Appendix C.8Description of Activities and Impacts at

the Hanford Site

C.8-iii DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTSSection Page

Appendix C.8 Description of Activities and Impacts at theHanford Site C.8-1

C.8.1 Introduction C.8-1C.8.2 Description of Alternative Treatment of INEEL Waste at

Hanford C.8-2C.8.2.1 Introduction C.8-2C.8.2.2 Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative C.8-2C.8.2.3 Construction C.8-2C.8.2.4 Operations C.8-3

C.8.3 Affected Environment C.8-5C.8.3.1 Geology and Soils C.8-5C.8.3.2 Water Resources C.8-8C.8.3.3 Meteorology and Air Quality C.8-9C.8.3.4 Ecological Resources C.8-9C.8.3.5 Cultural Resources C.8-10C.8.3.6 Socioeconomics C.8-11C.8.3.7 Land Use C.8-11C.8.3.8 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources C.8-13C.8.3.9 Noise C.8-13C.8.3.10 Traffic and Transportation C.8-13C.8.3.11 Radiological Environment C.8-16

C.8.4 Environmental Impacts C.8-16C.8.4.1 Geology and Soils C.8-17C.8.4.2 Water Resources C.8-18C.8.4.3 Air Quality C.8-19C.8.4.4 Ecological Resources C.8-23C.8.4.5 Cultural Resources C.8-26C.8.4.6 Socioeconomics C.8-27C.8.4.7 Land Use C.8-29C.8.4.8 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources C.8-32C.8.4.9 Noise C.8-32C.8.4.10 Traffic and Transportation C.8-34C.8.4.11 Health and Safety C.8-35C.8.4.12 Accidents C.8-39C.8.4.13 Cumulative Impacts C.8-43C.8.4.14 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts C.8-45C.8.4.15 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the

Environment and Maintenance andEnhancement of Long-Term Productivity C.8-48

C.8.4.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment ofResources C.8-48

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-iv

Appendix C.8

TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

Section Page

C.8.4.17 Conflict Between the Proposed Action and theObjectives of Federal, Regional, State, Local,and Tribal Land-Use Plans, Policies orControls C.8-50

C.8.4.18 Pollution Prevention C.8-50C.8.4.19 Environmental Justice C.8-50C.8.4.20 Mitigation Measures C.8-51

C.8.5 Calcine Processing Project Data C.8-51C.8.5.1 Canister Storage Buildings C.8-51C.8.5.2 Calcine Dissolution Facility C.8-52C.8.5.3 Calcine Separations and Vitrification C.8-57

References C.8-64

LIST OF TABLESTable Page

C.8-1 Mineral resources and soil impacts – Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. C.8-17

C.8-2 Criteria pollutant emission rates for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario. C.8-20

C.8-3 Radiological emission rates for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario – operations phase. C.8-21

C.8-4 Criteria pollutant modeling results for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario. C.8-21

C.8-5 Radionuclide modeling results for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario. C.8-21

C.8-6 Criteria pollutant emission rates for Minimum INEEL Processing–Alternative – Interim Storage Shipping Scenario. C.8-22

C.8-7 Criteria pollutant modeling results for Minimum INEEL Processing–Alternative – Interim Storage Shipping Scenario. C.8-23

C.8-8 Revised shrub-steppe impacts – Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. C.8-26

C.8-9 Hanford Site employment changes from the baseline for selected yearswith TWRS Phased Implementation Alternative and Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative. C.8-28

C.8-10 Revised land-use commitments – Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. C.8-32

C.8-11 Probable bounding case cumulative noise impact during theconstruction phase. C.8-34

C.8-12 Estimated public and occupational radiological impacts. C.8-36

C.8-v DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

LIST OF TABLES(continued)

Table Page

C.8-13 Vitrified HLW transportation risk – Phased Implementation Alternative. C.8-38C.8-14 Chemical emissions during routine operations – Phased Implementation

Alternative. C.8-38C.8-15 Comparison of chemical emissions during routine operations from the

Phased Implementation Alternative and Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. C.8-38

C.8-16 Long-term anticipated health effects – Phased ImplementationAlternative. C.8-40

C.8-17 Occupational accident risk. C.8-41C.8-18 Scaling factors for estimating latent cancer fatality risk for INEEL

waste accidents. C.8-41C.8-19 Radiological accident impacts for the Minimum INEEL Processing

Alternative. C.8-42C.8-20 Toxicological accident impacts for the Minimum INEEL Processing

Alternative. C.8-42C.8-21 Revised irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources –

Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative. C.8-49C.8-22 Construction and operation project data for Canister Storage Building

(HCSB-1). C.8-53C.8-23 Decontamination and decommissioning project data for Canister

Storage Building (HCSB-1). C.8-55C.8-24 Construction and operation project data for the Calcine Dissolution

Facility (CALDIS-001). C.8-58C.8-25 Decontamination and decommissioning project data for the

Calcine Dissolution Facility (CALDIS-001). C.8-61C.8-26 Project data for Calcine Separations/Vitrification

(CALVIT-001). C.8-62

LIST OF FIGURESFigure Page

C.8-1 Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative process flow diagram. C.8-3C.8-2 Hanford Site map and vicinity. C.8-6C.8-3 Geologic cross section of the Hanford Site. C.8-7C.8-4 Existing land use map. C.8-12C.8-5 Potential viewing areas of 200-East and 200-West Areas. C.8-14C.8-6 Hanford Site roadway and railroad system. C.8-15C.8-7 Habitat impacts of the Phased Implementation Alternative and the

Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative. C.8-25C.8-8 Future land use map for the Hanford Site. C.8-30C.8-9 Land-use commitments at potential borrow sites. C.8-31C.8-10 Land-use commitments in the 200-East Area. C.8-33

C.8-1 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Appendix C.8Description of Activities atthe Hanford SiteC.8.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ispreparing this Idaho High-Level Waste andFacilities Disposition Environmental ImpactStatement (HLW & FD EIS) to analyze the envi-ronmental impacts of alternative methods ofmanaging the Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory (INEEL) HLW. Onealternative, the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, includes shipping INEEL HLW tothe Hanford Site for immobilization in the pro-posed Hanford HLW vitrification plant. TheMinimum INEEL Processing Alternativeincludes two shipping scenarios-Just-in-Timeand Interim Storage-which are described inSection C.8.2. Under the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative, INEEL HLW would betransported to the Hanford Site where it could bestored prior to waste processing. It would beprocessed in Hanford Site facilities (waste sepa-rations and vitrification) and shipped back toINEEL for interim storage pending disposal at ageologic repository.

The environmental impacts to the Hanford Sitefrom managing and immobilizing Hanford SiteHLW are described in the Tank WasteRemediation System, Hanford Site, Richland,Washington, Final Environmental ImpactStatement (DOE 1996a), known as the TWRSEIS, and Record of Decision (62 FR 8693;February 26, 1997). The TWRS EIS analysiswas used to support the analysis of the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative because it ana-lyzed alternatives that are similar to the IdahoHLW & FD EIS Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. Consequently some, if not most, ofthe impact analysis for the INEEL alternativemay be bounded by the TWRS EIS impact anal-ysis and thus, the analysis can be incorporated byreference into the Idaho HLW & FD EIS (DOE1993). For impacts that may exceed those pre-sented in the TWRS EIS, calculations of themagnitude of the impacts can be derived fromthe TWRS EIS using scaling factors to deter-mine whether the exceedances in impacts aresubstantial and, therefore, require additional

analysis. This approach was used in the TWRSEIS analysis and in two TWRS supplement analy-ses (DOE 1997; 1998) and conforms to DOENEPA guidance (DOE 1993).

For purposes of analysis under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, DOE assumed that theHanford Site facilities would begin processing theINEEL HLW in 2028. This corresponds to thecompletion date for processing the Hanford tankwastes as presented in the TWRS EIS. Processingschedules for the Hanford tank wastes continue toevolve as the design and implementation of theTank Waste Remediation System progresses. Asmore definitive information becomes availableover the next 10 years, DOE will supplement thisanalysis as necessary.

This appendix addresses the potential environmen-tal and human health impacts associated with thestorage and treatment of INEEL HLW at theHanford Site in conformance with NEPA require-ments. The appendix does not address issues orimpacts associated with the management of wasteat the INEEL site or the transportation of waste to,or from, the Hanford Site. Those impacts arebeing considered as part of the analysis of theINEEL-related impacts. Specifically, thisappendix:

• Summarizes the two scenarios for processingthe waste at the Hanford Site (1) Just-in-Time Shipping and (2) Interim StorageShipping (see Section C.8.2)

• Assesses the potential environmentalimpacts of the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative at the Hanford Site. Both theJust-in-Time and Interim Storage ShippingScenarios are evaluated. If there are nonotable differences between the two scenar-ios in terms of potential environmentalimpacts, they are discussed collectively asthe Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.In cases where there are differences betweenthe two scenarios they are discussed sepa-rately.

• Unless otherwise noted, all information inthis appendix is based on the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative Hanford SiteEnvironmental Impact Assessment Report(Jacobs 1998). A comprehensive summaryof the potential environmental impacts asso-

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-2

Appendix C.8

ciated with the Hanford Site waste man-agement activities is also presented inJacobs (1998).

Following publication of the Draft EIS, DOEobtained updated information indicating thatvitrification of INEEL mixed HLW at theHanford Site would result in a larger volume ofHLW glass than was analyzed in the EIS.Under the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, DOE had estimated that 730 cubicmeters of vitrified mixed HLW (approximately625 Hanford canisters) would be produced andtransported back to INEEL. After the DraftEIS was issued, DOE Richland identified thattheir process for treating the INTEC HLW cal-cine would change. This change included dis-solution of the calcine and raising the pH to 12to be compatible with their process. Thischange resulted in an increase of the vitrifiedproduct. Based on this information, DOE esti-mates that 3,500 cubic meters of vitrified mixedHLW (approximately 3,000 Hanford canisters)would be produced under that alternative.Appendix C.5 and Section 5.2.9 present revisedtransportation impacts for the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative associated withthis larger mixed HLW volume.

C.8.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVETREATMENT OF INEEL WASTEAT HANFORD

C.8.2.1 Introduction

This section describes alternatives for processingINEEL waste at the Hanford Site as a part of theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative. Thissection also summarizes the waste to be pro-cessed. Additional information regarding thewaste inventory and components of the alterna-tives are provided in Jacobs (1998). Thedescription of alternatives in this section is lim-ited to those activities associated with the poten-tial treatment of INEEL waste that would takeplace on the Hanford Site. Activities associatedwith retrieving, handling, and packaging thewaste at INEEL along with transporting theINEEL waste to and from the Hanford Site arenot within the scope of this appendix. AppendixC.6 presents project descriptions for the activi-ties at INEEL. All INEEL waste received at the

Hanford Site for treatment would be returned tothe INEEL for interim storage and/or disposal.

C.8.2.2 Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould involve processing approximately 4,000cubic meters of calcine and approximately 160cubic meters of cesium ion-exchange resin fromthe INEEL at the Hanford Site. Two transporta-tion scenarios are evaluated from the standpointof waste handling and interim storage require-ments at the Hanford Site: (1) Just-in-TimeShipping, where the INEEL calcine would not bestored at the Hanford Site prior to processing andtreatment, and (2) Interim Storage Shipping,where 308 cubic meters of calcine per yearwould be transported over a 14-year period andstored in new Canister Storage Buildings at theHanford Site prior to processing and treatment.Calcine processing activities would include dis-solution of the dry calcine powder, pH adjust-ment, lag storage in existing Hanford Sitedouble-shell tanks, separation into HLW andlow-activity waste fractions, vitrification, andpackaging for shipment to INEEL. Calcine pro-cessing is summarized on Figure C.8-1. Thecesium ion-exchange resin would be blendedwith the HLW feed, vitrified, and packaged forshipment to the INEEL.

C.8.2.3 Construction

Construction activities for this alternative wouldconsist of building three Canister StorageBuildings and a Calcine Dissolution Facility.The Canister Storage Buildings would not beconstructed if Just-in-Time Shipping were used.Each Canister Storage Building would beapproximately 3,700 square meters (m2) in planarea (footprint) and would consist of a large sub-surface vault consisting of three individual bayseach with a capacity of 440 Hanford Site (1.17cubic meters) HLW canisters per bay or 1,320canisters per Canister Storage Building. Thebelow-surface vaults would be covered by anaboveground operating deck, within a prefabri-cated metal enclosure. Approximately 3,690canisters of calcine would require storage.Preconstruction activities would take 1 year,

starting in January 2009, followed by two yearsof construction for the first Canister StorageBuilding. The two remaining Canister StorageBuildings would be constructed as needed. Thefirst Canister Storage Building would be ready toreceive INEEL calcine canisters in January2012.

The Calcine Dissolution Facility would beapproximately 3,800 m2 in plan area and wouldbe a hot-cell type facility. The CalcineDissolution Facility would be constructed to pro-vide systems to retrieve calcine from transportcanisters, dissolve calcine, adjust pH, and trans-fer to the existing TWRS double-shell tank sys-tem. Preconstruction activities would start in2021, while facility construction would start in2024 with completion by December 2027.

C.8.2.4 Operations

Operations for the Canister Storage Buildingportion of this alternative would take placebetween January 2012 and April 2030.Shipment of calcine from the INEEL wouldbegin in 2012 and vitrification operations at theHanford Site would be complete in 2030. IfJust-in-Time Shipping were used, no CanisterStorage Building operations would be required.Operations of the Calcine Dissolution Facilitywould start in February 2028 and would end inApril 2030. The existing waste separation facil-ities and the HLW and low-activity wastemelters would operate from January 2029through April 2030 (16 months).

