission. The facilities were built between 1944 and the present. The Hanford Site's mission has changed from production of special nuclear materials to environmental remediation and cleanup. This EIS considers alternatives for safe interim storage of Hanford tank waste. For cumulative impact analysis, the potential impacts from this EIS must be examined in the context of past, present, and proposed future activities at the Hanford Site. Other projects, not directly related to the Hanford Site mission, have been placed at the Hanford Site. The Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) has built an on-site nuclear power plant to generate electrical power. Construction of the LIGO is in progress and, although not part of the Hanford Site's clean-up mission, would contribute to on-site habitat modification and environmental impacts. In 1994, construction of the Environmental and Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL) began. The 18,600-m2 (200,000-ft2) facility will be used to develop the science and technology needed to clean up environmental problems at government and industrial sites across the country. Present actions and proposed future actions at the Site involve the remediation of contaminated areas and the decontamination and decommissioning of on-site facilities. These actions involve or would involve OUs, reactors, separations facilities, waste management tanks, and other facilities containing radioactive and hazardous materials. Because of the nature of these materials, it is not possible or desirable to close the facilities in an "as is" condition. Instead, special actions, including the construction and operation of new facilities, may be required to remediate the existing waste and contaminated facilities. TWRS is a part of this overall clean-up effort. Under the Tri-Party Agreement, HLW stored in the on-site SSTs and DSTs would be moved to processing facilities, processed, and immobilized for final disposal. This process would take decades. There are a number of nationwide programmatic EISs, e.g. the Waste Management Programmatic EIS, that have the potential to have environmental impacts at the Hanford site. Project-level actions that could affect the Hanford environment have not been determined sufficiently at this time to allow evaluation of impacts. Consequently, the cumulative impact assessment focuses on reasonably foreseeable actions.
6.2 OTHER HANFORD SITE ACTIONS WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT
Because the other actions listed in Section 6 are in various stages of development, quantitative characterization information about their potential environmental impacts is currently unknown. ERDF was reviewed under CERCLA and is now under construction. WRAP-I was reviewed under DOE/EIS-0113 and a supplement analysis, and is now under construction. NEPA or similar documentation is either being prepared or will be prepared for the other actions. However, to inform the public, DOE, and Ecology decision-makers of the potential cumulative impacts, proposed actions are summarized in this section. The following sections briefly describe other actions at the Hanford Site which could contribute impacts to those evaluated in the EIS.
6.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DISPOSAL FACILITY
On January 20, 1994, EPA signed the ERDF ROD authorizing construction of a centralized disposal facility for Hanford Site remediation waste. The ROD authorizes construction of only two cells and supporting facilities. Trench expansion would be completed on an as needed basis and expansion would require a subsequent ROD or ROD amendment. In keeping with this as needed philosophy, 165 acres required for construction of the two cells and supporting facilities have been cleared; the remainder of the 4 km2 (1.6 mi2) is being reserved for future expansion. Many of these 67 ha (165 acres) were state priority habitat. Trench excavation began May 15, 1995 and operations are expected to begin in September 1996. Any required trench expansion would occur concurrent with operation. Closure of the facility is expected in 2034.
6.2.2 WASTE RECEIVING AND PROCESSING FACILITY
The WRAP would be used to characterize and treat TRU waste prior to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for final disposal. The WRAP complex and associated storage facilities will occupy 40 ha (100 acres) and is located in the 200 West Area. Construction of the facility is scheduled to be complete by March, 1996 and it will start operations in September 1997. The WRAP was included in the Hanford Defense Waste EIS (DOE 1987).
6.2.3 LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE OBSERVATORY
The LIGO is a research program for the detection and study of cosmic gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. The facility would consist of a central 7,600-m2 (82,000-ft2) building at the vertex of two 4-km (2.5-mi) arms. The arms are culvert-like structures which enclose the beam tubes. Small buildings are located at the midpoint and end of each arm to support test mass chambers and pumping equipment. The LIGO facility would occupy approximately 60 ha (148 acres). Construction is expected to require 2 years and involve 50 to 150 personnel. The EA for the LIGO was released on October 12, 1993 by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (NSF 1993). A FONSI was issued on December 6, 1993.
6.2.4 HANFORD REMEDIAL ACTION
The HRA EIS will assist the DOE's remediation strategy by establishing future land-use objectives on the Benton County portions of the Site. Future land- use objectives are the bases for establishing remedial action objectives and identifying corresponding preliminary remediation goals under CERCLA. The HRA EIS will compare the potential environmental impacts to Hanford Site future land-use alternatives. This comparison of environmental impacts, primarily from remediation activities, will assist in determining a preferred site-wide future land-use alternative. Site specific decisions regarding remediation technologies and remediation activities will not be made in the HRA EIS, but rather by processes specified by CERCLA and RCRA. The HRA EIS is in preparation and the Draft EIS is expected to be released for public comment in early 1996. A Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) to further define the HRA EIS's preferred alternative is being coordinated with the HRA EIS. The CLUP in its draft and final stages will be released as a companion document to the draft and final stages of the HRA EIS. Public comment on the CLUP will occur concurrently with the public comment periods of the HRA EIS.
