EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

VJ
223 223
1011. What alternatives t0 the pile-driving method of subsidence control
for TRU burial grounds have been considered?
1012. How do the assurances of complete compaction compare to that of
3,1, 3.12 the pile-driving method?
1013. How d0 their estimated costs compare to the costs associated with
the pile-driving method? (Also see related Question B-6.)
1014. Now will the effectiveness of the proposed densification procedure
be evaluated.
3.4 COMPARISON Or IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES
General comments
In regard to the assumed loss of institutional control in the year
2150, the following statement is made on page 3.51:
In reality, however, if WE chase the no disposal action alternative,
it would maintain control, and the described intrusions would not be
realistic.
The above statement appears overly optimistic. The same point is made again
on page 3.64; again, it appears overly optimistic.
Questions
1015. What is the basis for the conclusion that the USDOE "would
maintain control' for some hundreds of years into the future,
making the described intrusion scenarios unrealistic?
2.3.1.9
ill
N
r.
3.5.3.2
In Section 3.4 of the DEIS, the three selected disposal alternatives
and the no disposal action (i.e., continued storage) alternative are
compared with respect to operational and postdispos at impacts. The
discussion of environmental impacts includes:
1
• radiological impacts from routine operations,
• potential radiological acciients,
• nonradiological impacts -- injuries, illnesses and fatalities,
• resource commitments,
• ecological impacts,
socioeconomics,
o.' costs, and
o decontamination and decommissioning of retired waste processing
facilities.
In addition, the long-Leon impacts of the selected alternatives and of
the no disposal action (i.e., continued storage) alternative are compared
given the following circumstances:
• where conditions remain unchanged,
• where disposal systems are disrupted by postulated natural events,
and
• postulating human intrusion into waste sites.
Finally. the alternatives are compared in terms of key impacts from
future tank waste and newly generated TRU waste, and a summary comparison of
impacts among alternatives is presented.
Errors or Uncertainties
On page 3.44 it in stated that the average annual recharge rate for the
"wetter climate" is 5.0 cMyr, but the basis for this number is not
provided. (See discussion in our review of Appendix 0, Chapter 3.)
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 4 of DEIS, Volume I provides a general description of the
Hanford site andsurrounding areas., emphasizing environmental attributes
that potentially could be affected by defense waste disposal practices.
Contents of DEIS Chapter 4 are discussed in this report under the four
following major headings.
4.1 BACKGROUND RADIATION
Lenerai Commenti
This section of the DEIS reports on the radionuclide concentrations in
the air, soil, and water in the Hanford vicinity. Tine data are takenfrom
reports giving the results of continuing measurements made at Hanford.
rr rs or Oedertafnti es
Q-ggigns
None noted.
None.
4.2 GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
General Comments
The geologic and physiographic characteristics Of the Hanford site
region are suemmrized in general terms in DEIS section 4.2.
2-8 29