Under the interim storage shipping scenario,INEEL would start shipping calcine canisters in

C.8-3 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

liquid

liquid

solid

solid

Ship Calcine fromINEEL to Hanford(Start Jan 2012 end

Dec 2025)

StoreCalcine in

CSB AcidDissolutionProcessing

(Start 2028)

Store Waste inDSTs

Separate into HLW andLAW using TWRS

Pretreatment Plant (2029)Vitrify and

Package HLW

Vitrify andPackage LAW

Ship Calcine fromINEEL to Hanford

Just-In-TimeStarting in 2028

Ship toINEEL

Neutralize acidwaste stream

Transfer slurry to DSTs

DST = double-shell tankLAW = low-activity wasteCSB = Canister Storage BuildingTWRS = Tank Waste Remediation System

FIGURE C.8-1Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativeprocess flow diagram.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-4

Appendix C.8

January 2012. Each year approximately 260canisters (308 cubic meters) of calcine would beshipped from INEEL to the Hanford Site.Calcine shipments would be completed inDecember 2025.

The calcine canisters would be transferred to thecalcine dissolution hot cell facility for calcineremoval and dissolution. The facility would beoperated to accomplish the following:

• Receive and unpackage calcine canisters.

• Rinse/decontaminate transport canisters.

• Transfer powdered calcine into stainless-steel vessels.

• Dissolve calcine in boiling nitric acid.

• Adjust calcine solution to pH of 7 usingsodium hydroxide.

• Transfer liquid waste into double-shelltanks or directly into pretreatment system.

Following transfer into the double-shell tanksystem, the INEEL waste would be separated tocreate HLW and low-activity waste streams.This would involve sludge washing andenhanced washing with sodium hydroxide,solid/liquid separations, evaporating the liquidstream to concentrate waste, and removingcesium from the low-activity waste feed usingion exchange. The separated cesium-containingliquid stream that would come out of the ion-exchange process would be further evaporatedand fed into the HLW stream.

The low-activity waste vitrification facilitywould be operated to accomplish the following:

• Receive and sample waste.

• Evaporate water from the waste and collectevaporator condensate for treatment orreuse for waste retrieval.

• Operate vitrification melters. (The TWRSEIS processing alternatives were based onthe use of fuel-fired melters, which havebeen included as a representative processdetail for impact analysis. Future evalua-

tion may result in the selection of anothermelter configuration.)

• Pour molten glass into 2.6 cubic metersdisposal containers.

• Cool the containers.

• Weld lids on containers and decontaminateexterior surfaces.

• Transfer containers to lag storage pendingshipment to the INEEL.

The HLW vitrification facility would be operatedto accomplish the following:

• Receive and sample waste.

• Separate solids and liquid using a cen-trifuge.

• Evaporate excess water from liquid wasteand collect condensate for treatment.

• Operate one joule-heated melter with acapacity of 5 metric tons per day.

• Form glass at approximately 20 weightpercent waste oxides.

• Pour glass monoliths in 1.17 cubic meterscanisters.

• Cool, seal, and decontaminate exterior can-ister surfaces.

• Package glass into transport casks for ship-ment to INEEL.

The off-gas treatment system at both HLW andlow-activity waste vitrification facilities wouldbe operated to quench and cool off-gas, removeradionuclides and recycle to the vitrification pro-cess, and destroy nitrogen oxides.

Liquid effluent from both HLW and low-activitywaste vitrification facilities would be treatedafter transferring the effluent to the EffluentTreatment Facility. The liquid effluent would besimilar to the 242-A Evaporator condensate liq-uid that meets current waste acceptance criteriafor the Effluent Treatment Facility.

C.8.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section provides a summary description ofthe existing environment at the Hanford Site thatcould be impacted by TWRS activities under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative. Moredetailed descriptions of environmental baselineconditions are provided in Volume Five,Appendix I of the TWRS EIS (DOE 1996a), inthe Hanford Site National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) Characterization (Cushing 1994 and1995; Neitzel 1996 and 1997), in the HanfordSite Environmental Report for Calendar Years1994 and 1995, (PNL 1995 and 1996), and inJacobs (1998). All information contained in thissection is from these sources unless otherwisenoted.

The Hanford Site is in the semi-arid region of theColumbia Plateau in southeastern WashingtonState (Figure C.8-2). The Hanford Site occupiesabout 560 square miles of shrub-steppe andgrasslands just north of Richland, Washington.The majority of this large restricted-access landarea provides a buffer to the smaller areas withinthe Hanford Site historically used for nuclearmaterials production, waste storage, and wastedisposal. About 6 percent of the land has beendisturbed and is actively used. The Hanford Siteextends approximately 48 miles north to southand 38 miles east to west.

The Columbia River flows through the northernpart of the Hanford Site, turning south to formpart of its eastern boundary. The Yakima Riverruns along part of the southern boundary andjoins the Columbia River within the city ofRichland. Adjoining lands to the west, north,and east are principally range and agriculturalland. The cities of Richland, Kennewick, andPasco (also known as the Tri-Cities) comprisethe nearest population centers and are locatedsoutheast of the Site.

C.8.3.1 Geology and Soils

This geology section provides an overview ofthe Hanford Site's surface and subsurface envi-ronment and focuses primarily on the 200 Areaslocated in the center of the Site. With the excep-tion of two potential borrow sites locatedapproximately 4 miles to the north and west ofthe 200 Areas, and a third potential borrow site

located between the 200-East and 200-WestAreas, the 200 Areas would be the location ofvirtually all TWRS activities under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

Topography

The TWRS sites are located on and near a broadflat area of the Hanford Site commonly referredto as the Central Plateau. The Central Plateau iswithin the Pasco Basin, a topographic and struc-tural depression in the southwest corner of theColumbia Basin. The basin is characterized bygenerally low-relief hills with deeply incisedriver drainage. The Central Plateau of theHanford Site is an area of generally low relief,ranging from 390 feet above mean sea level atthe Columbia River to 750 feet above mean sealevel in the vicinity of the TWRS sites (seeFigure C.8-3).

Geologic Structure and Soils

The Hanford Site is underlain by basalt flows.Sedimentary layers referred to as the suprabasaltsediments lie on top of the basalts. A thin layerof silt, sand, and gravel is found on the surfaceacross much of the Site.

Soil in the 200 Areas consists of sand, loamy-sand, and sandy-loam soil types. Soil in the 200Areas adjacent to facilities and other locationson the Hanford Site is slightly contaminated byvarious radionuclides.

Mineral Resources

The only mineral resources produced from thePasco Basin are crushed rock, sand, and gravel.Deep natural gas production has been tested inthe Pasco Basin without commercial success.Local borrow areas would supply rock, silt,sand, and gravel for processing alternativesrequiring those materials.

Seismicity

Seismic activity in the Hanford Site area is lowcompared to other regions of the PacificNorthwest. In 1936, the largest known earth-

C.8-5 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-6

Appendix C.8

FIGURE C.8-2.Hanford Site map and vicinity.

quake (a Richter magnitude of 5.75) in theColumbia Plateau occurred near Milton-Freewater, Oregon. Other earthquakes with aRichter magnitude of 5.0 or higher haveoccurred near Lake Chelan, Washington, to thenorthwest; along the boundary of the ColumbiaPlateau and the Cascade Mountain Range, westand north of the Hanford Site; and east of theHanford Site in Washington State and northernIdaho. In addition, small-magnitude earthquakeswarms that are not associated with mappedfaults occur on and around the Hanford Site. Anearthquake swarm is a series of earthquakesclosely related in terms of time and location.

Four earthquake sources are considered relevantfor the purpose of seismic design of TWRS sites:the Rattlesnake-Wallula alignment, GableMountain, an earthquake anywhere in the tec-

tonic province, and the swarm area. For theRattlesnake-Wallula alignment, which passesalong the southwest boundary of the HanfordSite, a maximum Richter magnitude of 6.5 hasbeen estimated. For Gable Mountain, an east-west structure that passes through the northernportion of the Hanford Site, a maximum Richtermagnitude of 5.0 has been estimated. The esti-mate for the tectonic province was developedfrom the Milton-Freewater earthquake, with aRichter magnitude of 5.75. A Richter magnitude4.0 event is considered the maximum swarmearthquake, based on the maximum swarmearthquake in 1973. The Hanford Site currentdesign basis for new facilities is the ability towithstand a 0.2 gravity earthquake (Richter mag-nitude of approximately 6.4) with a recurrencefrequency of 5.0×10-4.

C.8-7 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

FIGURE C.8-3.Geologic cross section of the Hanford Site.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-8

Appendix C.8

C.8.3.2 Water Resources

Water resources include surface water, thevadose zone (the area between the ground sur-face and underlying groundwater), and ground-water. The section also summarizes the existingquality of both surface and groundwater andwithdrawal rates.

Surface Water

There are no naturally occurring water bodies orflood-prone areas near the TWRS sites. TheHanford Site and the surrounding communitiesdraw all or most of their water from theColumbia River, which has radiological andnonradiological contamination levels belowdrinking water standards.

The onsite ponds (not used for human consump-tion) and springs that flow into the ColumbiaRiver all show radiological contamination fromHanford Site activities. Nonradiological con-tamination levels in the onsite ponds and springsare generally below limits set by drinking waterstandards.

Vadose Zone and Groundwater

A thick vadose 230 to over 300 feet, confinedaquifer, and unconfined aquifers are presentbeneath the 200 Areas. The vadose zone is over300 feet thick in the vicinity of the TWRS sitesin the 200-East Areas. The confined aquifers arefound primarily within the Columbia RiverBasalts. These aquifers are not a major focus ofthis appendix because they are separated fromthe TWRS sites by the vadose zone, an unnamedunconfined aquifer, and confining layers, andthus are not likely to be impacted.

Natural recharge to the unconfined aquifer of theHanford Site is extremely low and occurs pri-marily in the upland areas west of the HanfordSite. Artificial recharge from retention pondsand trenches contribute approximately 10 timesmore recharge than natural recharge. Seasonalwater table fluctuations are small because of thelow natural recharge.

Water Quality and Supply

The following sections present water quality andsupply for surface water and groundwater asso-ciated with the 200-East Area.

Surface Water

Water at the Hanford Site is supplied by theColumbia River, which is a source of raw water.River water is supplied to Hanford Site facilitiesthrough several distribution systems. In addi-tion, wells supply water to the 400 Area and sev-eral remote facilities.

The Tri-Cities draw most (Richland andKennewick) or all (Pasco) of their water suppliesfrom the Columbia River. In 1994, water usageranged from 2.4 billion gallons in Pasco to 7.4billion gallons in Richland (Neitzel 1997). Eachcommunity operates its own water supply andtreatment system.

The Columbia River provides water for both irri-gation and municipal uses. Washington State hasclassified the water in the stretch of theColumbia River that includes the Hanford Reachas Class A, Excellent. Class A waters must besuitable for essentially all uses, including rawdrinking water, recreation, and wildlife habitat.Both Federal and state drinking water qualitystandards apply to the Columbia River and arecurrently being met.

Groundwater

Groundwater is not used in the 200 Areas exceptfor emergency cooling water, nor do any watersupply wells exist downgradient of the 200Areas. Three wells for emergency cooling waterare located near B Plant in the 200-East Area.However, there are dry and groundwater moni-toring wells in and around the 200 Areas.Hanford Site water supply wells are located atthe Yakima Barricade, the Fast Flux TestFacility, and at the Hanford Safety PatrolTraining Academy, all 8 miles or more from theTWRS sites in the 200-East Area.

Unconfined groundwater beneath the 200-EastArea contains 14 different contaminants thathave been mapped as plumes: arsenic,chromium, cyanide, nitrate, gross alpha, grossbeta, tritium, cobalt-60, strontium-90, tech-netium-99, iodine-129, cesium-137, and pluto-nium-239 and -240.

In the 200-West Area, 13 overlapping contami-nant plumes are located within the unconfinedgravels of Ringold Unit E: technetium, uranium,nitrate, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,trichloroethylene, iodine-129, gross alpha, grossbeta, tritium, arsenic, chromium, and fluoride.

C.8.3.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

The following section describes meteorologicaland air quality conditions at the Hanford Site.

Meteorology

The Hanford Site is located in a semi-aridregion. The Cascade Mountains to the westgreatly influence the Hanford Site's climate byproviding a rainshadow. This range also servesas a source of cold air drainage, which has a con-siderable effect on the Site's wind regime.

Good atmospheric dispersion conditions exist atthe Hanford Site about 57 percent of the timeduring the summer. Less favorable dispersionconditions occur when the wind speed is lightand the mixing layer is shallow. These condi-tions are most common during the winter, whenmoderately to extremely stable stratificationexists about 66 percent of the time. The proba-bility of an inversion period (e.g., poor disper-sion conditions) extending more than 12 hoursvaries from a low of about 10 percent in May andJune to a high of about 64 percent in Septemberand October.

Air Quality

Air quality is good in the Hanford Site vicinity.The only air pollutant for which regulatory stan-dards are exceeded is particulates. In 1994, con-centrations of radionuclides and hazardous airpollutants were lower than regulatory standardsboth onsite and offsite.

C.8.3.4 Ecological Resources

Ecological resources on the Hanford Site areextensive, diverse, and important. Because theHanford Site has not been farmed or grazed forover 50 years, it has become a refuge for a vari-ety of plant and animal species.

The Hanford Site is one of the largest shrub-steppe vegetation areas remaining in WashingtonState, and nearly half of the Site's 560-squaremile area is designated as ecological study areasor refuges. Shrub-steppe vegetation areas areconsidered priority habitat by Washington Statebecause of their relative scarcity and their impor-tance to wildlife species. The 200 Areas and thenearby potential borrow sites consist mostly ofshrub-steppe habitat. The TWRS sites in the 200Areas are currently heavily disturbed. However,the potential borrow sites are largely undis-turbed.

Species of concern on the Hanford Site includeFederal candidate species, Washington Statethreatened or endangered species, WashingtonState candidate species, and monitor species andsensitive plant species. No Federally-listedthreatened or endangered plant or animal speciesoccur on or around the Central Plateau (site ofthe TWRS facilities). Wildlife species of con-cern on the Central Plateau and vicinity includethe loggerhead shrike, which is a Federal andWashington State candidate species, and the sagesparrow, which is a Washington State candidatespecies. Both species nest in undisturbed sage-brush habitat in the Central Plateau and nearbyareas.