6.2.5 TANK WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM
TWRS would involve actions necessary to manage, treat, store and dispose of tank wastes and Cs and Sr capsules at the Hanford Site. Assuming that the no action alternative for TWRS is not selected, the preliminary indications show that construction for TWRS would begin in 1998 and extend for up to 10 years. The operation period would extend for many years. Detailed cumulative impact analyses will be provided in the TWRS Draft EIS which is scheduled for release in December 1995.
6.2.6 PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT CLEANOUT
The PFP Stabilization Project would involve the removal and stabilization of reactive residual Pu-bearing material at the PFP to a form suitable for interim storage. Pu-bearing materials are located in several of the PFP facilities. Most of the residues left in the PFP when production operations stopped in 1989 remain at the facility, either in storage containers or on surfaces in enclosed process areas as "holdup." Removal would consist of physically and/or chemically removing residual Pu- bearing material from surfaces. These removed materials as well as materials in storage containers would be processed in glovebox-sized processes. When stabilized, the material would have minimal chemical reactivity and would remain in solid form with a low water and organic content to minimize readiolysis. All stabilized material would be stored within existing PFP vaults pending a DOE decision on future disposition. The PFP Stabilization EIS is being prepared and a Draft EIS is expected in November 1995.
6.2.7 K BASIN SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT
DOE is currently evaluating environmental impacts of alternatives for managing
spent nuclear fuel and sludge currently stored in the water-filled K East and
West Storage Basins (K Basins) at the Hanford Site. Proposed alternatives for
managing the K Basin fuel pending ultimate disposition include:
. Continued storage in the K Basins (no action)
. Enhanced storage in the K West Basin
. Wet or dry storage at Hanford
. Stabilization through surface passivation (drying and canning in an
inert atmosphere)
. Calcining (dissolving, oxidizing, and solidifying)
. On-site or foreign processing (dissolving, separating, and
solidifying).
Alternatives involving fuel removal for on-site storage or processing would
occur in the Central Plateau exclusive waste management use area. The
processing alternative is assumed to require the most land use to accommodate
the processing and storage facilities. The total land needed for this
alternative is estimated to be 8 ha (20 acres). The main contributors to
cumulative impacts at the Hanford Site would most likely be air emissions and
liquid effluents if the calcining or fuel processing alternative is selected.
Specific impacts will be evaluated in the K Basin Draft EIS expected in fall
1995.
6.2.8 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS COMPLEX, ENHANCED RADIOACTIVE AND MIXED WASTE STORAGE FACILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES, AND CENTRAL WASTE SUPPORT COMPLEX
This proposed action would retrieve stored and suspect TRU waste from Trench 4C-T04 in the 200 West Area, and construct and operate facilities necessary to store these retrieved wastes, as well as newly generated wastes. An estimated 36 ha (89 acres) of land would be disturbed in the 200 West Area, 20 ha (50 acres) of which would be priority sagebrush habitat. An EA and FONSI were approved in September.
6.2.9 200 AREA SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
This proposed action would consist of replacing about 50 failing and overloaded sewage treatment facilities in the 200 Areas with two modern sanitary sewage collection systems and evaporative lagoon systems, one in the east and one in the west. The new systems would eliminate most liquid discharges to the vadose zone in these areas. Construction of the facilities would require approximately 40 ha (99 acres) for the lagoons and access roads. Of these 40 ha (99 acres), approximately 15 ha (36 acres) of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed. A draft EA is currently being reviewed.
6.2.10 DISPOSAL OF NAVAL REACTOR PLANTS
This proposed action would dispose of decommissioned defueled cruiser, OHIO class and LOS ANGELES class Naval Reactor plants at the Hanford site. Approximately 4 ha (10 acres) of land would be required for land disposal of approximately 100 reactor compartment disposal packages. Disposal would require commitment of this land from the 218-E-12B low-level burial ground in the 200 East Area. A draft EIS was issued by the U.S. Department of the Navy in August 1995 (USN 1995). Figure 6-1 presents a time line showing the proposed construction and operation for the actions covered by EAs and EISs. This timeline is dependent on document approval and available budget. The schedule corresponds to milestones specified in the TPA (DOE 1994). Cumulative effects would be highest when construction activities overlap because traffic problems would be most acute, most site clearing would be occurring, the demand for construction labor would be highest, and the largest increase in transient population would occur. Figure 6-1 shows that in the late 1990s simultaneous construction activities could occur for at least two actions in addition to the preferred alternative: TWRS and HRA actions. The initial site clearing and construction of facilities would generate the primary impacts to ecology, soils, and other aspects of the environment. Figure (Page 6-9) Figure 6-1. Construction and Operating Periods for Actions at the Hanford Site
6.3 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This section evaluates the impacts from the proposed alternatives as they relate to existing site conditions and future actions. The discussion of cumulative impacts is organized into the following topics: . Land Use, Ecology, and Soils . Water Quality and Air Quality . Off-site Radiation Considerations . Population and Socioeconomic Impacts.
