View Document Here - Hanford Site
View Document Here - Hanford Site
View Document Here - Hanford Site
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(^,<br />
Appendix F - Detailed Description of Alternative 3: DO>JRL-2001-11<br />
I Entombment with Internal Waste Disposal Rev. el oraf<br />
Rcdiine/Strikcout<br />
1 Post-closure care would comply with the following functions as defined in Washington<br />
2 Administrative Code 173-303-665(6). The functions were selected as being representative of the<br />
3<br />
4<br />
post-closure requirements of other applicable regulations:<br />
5<br />
6<br />
• Limit access to the environmental cap<br />
7 • Maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover (engineered barrier), including<br />
8 making repairs to the barrier, as necessary, to correct the effects of settling, subsidence,<br />
9<br />
10<br />
erosion, or other events<br />
11 • Maintain and monitor the groundwater monitoring systems<br />
12<br />
13 • Prevent runon and runoff from eroding or otherwise damaging the final cover (engineered<br />
14<br />
15<br />
barrier)<br />
16 • Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks.<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
Post-closure care would consist mainly of periodic inspections to identify erosion or settling.<br />
Either of these items could lead to infiltration of the barrier. If settling is Identified, the resultant<br />
^.20 depressions would be filled and reseeded. The post-closure cost estimate includes a one-time<br />
/ 21 replacement of the engineered barrier after 500 years.<br />
22<br />
23 Monitoring of the barrier and the vadose zone or groundwater would be perfotmed over the<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
1,000-year petformance period to verify the effectiveness of the waste placement activities and<br />
containment provided by the engineered barrier. Periodic sampling of monitoring stations would<br />
be performed followed by comprehensive laboratory analyses.<br />
29 FA REFERENCES<br />
30<br />
31 10 CFR 835, "Occupational Radiation Protection," Code of Federal Regulations, as amended.<br />
32<br />
33<br />
34<br />
64 FR 61615. 1999, "<strong>Hanford</strong> Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement<br />
(HCP EIS), <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision (ROD)," Federal<br />
35<br />
Register, Vol. 64, No. 218, pg. 61615 (November 12).<br />
36<br />
37 BHI.1998, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria,<br />
38<br />
39<br />
BI-11-00139, Rev. 3, Bechtel <strong>Hanford</strong>, Inc., Richland, Washington.<br />
40 BHI, 2001a, Canyon Disposition Initiative: Preliminary AL11RA Bvaluation for Final Feasibility<br />
41<br />
42<br />
Study Alternatives 1. 3, 4, and 6 (CCN 089828 to G. M. MacFarlan, Bechtel <strong>Hanford</strong>,<br />
Inc., from J. C. Wiles and R. C. Free, Jr„ May 31), Bechtel <strong>Hanford</strong>, Inc., Richland,<br />
('33 Washington.<br />
Final Feasibility Sardyjor the Canyon Dirposhion lnitiative (221 •U Faciliry)<br />
hinc 1003<br />
F-24