Other bird species of concern that may occur inshrub-steppe habitat of the Hanford Site are theburrowing owl, a Washington State candidatespecies; the ferruginous hawk, a WashingtonState threatened and Federal Category 2 candi-date species; the golden eagle, a WashingtonState candidate species; the long-billed curlew, aWashington State monitor species; the sagethrasher, a Washington State candidate species;the prairie falcon, a Washington State monitorspecies; and Swainsons hawk, a WashingtonState candidate species. Nonavian wildlifespecies of concern include the striped whip-snake, a Washington State candidate species; thedesert night snake, a Washington State monitorspecies; the pygmy rabbit, a Federal Category 2

C.8-9 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-10

Appendix C.8

candidate species; and the northern sagebrushlizard, also a Federal Category 2 candidatespecies (DOE 1996a).

Sensitive habitats on the Hanford Site includewetlands and riparian habitats. However, thereare no sensitive habitats at or near any TWRSsites. The Hanford Site's primary wetlands occuralong the Columbia River. Other Hanford Sitewetland habitats are associated with human-made ponds and ditches (e.g., B Pond and itsassociated ditches located near the 200-EastArea). Wetland plants occurring along the shore-line of B Pond include herbaceous and woodyspecies such as showy milkweed, western gold-enrod, three square bulrush, horsetail rush, com-mon cattail, and mulberry, among others.Wildlife species observed at B Pond include avariety of mammals and waterfowl species. Thefishery resource of the Columbia River is impor-tant to Native Americans.

C.8.3.5 Cultural Resources

Archaeological sites in the 200 Areas are scarce.Cultural resource surveys have been conductedwithin the 200-East Area covering all undevel-oped areas. The number of prehistoric and his-toric archaeological sites recorded as the resultof these surveys is very limited. Findingsrecorded in the areas around and including theTWRS sites consist of isolated artifacts and fourarchaeological sites. Cultural resources surveysof the TWRS sites and immediate vicinity in the200-East Area, which were conducted in 1994,found no sites eligible for the National Registerof Historic Places. Past surveys of the PhasedImplementation Alternative site in the eastern-most portion of the 200-East Area revealed noarchaeological sites. However, both the 200-East and 200-West Areas contain potentially his-toric buildings and structures associated with theHanford Site's defense mission.

Surveys of the 200-West Areas recorded a fewhistoric sites, isolated archaeological artifacts,and a segment of the historic White Bluffs Roadthat runs across the Site between RattlesnakeSprings and the Columbia River. The WhiteBluffs Road, which has been nominated for theNational Register of Historic Places, traversesthe northwest corner of the 200-West Area. This

road was used in prehistoric and historic timesby Native Americans and was an importanttransportation route for Euro-Americans in the19th and early 20th century for mining, agricul-ture, and other development uses. The segmentin the 200-West Area is not considered an impor-tant element historically because it has beenfragmented by past activities. However, theConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla IndianReservation have indicated that the White BluffsRoad is important culturally to NativeAmericans even though it has been affected bypast activities.

Native American Sites

The Hanford Site vicinity contains lands cededto the United States both by the ConfederatedTribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nationand the Confederated Tribes of the UmatillaIndian Reservation in the treaties of 1855. Until1942, the Wanapum resided on land that is nowpart of the Hanford Site. In 1942, the WanapumPeople moved to Priest Rapids when theHanford Site was established. The Nez PerceTribe also retained rights to the Columbia Riverunder a separate treaty with the U.S.Government.

The area of the Hanford Site near the ColumbiaRiver has been occupied by humans for over10,000 years, as reflected by the extensivearchaeological deposits along the river shores.Inland areas with water resources also point toevidence of concentrated human activity. Recentsurveys indicate extensive although disperseduse of semi-arid lowlands for hunting. However,surveys have recorded very few NativeAmerican sites or artifacts in and around the 200Areas. Native American sites and artifacts havebeen identified at both McGee Ranch and theVernita Quarry (potential borrow sites).

Native Americans have retained traditional secu-lar and religious ties to the Hanford Site,although no specific sites of religious signifi-cance have been identified at the TWRS sites.However, affected Tribal Nations indicate thatthere are culturally important biota, sacred sitessuch as Gable Mountain, and other culturallyimportant properties within areas that might beimpacted by TWRS alternatives (e.g., ground-

water downgradient from TWRS sites, theColumbia River, and locations downwind ofpossible TWRS air releases).

C.8.3.6 Socioeconomics

The socioeconomic analysis focuses on Bentonand Franklin counties. These counties make upthe Richland-Kennewick-Pasco MetropolitanStatistical Area, also known as the Tri-Cities.Other jurisdictions in Benton county includeBenton City, Prosser, and West Richland.Connell is the largest city in Franklin countyafter Pasco. Neighboring counties (Yakima,Walla Walla, Adams, and Grant counties inWashington State, and Umatilla and Morrowcounties in Oregon) are impacted by activities atthe Hanford Site; however, in terms of socioeco-nomics, the Site's impacts on these counties arevery small.

In 1995, the Hanford Site represented 22 percentof the area's total non-farm employment. Withthe rapid economic growth from the late 1980's,population rose as did the housing market.Housing prices declined in 1995 as the marketsoftened when Hanford Site jobs were reduced.

As of 1990, the population within a 50-mileradius of the Hanford Site contained 19.3 percentminority and Native American residents and17.3 percent low-income residents.

Most public service systems in the Tri-Citiesoperate well within their service capacity. Localschool systems and some local public safetyagencies are operating at or near their capacities.

Median household yearly income in Bentoncounty was $43,684 in 1994, while per capitaincome was $22,053. Median household yearlyincome in Franklin county was $31,121 in 1994,while per capita income was $16,999. ForWashington State, 1994 median householdyearly income was $38,094 and per capitaincome was $22,526 (Neitzel 1997).

Benton county residents have approximately thesame level of educational attainment as residentsstatewide, while Franklin county residents tendto have a lower level.

C.8.3.7 Land Use

Approximately 6 percent of the Hanford Site isactively used by Site operations, with theremainder left undeveloped. Nearly half theSite's area is designated for ecological or wildlifepurposes.

The 200 Areas historically have been used forprocessing and waste management activities.Current plans envision the 200 Areas to be dedi-cated exclusively as a waste management anddisposal area for the entire Hanford Site (seeFigure C.8-4).

The Draft Comprehensive Land-Use Plan for theHanford Site, prepared by DOE, was released inAugust 1996. Both Benton County and the Cityof Richland released their land-use plans for theSite in 1996.

In April 1999, DOE issued a Revised DraftHanford Remedial Action Environmental ImpactStatement and Comprehensive Land Use Plan(DOE/EIS-0222D). This Revised Draft EIS willbe used by DOE and its nine cooperating andconsulting agencies to develop a comprehensiveland-use plan for the next 50 years for theHanford Site. Under DOE's preferred alterna-tive, the Central Plateau (200 Areas) geographicarea would be designated for Industrial-Exclusive use. An Industrial-Exclusive land-usedesignation would allow for continued wastemanagement operations within the CentralPlateau geographic area. This designation wouldalso allow expansion of existing facilities ordevelopment of new waste management facili-ties.

Prime and Unique Farmland

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requiresFederal agencies to consider prime or uniquefarmlands when planning major projects andprograms on Federal lands (7 CFR 657.4).Federal agencies are required to use prime andunique farmland criteria developed by the U.S.Department of Agriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service. The Natural ResourcesConservation Service has determined that due tolow annual precipitation in southeast

C.8-11 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-12

Appendix C.8

FIGURE C.8-4.Existing land use map.

Washington State, none of the soil occurring onthe Hanford Site would meet prime and uniquefarmland criteria without irrigation.

C.8.3.8 Aesthetic and ScenicResources

Visually, the Hanford Site is characterized bywide-open vistas interspersed with over a dozenlarge industrial facilities (e.g., reactors and pro-cessing facilities). The 200 Areas contain sev-eral large processing facilities.

Site facilities can be seen from elevated loca-tions (e.g., Gable Mountain), a few public road-ways (State Routes 24 and 240), and theColumbia River. Facilities in the 200-East Areacan be seen only in the visual background fromoffsite locations. For purposes of study, viewingareas are generally divided into four distancezones: the foreground, within 0.5 mile; the mid-dleground, from 0.5 to 5 miles; the background,from 5 to 15 miles; and seldom-seen areas thatare either beyond 15 miles or are unseen becauseof topography (Figure C.8-5).

C.8.3.9 Noise

Noise produced by current, routine operations atthe Hanford Site does not violate any Federal orWashington State standards (WashingtonAdministrative Code 173-60). Even near theoperating facilities along the Columbia River,measured noise levels are lower than noise expe-rienced in parts of the city of Richland (less than52 decibels on the A scale [dBA] versus 61 dBA)(dBA is a noise scale used to describe sounds inthe frequencies most readily detected by humanhearing). Noise levels measured near intakestructures at the Columbia River are well withinthe 60 dBA tolerance levels for daytime residen-tial use. Three miles upstream of the intakestructures, measured noise levels fall well withinlevels suited for daytime and nighttime residen-tial use. Moreover, the relative remoteness ofpopulation centers from the Hanford Site as awhole (and the TWRS sites in particular) givesthe Site a Class C (industrial) classification witha maximum allowable equivalent sound level of70 dBA in compliance with Washington Stateand Federal standards. The equivalent soundlevel integrates noise levels over time and

expresses them as continuous sound levels.Native Americans have expressed the concernthat Hanford Site religious locations such asGable Mountain are near enough to TWRS areasto potentially be impacted by TWRS activities.

C.8.3.10 Traffic and Transportation

Direct rail service is provided to the Tri-Citiesarea by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe andUnion Pacific Railroads. The rail system on theHanford Site itself consists of approximately 130miles of tracks. It extends from the RichlandJunction (at Columbia Center in Kennewick)where it joins the Union Pacific commercial rail-road track, to an abandoned commercial right-of-way near the Vernita Bridge in the northwestportion of the Site. There are currently about1,400 railcar movements annually at the Site,transporting a wide variety of materials includ-ing coal, fuels, hazardous process chemicals, andradioactive materials and equipment.Radioactive waste has been transported on theSite without incident for many years.

Regional road transportation is provided by anumber of major highways including StateRoutes 24 and 240 and U.S. Interstate Highways82 and 182. State Routes 24 and 240 are bothtwo-lane roads that traverse the Hanford Site.State Route 24 is an east-west highway that turnsnorth at the Yakima Barricade in the northernportion of the Site. State Route 240 is a north-south highway that skirts the eastern edge of theFitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve(Figure C.8-6).

A DOE-maintained road network within theHanford Site, mostly paved and two lanes wide,provides access to the various work centers. Theprimary access roads on the Site are Routes 2, 4,10, and 11A. Primary access to the 200 Areas isby Route 4 South from Richland. The 200-EastArea is also accessed from Route 4 North offRoute 11A from the north. July 1994 trafficcounts on Route 4 indicated severe congestionwest of the Wye Barrier (at the intersection ofRoutes 10 and 4 South) during Hanford Site shiftchanges. However, completion of the StateRoute 240 Access Highway (Beloit Avenue)linking the 200 Areas with State Route 240 inlate 1994, and declining Hanford Site employ-ment, have reduced the congestion on Route 4.

C.8-13 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-14

Appendix C.8

FIGURE C.8-5.Potential viewing areas of 200-East and 200-West Areas.

C.8-15 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

FIGURE C.8-6.Hanford Site roadway and railroad system.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-16

Appendix C.8

Stevens Road at the 1100 Area leading into theSite from Richland (Stevens Road becomesRoute 4 South further north onsite) also hasexperienced severe congestion. The 240 AccessHighway completion and reduction of HanfordSite employment appear to have reduced thiscongestion somewhat, although no specific traf-fic count data are available to quantify thisassessment.

Access to the 200-West Area is also providedfrom Route 11A for vehicles entering the Sitethrough the Yakima Barricade and from Route 6off Route 11A from the north. No congestionproblems are reported on these roadways.

Public access to the 200 Areas and interior loca-tions of the Hanford Site are restricted bymanned gates at the Wye Barricade and theYakima Barricade (at the intersection of StateRoute 240 and Route 11A).

C.8.3.11 Radiological Environment

This section summarizes 1995 data on radiationdoses from operations at the Hanford Site andthe potential future fatal cancers attributable toexposures. More recent data indicate that theradiological conditions at the Hanford Site arenot appreciably different from those described inthis section.

Each year the potential radiation doses to thepublic from Hanford Site radiation sources arecalculated as part of the Hanford SiteEnvironmental Monitoring Program. In particu-lar, the dose to the hypothetical maximallyexposed individual is calculated as described inthe Hanford Site Environmental Report pub-lished each calendar year. This hypotheticalmaximally exposed individual is assumed to livewhere the radiation dose from airborne releaseswould be larger than for a resident of any otheroffsite location. The maximally exposed indi-vidual also is assumed to drink water from theColumbia River; eat food grown with ColumbiaRiver irrigation water; and use the river exten-sively for boating, swimming, and fishing(including eating fish from the river). The expo-sure calculation for this hypothetical individualis based on Hanford Site data from actualreported releases, environmental measurements,

and information about operations at Hanford Sitefacilities.

The calculated dose in 1995 to the maximallyexposed individual near the Hanford Site was atotal of 0.02 millirem compared to 0.05 milliremreported for 1994. The DOE radiation dose limitfor a member of the public is 100 millirem.Thus, the 1995 total dose to the maximallyexposed individual was far below the limit.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regula-tions impose a dose limit of 10 millirem to amember of the public from radioactivity releasedin airborne effluents. The 1995 Hanford Site air-borne dose to the maximally exposed individualof 0.006 millirem was far below this limit.

