19.05.2013 Views

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!