6.3.1 LAND USE, ECOLOGY, AND SOILS
Limits placed on land use, ecology, and soils impacts depend on the amount of land to be used for the various actions. The size, number, and location of proposed facilities affect land use compatibility, the amount of habitat to be removed for the projects, and the amount of soil to be removed from production. A comprehensive assessment of possible future land uses at the Hanford Site has been completed and documented in a future use report as discussed in Section 4.7.1 (FSUWG 1992). This future use report does not constitute official DOE policy or guidelines. However, DOE initiated the study as part of the scoping for the HRA EIS to help establish clean-up levels. As shown in Figure 6-2, the Central Plateau encompasses the 200 East and West Areas, and the 600 Area adjacent to and between them. The area identified in the Central Plateau for cleanup would consist of a buffer zone and an "exclusive" waste management area. The future use report recommended that all future clean-up activities be placed in the "exclusive" waste management area while the buffer zone would serve "to reduce risks that are expected to continue to emanate from the 200 Area." Figure (Page 6-11) Figure 6-2. Hanford Site Central Plateau and "Exclusive" Waste Management Area The suggested Central Plateau waste management area would consist of approximately 11,700 ha (28,800 acres) less 6,700 ha (16,600 acres) for the buffer zone and the remaining 4,900 ha (12,200 acres) for the "exclusive" waste management area. The 200 East and West Areas would constitute approximately 2,600 ha (6,400 acres) of the "exclusive" area. In the proposed "exclusive" waste management area, much of which is identified as state priority habitat, there are currently about 2,300 ha (5,800 acres) of relatively undisturbed land, which represents the maximum area of potential impact for the other proposed actions identified in Section 6.2.
6.3.1.1 Land Use
- The cumulative impacts to land use from the proposed alternatives are evaluated with respect to other Hanford actions requiring land proximate to the 200 Areas. Industrial uses at the Hanford Site presently consume about 6 percent 9,300 ha (23,040 acres) of the total Hanford Site area. Of all the alternatives evaluated in this EIS, the preferred and new storage alternatives would occupy the most land. Therefore, they are used to evaluate the cumulative impacts to land use. Since the RCSTS would be constructed in relatively undisturbed areas, the area affected by the preferred alternative 30 ha (74 acres) would increase the industrial land use on the Hanford Site to 9,330 ha (23,114 acres) which represents a 0.02 percent increase. The area affected by the new storage alternative 50 ha (124 acres) would increase the industrial land use to 9,350 ha (23,164 acres) which represents a 0.03 percent increase. The additional land disturbance for alternatives evaluated in this EIS must be added to the acreage affected by the other site actions. The cumulative impacts to the Hanford Site would be heavily influenced by the other projects planned by DOE, which involve more land than the preferred or new storage alternatives. If all the proposed actions were placed in the "exclusive" waste management area as defined in the future use report, the cumulative effects of alternatives in this EIS and other projects would be within the range of impacts already anticipated for land disturbance. The area of land disturbed by the preferred alternative is about 0.6 percent of the area allocated to "exclusive" waste management uses, and about 1 percent of the relatively undisturbed land. For the new storage alternative, the land disturbed is about 1 percent of the area allocated to "exclusive" waste management uses, and about 2 percent of the relatively undisturbed land. Other proposed projects at the Hanford Site would require a total of 890 to 1,300 ha (2,200 to 3,200 acres). Most of the land would be in the "exclusive" waste management use area and its remaining area of undisturbed land.