To estimate health effects for radiation protec-tion purposes, it usually is assumed that a collec-tive dose of 2,000 person-rem in the generalpopulation will cause one extra latent cancerfatality. In these calculations it does not matterwhether 20,000 people each receive an averageof 0.1 rem or 2 million people each receive anaverage of 0.001 rem. In either case, the collec-tive dose would equal 2,000 person-rem andthus, one additional latent cancer facility wouldbe expected. The 1995 collective dose to peoplesurrounding the Hanford Site from Site releaseswas calculated to be 0.3 person-rem, which islower than the 0.6 person-rem calculated for1994. Compared to 2,000 person-rem causingone extra latent cancer fatality, the 0.3 person-rem from the Hanford Site in 1995 is not likelyto cause any latent cancer fatalities.

C.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section describes the potential impacts tothe existing environment (described in SectionC.8.3) of implementing the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative (described in SectionC.8.2) at the Hanford Site. This section also dis-cusses potential cumulative impacts of theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative whenadded to impacts from past, present, and reason-ably foreseeable actions; unavoidable adverseimpacts; the relationship between short-termuses of the environment and the maintenanceand enhancement of long-term productivity; andirreversible and irretrievable commitment ofresources.

C.8.4.1 Geology and Soils

Geology and soil impacts would include poten-tial impacts to mineral resources, topography,and soils. In general, the more land disturbed,the higher the level of potential impacts to geo-logic resources. Mineral resources (i.e., silt,sand, gravel, and riprap) are presented in TableC.8-1. The earthen materials would be used pri-marily to make concrete for constructing treat-ment facilities and vaults. Some soil disturbancewould be temporary; some would be permanent.Temporary disturbances include areas such asthe trample zones around construction sites andwork areas. Permanent disturbances includeareas where facilities are located.

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, additional Hanford Sitesand and gravel resources would be required tomake concrete for the construction of theCalcine Dissolution Facility and for the disposi-tion of this facility after its mission is completed(Table C.8-1). No additional silt and riprapresources would be required. Incrementalimpacts to the potential Pit 30 borrow site, wherethe additional borrow material would be secured,would increase by approximately 1.3 percent, or3.4×104 cubic meters over the 2.6×106 cubicmeters calculated in the TWRS EIS for the

Phased Implementation Alternative. The Pit 30borrow site is located on the Hanford Site'sCentral Plateau between the 200-East Area and200-West Area.

Under this scenario, small additional changes intopography would result from constructing theCalcine Dissolution Facility and securing bor-row materials. The Calcine Dissolution Facilityis assumed to be located on the representativesite in the 200-East Area analyzed in the TWRSEIS for Phase 2 of the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Implementing this scenario would result in addi-tional soil disturbances associated with the con-struction of the Calcine Dissolution Facility andthe removal of earthen materials from the poten-tial Pit 30 borrow site (Table C.8-1). Assumingthat an area equal to the footprint of the CalcineDissolution Facility plus a small buffer zonewould be permanently disturbed, the permanentsoil disturbances would increase by approxi-mately 3.3 percent, or 3.9 acres over the 120acres calculated for the Phased ImplementationAlternative. Assuming that soil disturbancesassociated with the potential Pit 30 borrow sitewould be temporary, the temporary soil distur-bances would be approximately 0.4 percent or2.9 acres greater than the 790 acres calculatedfor the Phased Implementation Alternative.

C.8-17 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-1. Mineral resources and soil impacts – Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

Mineral resource in cubic metersSoil disturbancea

in acres

Tank Waste AlternativeSand and

gravel Silt Riprap Temporary PermanentPhased Implementation Alternativeb 2.6×106 5.7×105 9.6×105 790 120

Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario

3.4×104 NRd NR 2.9 3.9MinimumINEELProcessingAlternative

Interim StorageShipping Scenario

2.9×105 NR NR 48 3.9

Total impactsc Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario

2.6×106 5.7×105 9.6×105 790 120

Interim StorageShipping Scenario

2.9×106 5.7×105 9.6×105 840 120

a. These estimates are based on closure of the Hanford Site Tank Farms by filling tanks and covering them with a Hanford Barrier.b. Estimates include remediation and closure as landfill (Phase 1 and 2).c. Impact estimates include the Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1 and 2) plus the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.d. NR = None required.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-18

Appendix C.8

None of the increased impacts associated withthis scenario would affect the local cost or avail-ability of mineral resources or substantivelychange the understanding of the geology andsoils impacts presented in the TWRS EIS for thePhased Implementation Alternative.

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

This scenario would result in greater additionalimpacts than the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario, in that it would include all of theimpacts of the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenarioplus the impacts associated with the constructionand subsequent disposition of three new CanisterStorage Buildings.

Additional sand and gravel for facility construc-tion and subsequent disposition would besecured from the potential Pit 30 borrow site.Incremental impacts to this borrow site wouldincrease by approximately 11 percent, or 2.9×105

cubic meters over the 2.6×106 cubic meters cal-culated in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative (Table C.8-1). Noadditional silt or riprap resources would berequired.

Under the Interim Storage Shipping Scenario,small additional changes in topography wouldresult from constructing new facilities (CalcineDissolution Facility and Canister StorageBuildings) and securing borrow materials. TheCalcine Dissolution Facility is assumed to belocated on the representative site in the 200-EastArea analyzed in the TWRS EIS for Phase 2 ofthe Phased Implementation Alternative. TheCanister Storage Buildings are assumed to belocated in the 200 Areas adjacent to the site ofthe existing Hanford Site Canister StorageBuilding.

Soil disturbances associated with the CalcineDissolution Facility are assumed to be perma-nent and would be the same as for the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario (Table C.8-1). Soildisturbances associated with the potential Pit 30borrow site (24 acres) and the Canister StorageBuildings (24 acres) are assumed to be tempo-rary and would increase the temporary soil dis-turbances by approximately 6 percent, or 48

acres over the 790 acres calculated for thePhased Implementation Alternative.

Although this scenario would result in greateradditional impacts than the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario, it would not affect the localprice or availability of mineral resources or sub-stantively change the understanding of the geol-ogy and soils impacts presented in the TWRSEIS for the Phased Implementation Alternative.

C.8.4.2 Water Resources

The following section addresses water resourcesimpacts related to the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative. Surface water andgroundwater are pathways for potential releasesto the environment. Releases would travel byadvection downward through the vadose zone,intercept the unconfined aquifer (saturatedzone), and move laterally to points of dischargealong the Columbia River. There would be nodirect discharge to surface water.

Surface Water Releases

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould generate liquid effluent; however, theeffluent would not be discharged to surfacewaters and there would be no direct impacts tosurface waters from the implementation of thealternative. Liquid stored in the double-shelltanks and liquid added to the tanks during wasteretrieval activities ultimately would be removedand sent to an evaporator. Condensed waterfrom the evaporator would be sent to the EffluentTreatment Facility in the 200-East Area. Thewater would be treated in the Effluent TreatmentFacility using a variety of systems, includingevaporation, to meet applicable regulatory stan-dards. Ultimately the treated wastewater fromvitrification processing would be discharged,with most contaminants removed, from theEffluent Treatment Facility to the State-approved land disposal facility site, a subsurfacedrain field near the north-central part of the 200-West Area. The discharged water would movethrough the vadose zone into the groundwaterwhere it would slowly flow towards and dis-charge to seeps along the Columbia River anddirectly into the Columbia River. An estimated

100 years would be required for contaminants ingroundwater to reach the Columbia River wherethey would rapidly mix with the large volumesof river water.

Concern has been raised in the past about theamount of tritium that would be released fromthe land disposal facility. The calcine would bein a solid state when shipped from INEEL to theHanford Site, and the tritium would have beenremoved at INEEL. There would be no increasein tritium releases from the land disposal facilityas a result of INEEL waste processing.

Surface Water Drainage Systems

The facilities for the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative (Canister StorageBuildings for Interim Storage Shipping Scenarioand Calcine Dissolution Facility) would be con-structed on relatively level and flat terrain. Nomajor drainage features are present.Construction activities would result in slightlyaltered localized drainage patterns for the tem-porary construction areas and for the permanentfacilities. Excess water used for dust controlpurposes during construction and dispositionactivities would be collected and routed througherosion and sedimentation control measuresprior to discharging to the existing approvedNational Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem outfall and would be monitored follow-ing the current Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan. The area around the Canister StorageBuildings, the Calcine Dissolution Facility, andthe existing vitrification facilities would berecontoured to conform with the surroundingdrainage patterns. Small increases in surfacewater runoff during the infrequent heavy precip-itation events or rapid snowmelt would occur,but no flooding of drainage systems wouldoccur.

Groundwater Releases

Potential impacts to groundwater would resultfrom potential liquid losses during retrieval oftank waste and the leaching of residual wastethat may be left in the double-shell tanks follow-ing retrieval. Waste transfer pipelines from theCalcine Dissolution Facility to the AP Tank

Farm and from the AP Tank Farm to the vitrifi-cation facilities would be of double-wall con-struction in order to minimize the possibility of aleak to the environment. However, retrievallosses are not anticipated from these double-shell tanks or waste transfer systems. Therefore,no potential impact to the groundwater is antici-pated for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. In addition, all of the waste pro-cessing and treatment would be conducted inareas of the facility covered with a base that con-sists of a secondary spill containment system(e.g., engineered system constructed for detec-tion and collection of spills) to prevent leaks andspills of waste until the accumulated materialsare detected and removed. Such a base wouldprevent releases to the environment that couldpotentially impact groundwater.

For the Interim Storage Shipping Scenario, theCanister Storage Buildings are designed toinclude storage provisions to isolate container-ized waste from the environment and preventdeterioration of container integrity.Additionally, secondary containment would beprovided to prevent any inadvertent releasesfrom entering the environment. Waste packageshaving a potential for residual liquid would havean absorbent agent added to ensure immobiliza-tion of potential liquid. In order to prevent con-tamination of the water supply, no restrooms ordrinking water fountains would be locatedwithin the operational areas of the various facil-ities.

Implementing this alternative would result inminimal increases in impacts and would notchange the understanding of the water resourcesimpacts for surface water or groundwater pre-sented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

C.8.4.3 Air Quality

Air pollutant emission estimates were developedand air dispersion modeling performed to ana-lyze air quality impacts for the PhasedImplementation Alternative of the TWRS EIS.The emission rates for criteria pollutants andradionuclides for the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative were scaled from theTWRS EIS. Supporting calculations can be

C.8-19 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-20

Appendix C.8

found in Appendix E of Jacobs (1998).Compliance with Washington State and Federalambient air quality standards for radionuclideswere measured at the maximum receptor loca-tion at the Hanford Site boundary along theColumbia River and on State Route 240.Compliance with the Federal standard forradionuclide releases was measured at the near-est residence.

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, INEEL waste would betransported to the Hanford Site just in time forvitrification, and there would be no need to con-struct additional Canister Storage Buildings forinterim storage. Therefore, only the CalcineDissolution Facility and the vitrification facilityare evaluated in this scenario as potential sourcesof air emissions.

Air Emission Sources. Air emission sources forthe Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario wouldinclude construction of the Calcine DissolutionFacility, unloading and dissolving the INEELcalcined waste at the Calcine DissolutionFacility, separating and vitrifying the waste atthe vitrification facility, and decommissioningthe Calcine Dissolution Facility. The criteriapollutant emission rates from construction, oper-ations, and decommissioning are presented inTable C.8-2. The radionuclide emission ratesfrom operations are presented in Table C.8-3.The criteria pollutant and radionuclide emissionrates for constructing, operating, and decommis-sioning the Calcine Dissolution Facility arebased on annual emissions calculated in the pro-

ject data presented in Section C.8.5.2. The emis-sion rates for criteria pollutants were then scaledfrom the emission rates calculated in the TWRSEIS for the Phased Implementation Alternative.The criteria pollutant and radionuclide emissionrates from operation of the vitrification facilityare based on emission rates calculated in the pro-ject data presented in Section C.8.5.3.Supporting calculations are provided inAppendix E of Jacobs (1998).

Air Emission Concentrations. The criteria pol-lutant emission concentrations were calculatedusing the ISC2 spreadsheets developed to calcu-late the air emission concentrations for theTWRS EIS. The criteria pollutant emission con-centrations resulting from construction, opera-tions, and decommissioning are compared withstate and Federal standards presented in TableC.8-4. The radiological doses to the nearest res-ident and the nearest offsite receptor were scaledfrom the receptor doses calculated in the TWRSEIS for the Phased Implementation Alternative.The radiological modeling results are comparedwith state and Federal standards in Table C.8-5.Supporting calculations are provided inAppendix E of Jacobs (1998).

Emission concentrations of carbon monoxidewould be less than 1 percent of the Federal andstate standards for construction, operations, ordecontamination and decommissioning.Nitrogen oxide would be less than 1 percent, sul-fur oxides would be less than 2 percent, and par-ticulate matter with a diameter of 10micrometers or less would be less than 16 per-cent.

Table C.8-2. Criteria pollutant emission rates for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario.

Operations (grams/sec)Vitrification

PollutantConstruction(grams/sec)

D&D(grams/sec)

Unloading/dissolution HAW LAW

Sulfur oxides 1.1×10-4 7.5×10-5 0.42 NAa 0.35Carbon monoxide 0.084 0.056 4.7 NA 3.9Nitrogen dioxide 0.084 0.056 0.28 NA 0.24PM-10 2.4 2.4 NA NA NAa. NA = Not applicable.D&D = decontamination and decommissioning; HAW = high-activity waste; LAW = low-activity waste.PM-10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less.

The radiological dose to the nearest residentsfrom radiological emissions would be less than 1percent of the Federal standard, and the nearestoffsite receptor dose would be less than 1 percentof the state standard.

Hazardous and toxic air pollutant emissionsevaluated in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative were less than 1 per-cent of the state and Federal standards.Hazardous and toxic air pollutants emissionsfrom the Minimum INEEL Processing

C.8-21 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-3. Radiological emission rates for Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative –Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario – operations phase.

