View Document Here - Hanford Site

f '
^
rN
100
I Noise, Visual, and Aesthetic Effects. Alternatives 1,
2 3.4. and 6 would increase noise levels, but the impacts
3 would be or shurt-term duration during remedial
4 actions and would not affect offsite noise kvels.
5 Alternative 1 would have a positive impact on visual
6 and aesthetic effects. Conversely. Alternatives 3 and 4
7 and, to a lesser extent. Alternative 6 would have a
8 negative long-term visual and aesthetic impact due to
9 the visibility of the disposal facility from a distance.
10 Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the facility would be
11 approximately 24 m(80 ft) in height, and under
12 Alternative 6, would be approximately 12 m (39 ft) in
13 height.
14 Socioeconosnie Impacts The 221-U Facility itself is
15 not a factor In the socioecotwmics of the region. The
16 number of workers involved in remedial actions under
17 any of the alternatives would be small; therefore.
18 impacts would be negligible.
19 1Envlromanental Justice. Offsite impacts to any of the
20 local communities would be minimal for all of the
21 alternatives, so environmental justice iuues (i.e.. high
22 and disproportionate adverse health and
23 socioeconomie impacts on minority or low-income
24 populations) would not be a concern.
25
26
27
28
29(
3p^1
31
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
40
41
42
43
44
Irrevessibk and Irretrievabk Commitrnent or
Resources. Depending on the alternative selected.
remedial action at the 221-U Facility could require an
irreversible or Irretrievable commitment or resoiuces.
particularly land use and geologic materials.
All of the alternatives would result in land-tue loss to
some extent. Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would have
the greatest impact because they would leave all or
part of the 221-U Facility in place. This would make
the site unlikely to be usable for other purposes.
including industrial uses, for the foreseeable future.
Alternative I would also limit site use, but to a lesser
extent because contamination could remain below
industrial cleanup standards but above unrestricted use
standards to a depth or at least 4.6 m(IS A).
Contamination above industrial cleanup standards
might remain at greater depths. Alternative I would
also result in IaM-use loss for ERDF disposal, because
the ERDF would need to be expanded by about 12% of
one cell to accommodate 221-U Facility waste.
45 Alternatives 1. 3. 4, and 6 also would require an
46 irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources
47 in the form of geologic materials. The quantity
DOFIRL-2001-29
Draft D Redline/Strikeout B
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
20
required would be significantly less for Alternative 1.
This material would be obtained from onsite borrow
pits. In addition, there would be a small increase in the
amount of material required for the closure
environmental cap at ERDF. Alternatives l, 3, 4, and
6 also would require an irretrievable and irreversible
commitment of resources in the form of petroleum
products (e.g., diesel fuel and gasoline).
Cumulative Effects. The proposed remedial action
alternatives could have impacts when considered
together with impacts from past and foreseeable future
actions at and near the Hanford Site. Authorized
current and future activities in the 200 Arws that
might be ongoing during remedial action Include soil
and groundwater remediation; operation and closure of
underground waste tanks; construction and operation
of tank waste vitrification facilities; storage of spent
nuclear fuel; and surveillance, maintenance, and D&D
of reprocessing facilities. Other activities on the
Hanford Site Include D&D of a variety of facilities,
soil and groundwater remediation, removal of spent
nuclear fuel from the K Basins, and operation of the
Energy Northwest commercial reactor. Activities near
the Hanford Site include a privately owned radioactive
and mixed waste treatment facility, a commercial fuel
manufaaurer, and a titanium reprocessing plant
There is some potential for impacts to natural
resources at onsite borrow sites, although impacts can
be minimized by appropriate planning. A DOE NEPA
environmental assessment aurrenilyiuteviewthat
evaluated Impacts to borrow sites from ether-Hanford
Site projects including remediation did dees not
identify significant Impacts associated with continued
use of existing onsite borrow pits. TheretaFvaiunusef
remediet' ferr^yl
Under Alternatives 3. 4, and 6, the 221-U Facility
would become a permanent above-grade structure In
the 200 West Area. With Alternatives 3 and 4, the
structure would be about 24.4 m(80 ft) high and
visible from a distance. Depending on other
remediation activities in the 200 Areas (particularly the
disposition or other canyon facilities), she facility
could either be one of several such structures or could
become a singular man-made element in an otherwise
seeniclandscape.