View Document Here - Hanford Site

Appendix H - Detailed Description of Alternative 6: DOEIltl:2001-11
Close in Place - Collapsed Structure Rev. le Draft e
tLedlinelStri •eout
1 Before leaving the complex, the demolition contractor would clear the site of all equipment and
2
3
materials.
4 111.3,4 Sustain Post-Closure
5
6 This alternative would require institutional controls and maintenance of a monitoring system.
7
8
Institutional controls could consist of both physical and legal barriers to prevent access to
contaminants. In addition, certain activities would need to be prohibited so that the groundwater
9 and Columbia River water quality are protected. Post-closure care would consist of periodic
10
11
inspections and maintenance to verify the success of the revegetation effort.
12 113.4.1 Establish Institutional Controls. Specific institutional controls associated with this
13 alternative would be developed as the remedy is further defined in the remedial design report and
14 implemented through an update to the Sitewide Institutional Controls Plan for Hanford CERCIlI
15 Response Actions (DOE-RL 2002). Generally, these activities would include physical and legal
16 methods of controlling land use. Physical methods of controlling access to waste sites would
17 include signs, entry control, excavation permits, artificial or natural barriers, and active
18 surveillance. Physical access controls would be designed to preclude unintentional trespassing
19 and minimize wildlife access. Physical restrictions would be effective in protecting human
20 health by reducing the potential for contact with contaminated media and avoiding adverse
(0*^121 environmental, worker safety, and community safety impacts that arise from the potential release
22 of contaminants. They would require ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Public notices and
23 community relation efforts would supplement site surveillance efforts. The DOE, or subsequent
24 land managers, could enforce land-use restrictions as long as risks were above unrestricted land-
25 use levels. The DOE would continue to use fencing, excavation permits, and the badging
26 program to control access to the area for as long as it maintains control over the land. Signs
27
28
would be maintained prohibiting public access.
29 Legal restrictions would include both administrative and real-property actions intended to reduce
30 or prevent future human exposure to contaminants remaining on site by restricting the use of the
31
32
33
34
land, including groundwater use for drinking water or irrigation. Land-use restrictions and
controls on real-property development are effective in providing a degree of human health
protection by minimizing the potential for contact with contaminated media. Land-use
restrictions will be put in place, as necessary, until such time as the federal government ceases
35
36
37
ownership of the property. The DOE, or subsequent land managers, would enforce land-use
restrictions as long as risks were above acceptable levels.
38 Groundwater-use restrictions would be required so that groundwater is not used as a drinking
39 water source as long as contaminant concentrations are above federal and state drinking water
40
41
^ standards and WAC 173-340 #4T6,4 B groundwater protection standards. Irrigation would also
need to be restricted on the footprint of the environmental cap. Well drilling, except for the
42 purposes of monitoring, research, or other uses authorized by the Tri-Parties, would be
(00N•43
44
prohibited untii groundwater cleanup levels comply with these drinking water standards.
Final Feasibility Study for the Canyon Disposition Initiative (221 •U Facility)
„ 100 .1 11-21