Vitrification (curies per year)

Radionuclide

Unloading/dissolution

(curies per year) HAW LAWStrontium-90 5.1×10-5 5.2×10-5 9.2×10-7

Technetium-99 2.6×10-8 9.0×10-10 4.0×10-9

Cesium-137 4.7×10-5 2.4×10-5 1.8×10-7

Plutonium-238 7.0×10-8 1.7×10-7 1.1×10-8

Plutonium-239/240 9.3×10-9 6.2×10-9 4.2×10-10

Plutonium-241 3.2×10-8 8.4×10-8 1.7×10-9

Americium-241 5.3×10-8 2.0×10-8 1.8×10-8

HAW = high-activity waste; LAW = low-activity waste.

Table C.8-4. Criteria pollutant modeling results for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario.

Standard (µg/m3)Pollutant

Averagingperiod

Construction(µg/m3)

Operations(µg/m3)

D&D(µg/m3) Federal State

1 hour 1.5 54 1.0 40,000 40,000Carbonmonoxide 8 hour 1.1 38 0.72 10,000 10,000Nitrogenoxide

Annual 0.27 0.58 0.18 100 100

Sulfur oxides 1 hour 2.0×10-3 4.8 1.4×10-3 NAa 6553 hour 1.8×10-3 4.3 1.2×10-3 1300 NA24 hour 8.2×10-4 1.9 5.4×10-4 365 260

PM-10 Annual 3.6×10-4 0.86 2.4×10-4 80 6024 hour 18 NA 18 150 150Annual 7.8 NA 7.8 50 50

a. NA = Not applicable.µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; D&D = decontamination and decommissioning; PM-10 = particulate matter with adiameter of 10 micrometers or less.

Table C.8-5. Radionuclide modeling results for Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative –Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario.

StandardReceptor

Maximum dose(millirem/year) State Federal

Nearest residenta 2.3×10-5 NAc 10Offsite receptorb 2.8×10-5 25 NAa. Maximum predicted dose at the nearest residence to the 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent standard of 40 CFR Part 61.b. Maximum accumulated dose equivalent at any offsite receptor to the 25 millirem per year standard contained in Washington

Administrative Code 173-480.c. NA = Not applicable.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-22

Appendix C.8

Alternative would not exceed the emissionsevaluated in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative and would, there-fore, be less than 1 percent of the state or Federalstandards, with the exception of mercury oxide.Mercury oxide would reach concentration levelsof 0.019 microgram per cubic meter compared tothe state standard of 0.17 microgram per cubicmeter. Mercury oxide would be less than 12 per-cent of the state or Federal standard. Supportingcalculations are provided in Appendix E ofJacobs (1998).

The air emissions for the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario are below the state and Federal stan-dards and would not substantively change theunderstanding of the air impacts presented in theTWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, INEEL waste would betransported to Hanford approximately 20 yearsprior to being vitrified, which would requireadditional Canister Storage Buildings to be builtfor interim storage. The Canister StorageBuildings, Calcine Dissolution Facility, and vit-rification facility are evaluated in this scenario aspotential air emission sources.

Air Emission Sources. Emission sources for theInterim Storage Shipping Scenario wouldinclude air emissions from construction of theCanister Storage Buildings, construction of theCalcine Dissolution Facility, unloading and dis-solving INEEL calcine waste at the CalcineDissolution Facility, separating and vitrifyingwaste at the vitrification facility, and decommis-

sioning the Canister Storage Buildings and theCalcine Dissolution Facility. The criteria pollu-tant emission rates from construction anddecommissioning are presented in Table C.8-6.Since criteria pollutant emission rates from con-struction of the Canister Storage Buildingswould exceed those from construction of theCalcine Dissolution Facility, and since construc-tion activities for either facility would not takeplace during the same year, only constructionemissions associated with constructing theCanister Storage Buildings are evaluated in thisscenario. The criteria pollutant and radionuclideemission rates during operations would be thesame as the emission rates for operations pre-sented in Tables C.8-2 and C.8-3, respectively.The criteria pollutant emission rates for con-structing and decommissioning the CanisterStorage Buildings are based on annual emissionscalculated in the project data presented inSection C.8.5.1. The emission rates for decom-missioning the Calcine Dissolution Facility arebased on annual emissions calculated in the pro-ject data presented in Section C.8.5.2. The emis-sion rates for criteria pollutants were then scaledfrom the emission rates calculated in the TWRSEIS for the Phased Implementation Alternative.Since the Canister Storage Buildings and theCalcine Dissolution Facility would be decom-missioned during the same year, the air emis-sions were combined in Table C.8-6.

Air Emission Concentrations. The criteria pol-lutant emission concentrations resulting fromconstruction and decommissioning are com-pared with state and Federal standards in TableC.8-7. The criteria pollutant emission concentra-tions and radiological modeling results fromoperations would be the same as those previ-

Table C.8-6. Criteria pollutant emission rates for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Interim Storage Shipping Scenario.

PollutantConstruction

(g/sec)D&D

(g/sec)Sulfur oxides 3.4×10-3 3.7×10-3

Carbon monoxide 2.5 2.8Nitrogen dioxide 2.5 2.8PM-10 2.4 4.8D&D = decontamination and decommissioning; g/sec = grams per second.PM-10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less.

ously shown in Tables C.8-4 and C.8-5, respec-tively.

Emission concentrations of carbon monoxidewould less than 1 percent of the Federal and statestandards for construction, operations, or decom-missioning. Nitrogen oxide would be less than 9percent, sulfur oxides would be less than 1 per-cent, and particulate matter with a diameter of 10micrometers or less would be less than 32 per-cent.

The radiological dose to the nearest residentsfrom radiological emissions would be less than 1percent of the Federal standard and the nearestoffsite receptor dose would be less than 1 percentof the state standard.

Hazardous and toxic air pollutant emissionswould be the same as those previously discussedfor the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario.

The air emissions for the Interim StorageShipping Scenario are below the state andFederal standards and would not substantivelychange the understanding of the air impacts pre-sented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

C.8.4.4 Ecological Resources

From an ecological resources standpoint, the keyissues are (1) whether the land areas proposed

for use currently are undisturbed or whether theyhave been disturbed by past activities; (2) theextent of potential impacts on sensitive shrub-steppe habitat, which is considered a priorityhabitat by Washington state; and (3) potentialimpacts on plant and animal species of concern(those listed or candidates for listing by theFederal government or Washington state asthreatened, endangered, and sensitive). Mostimpacts would occur in the 200 Areas whereTWRS waste is currently and projected to bestored and where waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities would be located. Smallerimpacts would be located at potential borrowsites where varying levels of borrow materialwould be secured to support facility construc-tion.

Impacts to plant and animal species from expo-sures to radionuclides and chemicals were alsoevaluated in the TWRS EIS. Under the PhasedImplementation Alternative, the consumption ofcontaminated groundwater that reaches theColumbia River was not expected to pose athreat to terrestrial or aquatic receptors. The pri-mary radiological risk is a result of direct contactwith stored waste, which is unlikely as long asinstitutional controls are present. This type ofimpact would not be expected under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative sinceall of the INEEL waste would have left theHanford Site prior to the end of the institutionalcontrol period.

C.8-23 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-7. Criteria pollutant modeling results for Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative – Interim Storage Shipping Scenario.

Standard (µg/m3)Pollutant

Averagingperiod

Construction(µg/m3)

D&D(µg/m3) Federal State

1 hour 46 50 40,000 40,000Carbon monoxide8 hour 32 35 10,000 10,000

Nitrogen oxide Annual 8.2 8.9 100 100Sulfur oxides 1 hour 0.061 0.067 NAa 655

3 hour 0.055 0.060 1,300 NA24 hour 0.025 0.027 365 260

PM-10 Annual 0.011 0.012 80 6024 hour 18 35 150 150Annual 7.8 16 50 50

a. NA = Not applicable.µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; D&D = decontamination and decommissioning; PM-10 = particulate matter with adiameter of 10 micrometers or less.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-24

Appendix C.8

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, the construction and subse-quent decontamination and decommissioning ofthe Calcine Dissolution Facility would result inadditional shrub-steppe habitat disturbances inthe 200 Areas and at the potential Pit 30 borrowsite (Figure C.8-7). To bound the impacts, it isassumed that the Calcine Dissolution Facilitywould be sited in an undisturbed portion of therepresentative 200-East Area site. Using thisassumption, an additional 3.9 acres of shrub-steppe habitat would be disturbed in the 200-East Area. An additional 2.9 acres ofshrub-steppe habitat at Pit 30 would also be dis-turbed to secure sand and gravel for facility con-struction and decontamination anddecommissioning. There would be no additionalimpacts at the Vernita Quarry or McGee Ranchborrow sites. The total additional shrub-steppehabitat impacts would increase by approximately1.3 percent, or 6.8-acres over the 540 acres cal-culated in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative (Table C.8-8).

The additional impacts associated with this sce-nario would not substantively change the under-standing of the ecological resource impactspresented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative. Shrub-steppe habi-tat impacts would still be less than 1 percent ofthe total remaining shrub-steppe on the CentralPlateau and a small fraction of 1 percent of theHanford Site's total shrub-steppe habitat.Implementing this scenario would not changethe EIS's conclusion that there would be noadverse impacts to Hanford Site aquatic, wet-land, or riparian habitats and no impacts toFederal- or state-listed threatened or endangeredspecies. The incremental impacts to otherspecies of concern would not be expected toresult in substantive impacts to any species as awhole. Mitigation to reduce ecological impactsunder this scenario would be performed in accor-dance with the Hanford Site BiologicalResources Management Plan (DOE 1996b).

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

This scenario would result in more impacts thanthe Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario because itwould include all of the impacts of the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario plus the impacts associ-

ated with the construction and subsequentdecontamination and decommissioning of threenew Canister Storage Buildings.

To bound the impacts, it is assumed that theCanister Storage Buildings would be sited in the200-East Area adjacent to the site of the existingCanister Storage Building in undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat (Figure C.8-7). Using thisassumption, as well as the bounding assumptionthat the Calcine Dissolution Facility would besited in undisturbed habitat (as for the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario), an additional 28 acresof shrub-steppe habitat would be disturbed in the200-East Area. An additional 24 acres of shrub-steppe habitat at Pit 30 would also be disturbedto secure sand and gravel for facility construc-tion and decontamination and decommissioning.There would be no additional impacts at VernitaQuarry or McGee Ranch. The total additionalshrub-steppe habitat impacts would be approxi-mately 9.5 percent, or a 52-acre increase to the540 acres calculated in the TWRS EIS for thePhased Implementation Alternative.

Although this scenario would result in greateradditional impacts than the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario, it would still not substan-tively change the understanding of the ecologicalresource impacts presented in the TWRS EIS forthe Phased Implementation Alternative. Whilethe total shrub-steppe habitat impacts under thisscenario would be greater than for the PhasedImplementation Alternative, the affected habitatwould represent less than 2 percent of the totalremaining shrub-steppe on the Central Plateauand a small fraction of 1 percent of the HanfordSite's total shrub-steppe habitat. Implementingthis scenario would not change the EIS conclu-sion that there would be no adverse impacts toHanford Site aquatic, wetland, or riparian habi-tats and no impacts to Federal- or state-listedthreatened or endangered species. The level ofimpact to other species of concern is related tothe amount of shrub-steppe disturbed. Thus,while the impacts to other species of concernwould be greater, they would not be expected toresult in substantive impacts to any species as awhole. Mitigation to reduce ecological impactsunder this scenario would be performed in accor-dance with the Hanford sitewide biologicalresources management plan.

C.8-25

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

FIGURE C.8-7.Habitat impacts of the Phased Implementation Alternative and the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-26

Appendix C.8

C.8.4.5 Cultural Resources

The approach used to assess cultural resourcesfor the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewas to (1) define specific land areas that wouldbe disturbed by construction, operation, anddecommissioning and decontamination activitiesand (2) identify prehistoric or historical materi-als or sites at those locations that might beadversely impacted. Whether or not an area hasbeen previously disturbed is an important vari-able in cultural resource impact analysis becauseareas previously disturbed are highly unlikely tohave culturally or historically importantresources.

Native American remains and other specific sitesof religious and cultural importance exist at var-ious locations around the Hanford Site; approxi-mately 94 percent of these sites have not beendisturbed by past activities and are currentlyunused. The Native American perspective onresources differs in many ways from that ofEuro-Americans (Harper 1995).

Development of the Hanford Site has substan-tially altered the natural landscape. Buildingshave been erected, soil and water have been dis-turbed, and the distribution of plants and animalshas been altered. Environmental cleanup andrestoration activities will cause further alter-ations in the visual landscape, disrupt wildlife,

and change plant communities, taking the Siteeven farther away from its natural state. Suchchanges affect the relationship between theNative Americans and their native lands.

Access to the Hanford Site by Native Americans,as well as all members of the public, had beenrestricted until the end of the Hanford Site's pro-duction mission. Tribal Nations have continuedto express the desire to access and use HanfordSite areas. The Phased ImplementationAlternative would have long-term impacts onNative American land access and use. However,access to and use of the 200 Areas would berestricted despite the selection of the PhasedImplementation Alternative because of environ-mental contamination of areas surrounding theTank Farms (e.g., the existing processing facili-ties). Since the Calcine Dissolution Facility andthe Canister Storage Buildings for the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative would be decom-missioned and decontaminated, this alternativewould have no impact on future NativeAmerican land use or access.

