View Document Here - Hanford Site

I
f^
^
DOE!RL-2001-29
Ikaft D RedlinelStriketwt B
Figure 6. Alternative 4- Cross Section of the Environmental Cap and Exterior Waste F'ilL
Enplnwnd OartMr
(dedUMd RCRA &bn0e C Sudxe Banier)
^ ^'&oq tOm
^'.
... . .
am
^`ic=l;^f^::'7`•.^i^J^,:'
7
. .E. .. t' ..:i:: 1
. ^'7Ext..wrw..ur:tn L
2214 "^^^^DuN unerlNow weste Flll
(Oaw,Na Ntuelun
wlNwaNena)
IsarrMr i^ ^^-Enplnsandfill^
i^.s.
C_k. .
provide containment to both interior and exterior waste
Gll (Figure 6). The disposal unit's exterior waste fill
area will include as part of its design a RCRArnaapliant
double Finer and leachate collection
21 system to account for the potential to receive
9 hazardous waste from CERCLA or RCRA past-
10 practice aleanups at ffanford In this portion of the
11 facility. With the addition of the external disposal
12 area, approxhmtely 63,600 ms (82,700 yds) of waste
13 could be disposed at the 221-U Facility under
14 Alternative 4. Like Alternative 3, approximately
IS 1.4 million m' (1.8 million yd') of borrow materials
16 would be required to construct the environmental cap.
17 The facility after placement of the environmental cap
18 would be approximately 461 m(1312 h) in length by
19 234 m(768 fl) in width by 24 in (80 ft) high at existing
20 grade.
21 Alterodive 6: Close In Place - Collapsed Strueture
2
2
2
2f{
21
2
29
31
31
32
33
34
5
31 3
3
3
This allernaQve would require dispn.^ei-of-F000-tnr
rki:ar,-^i approxinutely 3,400 m' (4,400 yd) of existing
contaminated equipment from the canyon eperatingdock
weadd-be size reduced and disposed to the pracess cells
and erotncd (Figiae 7). The upper part of the 221-U
Faeility would then be demolished to approximately the
level of the canyon eperadng-dock. Demolition would
involve cutting the upper part of the structtuo into large
blocks. The eot>Retc debris from building demolition
would be placed on the canyon deck and on the ground
adjacent to the building, Cementitious grout would be
placed around waste to minimize the potential for void
spaces Unlike Aitem^vl^ves 3 and 4. Alternative 6 would
ruy include dispnsal of impnned llanfttrd Site
mmediatinn waaes de cr unmd the outcide of the
Ermbn Probeaon
' `
39 2^1-U Facititv. -A kxa
40 m .,
41 FxiiityandeN4kernntive{r.
NaloscaVe
ae,aw ,as
42 The oaniallv demolished_ building and concrete debris
43 would be covered with a modified RCRA Subtitle C.
44 compliant environmental cap; however, the
45 environmental cap would be smaller in dimension than
46 In Alternatives 3 and 4 as a result of the decreased
47 height of the structure. Approximately 460,000 ms
48 (602.000 yd)) of borrow materials would be required
49 under this alternative for environmental cap materials.
50 The facility after placement of the environmental cap
SI would be approximately 370 m(1,214 R) In length by
52 159 m(522 ft) in width by 12 m(39 It) high.
53 Post-closure cara, Institutional controls, and
54 monitoring required as pan of this alternative would be
55 similar to Alternatives 3 and 4.
56 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL
37 ALTERNATIVES
58 The following evaluation of remedial alternatives
59 summarizes each alternative in rolation to the aine
60 CERCLA criteria (see box - Explanation of CERCLA
61 Evaluation Criteria). A comprehensive analysis of
62 each alternative is contained In the 221-U Facility final
63 feasibility study.
64 The first two criteria. overall protection and
65 compliance with ARARs. are defined under CERCLA
66 as'tihreshold criteria." Threshold criteria ttwst be met
67 by an alternative to be eligible for selection. The next
68 five criteria are defined as "primary balancing
69 criteria." These criteria are used to weigh major
70 tradaoffs among alternatives. The Wst two criteria,
71 stale and community acceptance, are defined as
14