View Document Here - Hanford Site

f^
i^
lrl-^11
1• Satisfy the preference for treatment as a principal
2 element.
3
4
5
19
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
11
1
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
24
29
30
31
3
3
3
3
3
3
41
42
43
44
45
4f,JJl
4
48
49
50
51
All of the alternatives other than Alternative 0 meet the
threshold criteria for protection of human health and
the environment and compliance with ARARs. thus
satisfying the statutory requirements of ¢$C(.A
eriteria ( 1) and (2) (see inset table on n. XX__for
criteria. Alternative 6 is also the least costly
alternative, is similarly or more effective than the other
alternatives for the long term and short tenn, and Is
considered implementable, thus satisfying the statutory
requirement to be cost effective ( 3). Alternative 6
provides a similar degree of permanence compared to
the other alternatives because all alternatives involve
hazardous substance disposal on the Hanford Site. The
use of grout to fill void spaces will act as a treatment
to immobiline contaminants in the building's structure
although not to the degree of
Alternatives 3 and 4. Orouting will serve to help
satisfy the statutory requirements in (4) and (5),
although none of the alternatives Include treatment as a
principal element.
Changes to the preferred altemative presented in this
Proposed Plan or changes to another alternative may
be made if public comments andlor additional data
Indicate that such a change would result In a tnore
appropriate ckanup solution. The final decision
regarding the selected interitmremedies for the 221-U
Facility will be documented in a ROD after review and
consideration of all comments on this Proposed Plan.
DOE/RG2001-29
Draft D Redline/StrikeoutB
52
53
54
55
56
57
$9
$9
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 90
91
Several of the evaluation criteria specified by 92
CERCLA Involve consideration of environmenul 93
resources, but the emphasis is often directed at 94
potential adverse effects of contaminants on living 95
organisms. The National Enrironmenaof PoGcy Act 96
of 1969 (NEPA) process is Intended to help federal 97
agencies make decisions based on an understanding of 98
environmental consequences and to take appropriate 99
actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 1oo
environment. DOE 0 451.113 requires incorporation 101
19
of NEPA values into CERCLA documents, such as the
221-U Final Feasibility Study and this Proposed Plan,
to the extent practicable in lieu of separate
documentation.
The NEPA-related resources and values that have been
considered for the 221-U Facility support the
CERCLA docision-making process and are
summarized in the following text. The No Action
alternative has no impact on NEPA values and is not
included in the discussion.
Transportation Impacts. None of the proposed
remedial alternatives would be expected to create any
long-term transportation impacts. If adverse impacts
to transportation were to be detected. remedial
activities would be modified or halted until the impact
is mitigated.
Air Qtsality. Potential a'tr quality impaeu are
associated with all of the alternatives. These impacts
have not been quantified but in the near term would be
expected to be minor. For Alternatives 1, 3. 4, and 6,
impacts would be mitigated through appropriate
engineering controls.
Natural, Cultural, and Historical Resources. Some
short-tcrm adverse impacts to natural or cultural
resources could occur during Implememation of
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 6. The area immediately
around the 221-U Facility is heavily developed with
little wildlife or useable habitat, so few Impacts to
biological or cultural resources are anticipated at the
facility.
Potential impacts to these resources would be a greater
concern at borrow sites because they are located in
otherwise undisturbed areas. Hotrow material would
be obtained on or near the Central Plateau, an area
that contains important iHg--largg_sagebrush
communities. In any alternative, it would be critical to
avoid disturbing sagebrush communities and any other
high-quality habitat. Alternative 1 would require the
least amount of borrow material and therefore would
have the fewest potential impacts at borrow sites.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would require 17 times more
borrow material than Alternative 1 and would have the
greatest potential Impacts at borrow sites.
Allernative6 would require about five times more
borrow material than Alternative 1. In Alternative 1,
there is also the potential for adverse impaets at the
ERDF. which Is located in an area of high-quality
shrub-steppe habitat. Alternative I would require
about a 12% expansion of an ERDF cell for waste
disposal.