In accordance with the mitigation action plan forthe TWRS EIS, DOE completed a culturalresources review of the proposed location for thePhased Implementation Alternative facilities(HCRL 1998). That review concluded thatalthough there are cultural resources within theproposed TWRS project area, they are not of

Table C.8-8. Revised shrub-steppe impacts - Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.Total shrub-steppe disturbed in acresa

Alternative 200 AreasPotential borrow

sites Totalb

TWRS Phased Implementation Alternativec 240 300 540Just-in-Time ShippingScenario 3.9 2.9 6.8Minimum INEEL

Processing AlternativeInterim StorageShipping Scenario 28 24 52

Just-in-Time ShippingScenario 240 300 550Total impactsd

Interim StorageShipping Scenario 270 320 590

a. These estimates are based on closure of the Hanford Site Tank Farms by filling tanks and covering them with aHanford Barrier. Numbers have been rounded to two significant digits.

b. Differences in total values reflect rounding.c. Estimates include remediation and closure as landfill (Phase 1 and 2).d. Revised impact estimates include the total Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1 and 2) plus the Minimum INEEL

Processing Alternative.TWRS = Tank Waste Remediation System.

local or national significance and do not qualifyfor listing in the National Register of HistoricPlaces. DOE would amend the on-going TWRScultural resources evaluation, if necessary, toinclude new activities associated with theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

C.8.4.6 Socioeconomics

This section addresses socioeconomic impactsrelated to the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative and compares this alternative to theTWRS EIS Phased Implementation Alternative.The socioeconomics analysis focuses on keyindicators of the potentially impacted area,including Hanford Site employment and theeffects of Site employment levels on employ-ment, population, taxable retail sales, and hous-ing prices in the surrounding area. DOEanalyzed potential impacts to public services andfacilities (schools; police and fire protection;medical services; sanitary and solid waste dis-posal; and electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil)based on the results of the socioeconomic mod-eling of the key indicators of socioeconomicimpacts.

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould exceed the Hanford Site baseline employ-ment level by approximately 3.5 percentbetween 2023 and 2027. An additional increasefor this alternative would occur in the opera-tional years from 2028 to 2030. The increaseexceeds the baseline by approximately 10 per-cent for the Interim Storage Shipping Scenarioand 9.1 percent for the Just-in-Time scenario andwould then sharply decline in 2031. TableC.8-9 presents the baseline employment for theHanford Site and the impacts in total number ofemployees and the percent change that wouldoccur for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.

In comparison with the Phased ImplementationAlternative, the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would increase the Hanford Siteemployment by 6 percent or 514 workers in theyear 2030. This change would not have a sub-stantial impact on Hanford employment.

Tri-Cities Area Employment. The InterimStorage Shipping Scenario of the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative would increase

the Hanford Site employment 0.63 percent overthe baseline (about 530 jobs in 2030). A 0.56percent increase in employment over the calcu-lational baseline, or about 470 jobs in 2030 forthe Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario would occurfor employment impacts on the Tri-Cities.

Population and Housing. Population under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative wouldfollow the changes related to Hanford Siteemployment resulting in a peak of 1.6 percentfor the Interim Storage Shipping Scenario and1.4 percent for the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario above the calculational baseline in2030, followed by a decline through 2032. Thislevel of change would not result in a boom/bustpattern, which could impact housing and publicfacilities.

Housing prices reflected the pattern of employ-ment under the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, with prices peaking in 2030 at 3.2percent for the Interim Storage ShippingScenario and 2.8 percent for the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario above the calculational base-line. Prices would then fall through the year2032.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil. TheMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative wouldpeak for electrical demands during the operationphase. The peak would be more substantial thanthe population growth incremental demand. Thepeak for the operation phase would occur afterthe population demand peak since waste vitrifi-cation is an electrical power-intensive operation.

The incremental electrical demand would be asubstantial increase over the 1994 estimatedHanford Site electrical requirements of approxi-mately 57 megawatts. This demand is consider-ably lower than Site electrical usage in the1980s, when average Site requirements wereapproximately 550 megawatts. The incrementaldemand under the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would be similar to the PhasedImplementation Alternative, no more than 1.5percent of the Pacific Northwest electrical gen-eration system's guaranteed energy supplycapacity. Additional hydroelectric generatingcapacity, which is the primary electrical powersource in the region, is being constructed in theregion. There are also proposals being consid-

C.8-27 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-28

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-9. Hanford Site employment changes from the baseline for selected yearswith TWRS Phased Implementation Alternative and Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative.

Phased ImplementationAlternative

Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternativea

YearBaseline

level Change Percent change Change Percent change1997 14,900 790 5.3 0 0.01998 14,900 2,300 15.4 0 0.01999 14,800 3,300 22.3 0 0.02000 14,600 3,100 21.2 0 0.02001 14,400 1,400 9.7 0 0.02002 14,000 540 3.9 0 0.02003 13,500 540 4.0 0 0.02004 13,100 870 6.6 0 0.02005 12,800 2,400 18.8 0 0.02006 12,280 3,260 26.5 0 0.02007 11,760 4,120 35.0 0 0.02008 11,240 4,980 44.3 79 0.72009 10,720 5,840 54.5 79 0.72010 10,200 6,700 65.7 79 0.82011 10,200 6,100 59.8 88 0.92012 9,675 5,500 56.8 9 0.12013 9,150 4,900 53.6 88 1.02014 8,625 4,300 49.9 88 1.02015 8,100 3,700 45.7 88 1.12016 8,140 3,680 45.2 88 1.12017 8,180 3,660 44.7 9 0.12018 8,220 3,640 44.3 88 1.12019 8,260 3,620 43.8 88 1.12020 8,300 3,600 43.4 88 1.12021 8,320 3,340 40.1 88 1.12022 8,340 3,080 36.9 9 0.12023 8,360 2,820 33.7 9 0.12024 8,380 2,560 30.5 300 3.52025 8,400 2,300 27.4 300 3.52026 8,320 1,902 22.9 300 3.52027 8,240 1,504 18.3 300 3.62028 8,160 1,106 13.6 32 0.42029 8,080 708 8.8 740 9.22030 8,000 310 3.9 820 10.32031 7,760 252 3.2 310 4.02032 7,520 194 2.6 0 0.02033 7,280 136 1.9 0 0.02034 7,040 78 1.1 0 0.02035 6,800 20 0.3 0 0.02040 5,700 10 0.2 0 0.0

a. The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative includes the Interim Storage Shipping Scenario employment. For the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario, employment would be substantially less from 2008 through 2024 and similar or slightly less from 2024 through 2032.

C.8-29 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

ered by various utilities in the region to constructnatural gas-fired power plants.

Natural gas is a minor energy source in the Tri-Cities area, and incremental consumption relatedto population growth under the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative would have negli-gible impacts. The operation phase of this alter-native also would require up to 3,000 gallons perday of fuel oil. No substantial impacts on localsupply or distribution systems would beexpected from this level of demand.

C.8.4.7 Land Use

Land-use impacts are addressed in terms of thecompatibility of temporary and permanent land-use commitments under each alternative withpast, present, and planned and potential futureuses of the land and the surrounding area. A mapof planned land uses at the Hanford Site can befound on Figure C.8-8. Also addressed arepotential conflicts with land uses adjacent to theland that would be impacted under the alterna-tive and unique land uses near the TWRS sites.Nearby land includes the Hanford Reach of theColumbia River and the Fitzner-Eberhart AridLand Ecology Reserve. Conflicts among alter-native Federal, state, local, and tribal nationland-use policies, plans, and controls aredescribed separately in Section C.8.4.17.

All major activities would occur within the cur-rent boundaries of the 200 Areas. For more than40 years, the 200 Areas have been used forindustrial and waste management activities asso-ciated with the Hanford Site's past nationaldefense mission and current waste managementand environmental restoration cleanup mission.The 200 Areas consist of approximately 6,400acres.

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, additional land-use commit-ments would result from construction of theCalcine Dissolution Facility and removal ofearthen materials from the potential Pit 30 bor-row site. No additional land would be commit-ted at the potential Vernita Quarry and McGeeRanch borrow sites. Assuming an area equal to

the footprint of the Calcine Dissolution Facilityplus a small buffer zone would be permanentlycommitted to waste disposal, the permanentland-use commitments would increase byapproximately 3.3 percent, or 3.9 acres (FigureC.8-9) over the 120 acres calculated for thePhased Implementation Alternative. Assumingthat disturbances at the potential Pit 30 borrowsite would be temporary, the temporary land-usecommitments would increase by approximately0.4 percent, or 2.9 acres over the 790 acres cal-culated for the Phased ImplementationAlternative (Table C.8-10).

The small increases in land-use commitmentsresulting from this scenario would be confined tothe 200 Areas and would not substantively affectthe understanding of the land-use commitmentspresented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative. The land-use com-mitments would still constitute only a small frac-tion of the 6,400 acres of land within the 200Areas and would be consistent with past, pre-sent, and planned and potential future uses of theland and surrounding area (Figure C.8-10).

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

This scenario would result in greater additionalimpacts than the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenariobecause it would include all of the impacts of theJust-in-Time Shipping Scenario plus the impactsassociated with the construction and subsequentdecontamination and decommissioning of threenew Canister Storage Buildings.

Land-use commitments associated with theCalcine Dissolution Facility are assumed to bepermanent and would be the same as for the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario. Disturbances asso-ciated with the potential Pit 30 borrow site (24acres) and the Canister Storage Buildings (24acres) are assumed to be temporary and wouldincrease the temporary land-use commitmentsby approximately 6.1 percent, or 48 acres overthe 790 acres calculated for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

Although this scenario would result in greateradditional impacts than the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario, the additional land-use com-mitments would still be confined to the 200

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-30

Appendix C.8

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

��������yyyyyyyy��������yyyyyyyy

��������������������������������������������������������

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

��������������������������������������������������������

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

��

����

������

��������

����������

�����������

������������

������������

�����������

���������

�������

�����

��������

����yyyyyyyy

�y

�����

��yy

��yy

FIGURE C.8-8.Future land use map for the Hanford Site.

C.8-31 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

FIGURE C.8-9.Land-use commitments at potential borrow sites.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-32

Appendix C.8

Areas and would still not substantively affect theland-use commitments as presented in theTWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative. While the land-use commitmentswould constitute a slightly larger fraction of the6,400 acres of land within the 200 Areas, theywould not exceed the land available for wastemanagement within the 200 Areas. The land-usecommitments would still be consistent with past,present, and planned and potential future uses ofthe land and surrounding area.

C.8.4.8 Aesthetic and ScenicResources

The visual impacts from the PhasedImplementation Alternative would result fromthe construction of facilities associated withwaste retrieval, processing, treatment, and stor-age. The Hanford landscape is characterized pri-marily by its broad plateau near the site's center.The visual setting provides sweeping vistas ofthe area broken up by more than a dozen largeHanford Site facilities (e.g., processing plantsand nuclear reactors). The 200 Areas, where vir-tually all proposed facilities would be con-structed, presently contain three large processingfacilities as well as several multi-story supportfacilities. The facilities proposed for the PhasedImplementation Alternative would be similar insize and appearance to the existing facilities.

The visual impacts from the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative, both scenarios, wouldresult from construction of facilities associatedwith waste storage, pretreatment, and treatment.The primary visual impact would be from theapproximately 150 feet high stacks on eachimmobilization facility. The stacks would bevisible from certain segments of State Route240. Under certain atmospheric conditions,plumes would be visible at certain Site bound-aries. No facilities or plumes would be visiblefrom the Columbia River (DOE 1996a).

The facilities proposed for the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative would be similar in sizeand appearance to the existing Hanford Sitefacilities. Visual impacts would be minor andsimilar to the impacts that currently exist.

C.8.4.9 Noise

Potential noise impacts would be minor. Duringboth the construction and operation phases,some increase in noise levels onsite would occurdue to the operation of heavy equipment and off-site due to vehicular traffic along existing road-ways. Construction noises would result from theoperation of scrapers, loaders, bulldozers,graders, cranes, and trucks. Because of the Site'sremote and natural setting, noise impacts to res-ident wildlife species are a concern. Table

Table C.8-10. Revised land-use commitments – Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

AlternativeTemporary land

commitmentsa (acres)Permanent land

commitmentsb (acres)Phased Implementation Alternativec 790 120

Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario 2.9 3.9Minimum INEEL

Processing AlternativeInterim StorageShipping Scenario 48 3.9

Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario 790 120Total Impactsd

Interim StorageShipping Scenario 840 120

a. Temporary land-use commitments include the construction and operation phases; land used for facilities, construction laydownareas, and materials storage areas; and land used at the three borrow sites.

b. Permanent land-use commitments include areas that would be covered by Hanford Barriers, low-activity waste disposal vaults, andthe contaminated portions of processing facilities.

c. Estimates include remediation and closure as landfill (Phase 1 and 2).d. Impact estimates include the total Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1 and 2) plus the Minimum INEEL Processing

Alternative.

C.8-33

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

FIGURE C.8-10.Land-use commitments in the 200-East Area.

C.8-11 presents an analysis in which a scraper,bulldozer, and grader were assumed to operate atthe same location to assess the upper impactlimit likely to occur. To place these noise levelsin perspective, the table also presents referencenoise levels. The table shows there would besome short-term disturbance of noise-sensitivewildlife near the TWRS activities during con-struction. Construction noise levels wouldapproach background levels at 2,000 feet. Noiselevels due to operations would be low and wouldresult almost exclusively from traffic.

Operational phase noise impacts would belargely related to operating process equipment(e.g., evaporator, mixer pumps, and melter andquencher) and from traffic. Because the wastetreatment process equipment would be operatinginside enclosed structures, exterior noise levelswould not substantially increase. All facilitiesand working conditions would be in compliancewith the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration's occupational noise require-ments (29 CFR 1910.95). Pursuant to theserequirements, noise exposures for an 8-hourduration would not exceed 85 dBA. In caseswhere the workers would be exposed to noiselevels exceeding this value, administrative con-trols, engineering controls, or personal protec-tive equipment use would be required to reducethe noise exposures below the allowable maxi-mum.