6.3.1.2 Ecological and Biological Resources
- The cumulative effects of the preferred and new storage alternatives and other actions upon ecological and biological resources are similar to those for land use. Site preparation and construction of the various facilities would require that vegetation be cleared. The amount and type of vegetation cleared would depend on the location of the proposed facilities and the land requirements of the facilities. The preferred and new storage alternatives, for example, would remove 9 ha (23 acres) and 30 ha (73 acres) of sagebrush habitat, respectively. As with the land use analysis presented in Section 6.3.1.1, the requirements of other projects may be greater than the impact of the preferred alternative. The ERDF, for example, would remove 414 ha (1,024 acres) of sagebrush, important habitat for rare and potentially endangered species such as the loggerhead shrike. Other projects would remove more relatively undisturbed habitat leading to potential cumulative impacts to sensitive species as well as other flora or fauna which inhabit the Hanford environs. The waste management area would consist of the 200 East and West Areas, which are already industrialized and heavily disturbed. The area between the 200 East and West Areas and the buffer zone consist of vegetation very similar to that for the preferred alternative described in Section 4.4. As shown in Figure 6-3, the vegetation mix across the waste management area, excluding the 200 East and West Areas, is fairly uniform and consistent with the sagebrush habitat described in Section 4.4. For the purposes of this evaluation, the remaining undisturbed area in the waste management area is assumed to be sagebrush habitat. As a consequence, a maximum of another 2,300 ha (5,800 acres) of sagebrush could be removed. It is assumed that the buffer zone would remain undisturbed.
6.3.1.3 Soils
- Impacts upon soils would also be influenced by the amount of land proposed for industrial uses. The lack of rainfall prevents on-site soils from being classified as prime or unique farmland. The soil profile presented in Section 4.1.3 is characteristic of the waste management area. Using the waste management area would not involve prime or unique farmland, and the types of soil removed from potential productive use is similar to the soil impacted in Section 4.1.3. Figure (Page 6-14) Figure 6-3. Vegetation Map for Hanford Site
6.3.2 WATER QUALITY AND AIR QUALITY
None of the alternatives evaluated in this EIS would cause releases to surface water or groundwater. Therefore, water quality would not be impacted by implementing any of the alternatives. Nominal air emissions would be expected from operating the mixer pump, the NTF, and the load and unload facilities. These emissions would be indiscernible from those in the existing 200 Areas, and would be well within permitted levels. As discussed in Chapter 5, no adverse health effects from air emissions would be expected from the NTF operation. Emissions for the projects listed in Section 6.1 have not yet been established as these projects are still in the preliminary stages of development. However, a limit may be placed upon the emissions from other actions at the site to comply with existing standards and regulations. Specific air emissions will be discussed in the EISs for those projects.
6.3.3 OFF-SITE RADIATION CONSIDERATIONS
Limits for radiation doses to the public from airborne emissions at DOE facilities are specified in the CAA Amendments published by the EPA. The regulation specifies that no member of the public shall receive a dose of more than 10 mrem per year from exposure to airborne radionuclide effluents (other than radon) released at DOE facilities. During 1994, the inhalation dose to the maximally exposed individual across the river from the 300 Area was 0.01 mrem (PNL 1995), or 0.1 percent of the EPA standard. Normal operations for the preferred alternative would not result in radiation doses to members of the general public. The two tanks discussed in the new storage alternative have been evaluated for routine and extreme case air emissions as discussed in Section 5.4.9. The inhalation dose to the MEOSI from NTF operations is estimated to be 3.5 x 10-5 mrem per year. This value is almost 300 times lower than that for the maximally exposed member of the public in 1994 and 3 x 10-4 percent of the EPA standard. Therefore, the radiation doses from the proposed alternatives are not expected to have a cumulative impact on the general public.
6.3.4 POPULATION AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
None of the proposed alternatives evaluated in this EIS would cause a net change in population and socioeconomic impacts. The new storage alternative combined with the RCSTS could require up to 230 workers, thus representing the largest number of workers needed for any of the alternatives. A portion of these workers is assumed to be from existing Hanford personnel; the remaining workers would be contracted from the Tri-City area workforce which could accommodate the relatively small number of workers required. Cumulative consequences to the Hanford and Tri-Cities workforce from the other proposed actions are currently unknown and, therefore, impacts to the workforce cannot be evaluated in this EIS. Socioeconomic impacts would potentially occur throughout the construction and decommissioning phases of a project. While employment for TWRS, ERDF, HRA and other actions may increase, employment for other facilities on the Hanford Site may decrease from the phasing out of Hanford operations. The EAs and EISs specific to those projects would evaluate impacts to the local workforce.
SECTION 6 REFERENCES
DOE, 1994, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, Fourth Amendment, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, WA DOE, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. FSUWG, 1992, Final Report, The Future For Hanford: Uses and Cleanup, Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group, Drummond, Marshall E. et al., Richland, WA PNL, 1995, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1994, Dirkes, R.L., et al., PNL-10574, UC-602, Pacific Northwest Laboratory NSF, 1993, Environmental Assessment for Construction and Operation of a Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory on the Hanford Site, National Science Foundation, October 1993, Richland, WA USN, 1995, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser, OHIO Class, and LOS ANGELES Class Naval Reactor Plants, United States Department of the Navy, Washington D.C., August 1995
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