The above assessment characterizes potentialnoise impacts from the TWRS PhasedImplementation Alternative. Under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative, noiseimpacts would be less because there would beless construction activity.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-34

Appendix C.8

C.8.4.10 Traffic and Transportation

This section describes how vehicular trafficassociated with the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would impact the roadway system ofthe Hanford Site and vicinity. The roadways ofprimary concern would be (1) the segment ofStevens Road at the 1100 Area, which is the pri-mary Site entrance for the city of Richland and(2) the segment of Route 4, which is a continua-tion of Stevens Road northward into the HanfordSite, west of the Wye Barricade. Stevens Roadand Route 4 are by far the Hanford Site's mostheavily traveled north-south route. Both of theroad segments experienced heavy peak hourcongestion in the recent past, although conges-tion has declined in 1995 as Site employmentlevels declined. The standard traffic level of ser-vice hierarchy ranges from Level of Service A(least congested) to Level of Service F (mostcongested). Conditions worse than Level ofService D are considered unacceptable. Prior tomid-1995, morning peak hour congestion onStevens Road frequently reached Level ofService F, while on Route 4, it frequentlyreached Level of Service E.

To estimate vehicular traffic impacts, expectedincremental traffic volumes (approximately 98percent personal vehicles and 2 percent trucks)were added to estimated future baseline HanfordSite traffic volumes. The analysis focused on thepeak year of activity. The approximate time-frames before and after the peak year whenincreased traffic congestion also would beexpected were identified as well. BecauseHanford Site traffic volumes typically reachtheir daily peaks during the morning shiftchange, this analysis focused on the morningpeak hour, the time period of expected greatestimpact.

Table C.8-11. Probable bounding case cumulative noise impact during the constructionphase.

Cumulative noise level (dBA)a

Equipment type

Noise level15 meters

(dBA)at 15 meters

(50 feet)at 100 meters

(330 feet) at 400 meters (1,300 feet)Scraper 88Dozer 80Grader 85

90 74 62

a. dBA is decibels on the A scale, which adjusts noise levels to account for human hearing capabilities. These levels compare to a foodblender (90 dBA), riding inside a car at 40 miles per hour (70 dBA), and normal speech (60 dBA).

The impact of the vehicular traffic associatedwith the traffic volume was estimated based onthe number of people who would be commutingto and from work to support the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative activities, includ-ing construction and operations. Peak trafficflows would occur in the year 2030 and wouldresult in extreme peak hour congestion (level ofservice E) on Stevens Road at the 1100 Area. OnStevens Road the morning peak hour volumewould be approximately 2,200 vehicles. OnRoute 4 the incremental Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative traffic volume of 360vehicles would produce peak hour traffic thatwould result in level of service B or C condi-tions. Congestion associated with the PhasedImplementation Alternative for Stevens Roadwould begin to build in 2007 and would continueat high levels until a 2031 peak, the end of activ-ities associated with the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative. Most traffic would beassociated with the TWRS EIS PhasedImplementation Alternative until 2029.

For the Phased Implementation Alternative, con-gestion on Route 4 west of the Wye Barricadewould begin to build in 2007 and would continueat high levels until 2024, prior to activities asso-ciated with the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. Most traffic would be associatedwith the TWRS EIS Phased ImplementationAlternative until 2029.

Traffic and Transportation Accidents. Thetraffic scenarios analyzed included employeetraffic to and from work and transportation ofbuilding materials and other miscellaneousmaterials to support the alternatives. The inci-dence rates for injuries and fatalities were basedon U. S. Department of Transportation statistics,Washington State Highway accident reports, andHanford Site statistics.

The projected traffic accidents calculated for theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative were14 injuries and 0.18 fatalities for commuter traf-fic accidents. For truck transportation accidents,the total injuries were projected to be 15; for railaccidents resulting in injuries, 0.66. Fatalities

would be less than 1 for each case. Supportingcalculations are provided in Appendix E ofJacobs (1998).

Rail Traffic. The Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would involve 26 rail shipments peryear to bring materials onto the Site. Offsiteshipments of HLW are addressed in Section5.2.9.

Other Risks Associated WithTraffic/Transportation. Chemical exposuresfrom potential transportation accidents whiletransporting chemicals to support dissolution,pretreatment, and treatment (similar chemicalsthat would be used for the PhasedImplementation Alternative) would result inhealth consequences similar to those evaluatedin the TWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative. However, more shipments would berequired to support the Phased ImplementationAlternative resulting in a higher probability of anaccident and therefore would bound chemicalhealth risk for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.

C.8.4.11 Health and Safety

Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic adversehealth effects on humans from exposure toradioactive and chemical contaminants associ-ated with each of the following categories of riskwere evaluated for the Phased ImplementationAlternative in the TWRS EIS.

• Remediation risk resulting from routineremediation activities, such as retrievingwaste from tanks and waste treatmentoperations

• Post remediation risk, such as the riskresulting from residual contaminationremaining after the completion of remedia-tion activities

• Post remediation risk resulting fromhuman intrusion directly into the residualtank waste remaining after remediation.

C.8-35 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-36

Appendix C.8

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, there would be radiologicalrisk because of airborne releases and directexposures associated with operations and decon-tamination and decommissioning at the CalcineDissolution Facility and operations at the separa-tions and vitrification facilities (Table C.8-12).The risk to the maximally exposed individualinvolved worker was calculated in the TWRSEIS based on an assumed dose rate equal to theadministrative control limit of 500 millirem peryear and an exposure duration equal to the dura-tion of the operation requiring the greatestamount of time, up to a maximum of 30 years.For the Phased Implementation Alternative, theexposure duration was the full 30 years (basedon continued Tank Farm and evaporator opera-tions), which resulted in a radiation dose to themaximally exposed individual involved workerof 15 rem. The operation requiring the greatest

amount of time under the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario would be calcine dissolution (estimatedto require 2.25 years, see Section C.8.5.2). Thiswould result in a radiation dose to the maximallyexposed individual involved worker of 1.1 rem.Because the TWRS EIS radiation dose is greaterthan the dose calculated for this scenario, theTWRS EIS radiation dose is bounding and thisscenario would not change the understanding ofthe maximally exposed individual involvedworker dose presented in the TWRS EIS.

The radiological risk to the involved workerpopulation was calculated in the TWRS EISbased on the number of workers required foreach operation, the anticipated dose each indi-vidual would receive (assumed to be either 200millirem per year or 14 millirem per year,depending on the operation), and the duration ofeach operation. The Phased ImplementationAlternative was calculated to result in approxi-

Table C.8-12. Estimated public and occupational radiological impacts.a

Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative

ReceptorPhased Implementation

AlternativeJust-in-Time

Shipping ScenarioInterim Storage Shipping

ScenarioTotal collective involved workerdose (person-rem)

8,200 320 350

Total number of involved workerlatent cancer fatalities

3.3 0.13 0.14

Maximally exposed offsiteindividual dose ( millirem/year)

0.29 1.7×10-5 1.7×10-5

Integrated offsite maximallyexposed individual dose(millirem)

4.9 2.9×10-5 2.9×10-5

Noninvolved worker dose(millirem/year)

0.23 1.3×10-5 1.3×10-5

Integrated noninvolved workerdose (millirem)

2.4 2.3×10-5 2.3×10-5

Dose to population within80 kilometers of Hanford Site(person-rem per year)

23 1.3×10-3 1.3×10-3

Total collective dose topopulation (person- rem)

390 2.3×10-3 2.3×10-3

Estimated number of latentcancer fatalities in populationwithin 80 kilometers of HanfordSite

0.19 1.1×10-6 1.1×10-6

a. Derived from Jacobs (1998).

mately 3.27 latent cancer fatalities to theinvolved worker population. Under the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario, the worker populationwould receive additional dose from calcine dis-solution operations (23 persons per year × 2.25years × 0.2 rem = 10 person-rem, see SectionC.8.5.2); Calcine Dissolution Facility decontam-ination and decommissioning (312 persons peryear × 2 years × 0.2 rem = 130 person-rem, seeSection C.8.5.2); and separations and vitrifica-tion operations (657 persons per year × 1.4 years× 0.2 rem = 180 person-rem, see SectionC.8.5.3). The cumulative additional dose (320person-rem) would result in an additional latentcancer fatality risk to the worker population of0.13, which represents an increase of 3.9 percentover the 3.27 latent cancer fatalities calculatedfor the Phased Implementation Alternative in theTWRS EIS (Table C.8-12). Because this sce-nario would result in less than one additionallatent cancer fatality, it would not appreciablychange the understanding of involved workerrisk presented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

Under this scenario, there would be additionalrisk to the noninvolved worker and general pub-lic associated with the radiological air emissionsfrom the Calcine Dissolution Facility and theseparations and vitrification facilities. Air emis-sions data for these two sources are provided inSections C.8.5.2 and C.8.5.3, respectively. Thedose to each receptor resulting from the addi-tional emissions was estimated by scaling fromthe doses calculated for the PhasedImplementation Alternative (see Appendix E ofJacobs 1998). Two scaling factors were devel-oped, one for each emission source, based onemissions at the stack before dispersion. Thedose to each receptor was estimated by applyingthe scaling factors to the dose calculated for theTWRS EIS and then summing the doses fromthe two sources. Calculation results are pre-sented in Table C.8-12. For both the nonin-volved worker and general public, the latentcancer fatality risk would increase by less than 1percent over the risk calculated in the TWRSEIS. Thus, this scenario would not substantivelychange the understanding of risk to the nonin-volved worker and general public presented inthe TWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

This scenario would not result in any additionalvitrified HLW being shipped from the HanfordSite to a geologic repository. The latent cancerfatality risk due to HLW transportation would,therefore, remain unchanged from that presentedin the TWRS EIS (Table C.8-13). Transportationof INEEL HLW to the Hanford Site and thereturn of the vitrified HLW and low-activitywaste to INEEL are addressed in Section 5.2.9.

This scenario would also result in very smallnonradiological chemical risk due to chemicalemissions from the Calcine Dissolution Facilityand the separations and vitrification facilities.The chemical emission rates for this scenariowould be three to five orders of magnitude lowerthan the comparable rates for the PhasedImplementation Alternative (Tables C.8-14 andC.8-15) and the duration of the emissions wouldbe much shorter than for the PhasedImplementation Alternative, with the exceptionof mercury. The INEEL waste would have ahigher mercury concentration than the TWRSEIS waste and would result in higher air emis-sion concentration levels. The maximallyexposed individual noninvolved worker andmaximally exposed individual general publicexposure to mercury would result in a hazardquotient of 5.4×10-3 and 8.7×10-4 respectively[supporting calculations provided in Appendix Eof Jacobs (1998)], well below the benchmarkvalue of 1.0. The resulting nonradiologicalchemical emissions for this scenario would beonly a small fraction of the chemical emissionscalculated for the Phased ImplementationAlternative. Thus, the TWRS EIS risk is bound-ing, and this scenario would not change theunderstanding of the nonradiological chemicalrisk presented in the TWRS EIS.

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

This scenario would result in slightly greateradditional risk to the involved worker than theJust-in-Time Shipping Scenario because itwould include all of the exposures associatedwith the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario plus theexposures associated with operations at theCanister Storage Buildings (Table C.8-12). Theoperation requiring the greatest amount of timeunder this scenario would be the Canister

C.8-37 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-38

Appendix C.8

Storage Building operation (estimated to require19 years; see Section C.8.5.1). Canister StorageBuilding operations would result in a radiationdose to the maximally exposed individualinvolved worker of 9.5 rem. Because the TWRSEIS radiation dose is greater than the dose calcu-lated for this scenario, the TWRS EIS radiationdose is bounding and this scenario would notchange the understanding of the maximally-exposed individual involved worker dose pre-sented in the TWRS EIS.

The involved worker population dose wouldincrease by approximately 34 person-rem due tooperations at the Canister Storage Buildings (seeSection C.8.5.1.), bringing the cumulative addi-tional dose for this scenario to 350 person-rem.This cumulative dose would result in an addi-tional latent cancer fatality risk to the workerpopulation of 0.14, or a 4.3 percent increase overthe 3.3 latent cancer fatalities calculated in theTWRS EIS for the Phased Implementation

Alternative (Table C.8-12). Although the workerrisk would increase under this scenario, therewould be less than one additional latent cancerfatality. Thus, this scenario would not apprecia-bly change the understanding of involved workerrisk presented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

Under this scenario, the additional radiologicalrisk to the noninvolved worker and general pub-lic would be the same as for the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario because operations at theCanister Storage Buildings are assumed to resultin no additional airborne radiological releases(see Section C.8.5.1).

This scenario would not result in any additionalvitrified HLW being shipped from the HanfordSite to a geologic repository. The latent cancerfatality risk due to HLW transportation would,therefore, remain unchanged from that presentedin the TWRS EIS (Table C.8-13). Transportation

Table C.8-14. Chemical emissions during routine operations – Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Receptor Hazard quotientMaximally exposed individual involved worker 0.31Maximally exposed individual noninvolved worker 0.13Maximally exposed individual general public 7.5×10-5

Table C.8-15. Comparison of chemical emissions during routine operations from thePhased Implementation Alternative and Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.

Emission rate (mg/sec)

EmissionsaTWRS EIS Phased

Implementation AlternativeMinimum INEEL Processing

Alternativeb

Boron 6.4×10-4 5.8×10-8

Barium 4.7×10-6 1.5×10-9

Cadmium 1.2×10-5 1.4×10-8

Chromium 2.5×10-4 5.4×10-9

a. Emissions listed are releases that would occur under the Phased Implementation Alternative that would also occur under the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative.

b. These values represent the combined emission rates from the Calcine Dissolution Facility and the separations and vitrification facilities.mg/sec = milligrams per second

Table C.8-13. Vitrified HLW transportation risk – Phased Implementation Alternative.Receptor LCF risk

Onsite population 3.1×10-4

Offsite population 3.2×10-3

LCF = latent cancer fatality.

of INEEL HLW to the Hanford Site and thereturn of the vitrified HLW and low-activitywaste to INEEL are addressed in Section 5.2.9.

This scenario would result in the same nonradio-logical risk as the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario because operations at the CanisterStorage Buildings are assumed to result in noadditional airborne chemical releases (seeSection C.8.5.1).

Long-Term Anticipated Health Effects

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould result in no additional long-term humanhealth risks to future users of the Hanford Site.Following processing and treatment, the immo-bilized INEEL HLW and low-activity waste can-isters would be transported back to INEEL forinterim storage and eventual disposal. Therewould be no additional sources of potentialgroundwater contamination left onsite followingcompletion of remediation. Implementing eithershipping scenario would result in the same long-term human health risk impacts as calculated inthe TWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative (Table C.8-16).

Intruder Scenario

The TWRS EIS included an analysis of long-term intruder risk. The intrusion scenario usedwas a postulated well-drilling scenario on theHanford Site after the assumed loss of institu-tional control. The latent cancer fatality risk wascalculated for a hypothetical driller and a post-drilling resident. The driller was assumed to bean individual who drills a well through the tankwaste. The post-drilling resident was assumed tobe an individual who lives on a parcel of landover the exhumed waste, from which he obtains25 percent of his vegetable intake. For thePhased Implementation Alternative, the latentcancer fatality risk was calculated to be 8.5×10-5

for the driller and 4.2×10-4 for the post-drillingresident.

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould result in no additional risks from inadver-tent human intrusion at Hanford Site. Followingprocessing and treatment, the immobilizedINEEL HLW and low-activity waste canisterswould be transported back to INEEL for interimstorage and eventual disposal. There would beno additional onsite sources of contamination toincrease the potential risks from a postulatedwell drilling intrusion scenario. Implementingeither shipping scenario would result in the samerisks to the driller and post-drilling resident ascalculated in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative.

C.8.4.12 Accidents

The accident analysis considers human healthrisks from (1) nonradiological/nontoxicologicaloccupational accidents and (2) radiological andtoxicological accidents. Accidents could poten-tially result from current Tank Farm operationsand from construction and operations of pre-treatment, treatment, and storage and disposalfacilities to support the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario INEEL waste would betransported to Hanford just in time for vitrifica-tion, and there would be no need to constructadditional Canister Storage Buildings for interimstorage. Therefore, only the Calcine DissolutionFacility and the vitrification facility are evalu-ated in the scenario as potential sources of acci-dents.

Nonradiological Nontoxicological OccupationalRisk. The numbers of worker-years required toconstruct, operate, and decommission theCalcine Dissolution Facility were calculatedfrom the data provided in Section C.8.5.2, to be1,100; 52; and 620, respectively. The number ofworker-years required to operate the vitrificationfacility was calculated from the data provided in

C.8-39 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Section C.8.5.3 to be 990. The total recordablecases, lost workday cases, and fatalities werecalculated using the same incidence rates used inthe TWRS EIS. The results of the calculationsare presented in Table C.8-17. The supportingcalculations are provided in Appendix E ofJacobs (1998). The Just-in-Time ShippingScenario would result in an incremental workerrisk of 4 percent for construction and 1 percentfor operations as shown in the revised impacts tothe Phased Implementation Alternative. Itshould be noted that decommissioning wasadded to construction.

Radiological and Toxicological Accidents. Thepotential accidents evaluated in the TWRS EISare those that could occur while storing, trans-ferring, pretreating, and vitrifying the INEELwaste. The radiological and chemical con-

stituents and concentrations in the INEEL wasteinventory are not the same as the Hanford wasteand for a given accident would result in lowerdose consequences. To determine the dose con-sequences of comparable accidents evaluated inthe TWRS EIS, a unit-liter dose was calculatedfor the INEEL waste and compared with theunit-liter dose that was used in the TWRS EISanalysis. Assuming the same atmospheric dis-persion factors, respirable rates, fraction of res-pirable material released in the accident, anddose-to-risk conversion factors, scaling factorsbased on the difference in the unit-liter doseswere developed for estimating the latent cancerfatality risk resulting from INEEL waste acci-dents. The scaling factors are presented in TableC.8-18 and the supporting calculations for thescaling factors are provided in Appendix E ofJacobs (1998).

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-40

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-16. Long-term anticipated health effects – Phased Implementation Alternative.a

Risk / Hazard Year Exposure scenario Boundingb Nominalc

2,500 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

1.2×10-4

9.6×10-6

3.0×10-6

2.7×10-7

2.6×10-5

1.9×10-6

7.2×10-8

1.2×10-8

5,000 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

4.3×10-3

3.4×10-4

1.0×10-4

9.6×10-6

7.1×10-4

2.0×10-5

2.6×10-6

2.6×10-7

IncrementalLifetime CancerRiskd

10,000 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

6.9×10-4

6.8×10-5

7.4×10-6

7.8×10-7

6.2×10-4

4.0×10-5

6.2×10-6

6.0×10-7

Hazard quotient 2,500 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

0.720.12

1.1×10-4

1.6×10-5

0.60.11

9.1×10-5

1.2×10-5

5,000 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

12021

0.0223.0×10-3

346.3

5.2×10-3

7.1×10-4

10,000 Native AmericanResidential farmerIndustrial workerRecreational user

7.7×10-3

1.6×10-3

3.7×10-4

4.9×10-5

1.42.2×10-3

4.7×10-4

6.3×10-5

a. Source: DOE (1996a).b. Bounding case health effects are based on conservative assumptions designed to ensure that the results provide an upper bound of

long-term risks.c. Nominal case health effects are based on average rather than conservative assumptions.d. Incremental lifetime cancer risk based on long-term exposure to radionuclides and carcinogenic chemicals in groundwater

(risk below 1.0×10 -6 is considered low, risk above 1.0×10 -4 is considered high).

Applying the scaling factors in Table C.8-18 tothe accident scenarios evaluated in the TWRSEIS for the Hanford waste would result in thelatent cancer fatality risks presented in TableC.8-19. The INEEL waste spray release accidentscenario would be bound by the comparableTWRS EIS accident by one order of magnitude.The INEEL waste deflagration scenario wouldbe bound by the comparable TWRS EIS accidentby two orders of magnitude. The INEEL wasteline-break scenario would be bound by the com-parable TWRS EIS by a factor of two. TheINEEL waste breached canister of vitrified HLWscenario would be bound by the comparableTWRS EIS by two orders of magnitude. TheINEEL waste beyond-design-basis earthquakewould be bound by the comparable TWRS EISby one order of magnitude. Retrieval accidentswere not evaluated in this analysis. It wasassumed that after the calcined waste has beendissolved and transferred to the storage tanks thecondition of the waste would make it readilytransferable to the separations facility and, as aresult, would require a minimum amount ofsluicing.

The chemical risk from the postulated accidentfor the INEEL waste was based on the relativelylarge concentration of mercury in the waste. Theorganic constituents have been removed fromthe waste during the calcine process at INEEL.Mercury is the only chemical in the waste with aconcentration that could exceed the AmericanIndustrial Hygiene Association EmergencyResponse Planning Guidelines (ERPG)-1 sever-ity level. The mercury concentrations were cal-culated for the various receptors and thecorresponding Emergency Response PlanningGuideline levels are presented in Table C.8-20.

Supporting calculations are provided inAppendix E of Jacobs (1998). The chemicalaccidents evaluated in the TWRS EIS wouldremain bounding for all accidents except for theline-break accident and the spray release acci-dent scenarios. The INEEL waste line-breakscenario would result in an ERPG-2 for the non-involved worker receptor compared to ERPG-1calculated in the comparable TWRS EIS acci-dent. The INEEL waste spray release accidentscenario would result in an ERPG-3 for the non-involved worker receptor compared to ERPG-2

C.8-41 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-18. Scaling factors for estimating latent cancer fatality risk for INEELwaste accidents.

Accident scenario Scaling factorSpray scenario 0.097Hydrogen gas deflagration 0.012Line break during pretreatment 0.58Breached canister 3.7×10-3

Beyond design basis earthquake 0.033

Table C.8-17. Occupational accident risk.Construction Operations

Alternative TRC LWC Fatality TRC LWC FatalityPhased Implementation Alternative 4,200 1,100 1.4 1,900 940 2.7

Just-in-Time ShippingScenario 170 43 0 23 12 0Minimum INEEL

ProcessingAlternative Interim Storage

Shipping Scenario 230 57 0 27 13 0

Just-in-Time ShippingScenario 4,400 1,100 1.4 1,900 950 2.7Total Impacts

Interim StorageShipping Scenario 4,400 1,200 1.4 1,900 950 2.7

a. LWC = lost workday cases; TRC = total recordable cases.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-42

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-20. Toxicological accident impacts for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.a

Process title

MEIb

involvedworker

MEInoninvolved

worker

MEIgeneralpublic

Involvedworker

population

Noninvolvedworker

population

Generalpublic

populationSpray release fromjumper pit

ERPG-2c ERPG-3 <ERPG-1 ERPG-2 ERPG-3 <ERPG-1

Hydrogendeflagration inwaste storage tanks

ERPG-2 ERPG-2 <ERPG-1 ERPG-2 ERPG-2 <ERPG-1

Line break duringpretreatment

<ERPG-1 ERPG-2 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 ERPG-2 <ERPG-1

Dropped canister ofvitrified HLW

<ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1

Beyond designbasis earthquake

ERPG-2 ERPG-3 <ERPG-1 ERPG-2 ERPG-3 <ERPG-1

Breached calcinecanister whileunloadingd

<ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1 <ERPG-1

a. Derived from Jacobs (1998).b. MEI = maximally-exposed individual.c. ERPG = Emergency Response Planning Guidelines.d. This accident scenario is unique to the INEEL waste form (calcine). Impacts for this scenario were not scaled from the TWRS EIS.

Table C.8-19. Radiological accident impacts for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.a

Process title

Maximally-exposed individual

dose (rem)

Noninvolvedworker dose

(rem)

Offsitepopulation

(person-rem)

Latent cancerfatalities to offsite

population

Spray release from jumper pit 0.19 42 390 0.19

Hydrogen deflagration in wastestorage tanks

0.050 21 44 0.022

Line break during pretreatment 2.6×10-4 0.060 0.56 2.8×10-4

Dropped canister of vitrifiedHLW

2.2×10-12 1.5×10-9 4.9×10-9 2.5×10-12

Beyond design basis earthquake 0.15 64 130 0.067

Breached calcine canister whileunloadingb

4.7×10-6 3.3×10-3 0.010 5.2×10-6

a. Derived from Jacobs (1998).b. This accident scenario is unique to the INEEL waste form (calcine). Impacts for this scenario were not scaled

from the TWRS EIS.

calculated in the comparable TWRS EIS acci-dent.

In addition to the accidents evaluated in theTWRS EIS, a breached canister of calcine wastewas analyzed. A dropped canister of calcinewaste could potentially occur in the canister dis-solution facility while the canister is being trans-ferred from the transportation cask. Theaccident could occur as a result of mechanicalfailure or human error. It is assumed that 40 per-cent of the 1.17 cubic meters of waste in the can-ister is released and suspended in the air. It isfurther assumed that each stage of a two-stagehigh-efficiency particulate air filter system fil-ters 99.95 percent of the suspended waste. Theradiological and toxicological impacts to the var-ious receptors are presented in Tables C.8-19 andC.8-20. Supporting calculations are provided inAppendix E of Jacobs (1998).

The radiological latent cancer fatality risk fromaccidents evaluated for the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario are less than the risk fromcomparable accidents evaluated in the TWRSEIS. Only the chemical risk from the spray acci-dent and line-break accident would exceed thechemical risk to the noninvolved worker evalu-ated for comparable accidents in the TWRS EIS.However, the spray accident and line-break acci-dent are bound by other accidents evaluated inthe TWRS EIS. The hydrogen gas deflagration,high-efficiency particulate air filter failure, andbeyond-design-basis earthquake accidents eval-uated in the TWRS EIS would exceed ERPG-3for the noninvolved worker. Therefore, the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario would not substan-tively change the understanding of impacts fromradiological and chemical accidents presented inthe TWRS EIS for the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario INEEL waste would betransported to the Hanford Site approximately 20years prior to being vitrified. This would requireadditional Canister Storage Buildings to be builtfor storage of INEEL waste prior to vitrification.The Canister Storage Buildings, CalcineDissolution Facility, and the vitrification facilityare evaluated in this scenario as potential sourcesof accidents.

Nonradiological Nontoxicological OccupationalRisk. The number of worker-years required tosupport the Calcine Dissolution Facility and vit-rification facility would be the same as was pre-viously discussed for the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario. However, additional worker yearswould be required to construct, operate, anddecommission the Canister Storage Buildings.The results of the calculations are presented inTable C.8-17. The Interim Storage ShippingScenario would result in an incremental workerrisk of 5.5 percent for construction and 1.5 per-cent for operations as shown in the revisedimpacts to the Phased ImplementationAlternative.

Radiological and Toxicological Accidents. Theradiological and toxicological accidents evalu-ated in the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenariowould be common to the Interim StorageShipping Scenario. The potential for a droppedcanister of calcine waste could occur in aCanister Storage Building as the canister is beingtransferred from the transportation cask.However, this accident would be comparable tothe canister accident in the Calcine DissolutionFacility and would result in the same radiologi-cal and chemical risk. As with the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario, the Interim Storage ShippingScenario would not substantively change theunderstanding of impacts from radiological andchemical accidents presented in the TWRS EISfor the Phased Implementation Alternative.

C.8.4.13 Cumulative Impacts

The NEPA implementation regulations definethe term "cumulative impact" as the impact onthe environment that results from the incremen-tal impact of an action when added to other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable futureactions, regardless of what agency undertakesthose actions. Cumulative impacts result fromindividually minor but collectively significantactions taking place over time (40 CFR 1508.7).

This section describes potential cumulativeimpacts associated with implementing theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative. Otheractions that could impact the Hanford Site arealso identified, and, when possible, a qualitativediscussion of their potential cumulative impact isprovided.

C.8-43 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative, asdescribed in Section C.8.2, would involve treat-ment of INEEL waste at the Hanford Site. Itwould also require waste management activitiesat INEEL, transportation of the untreated wasteto Hanford, and transportation of the treatedwaste from Hanford to INEEL. The activitiesanalyzed in this appendix included only thosethat would take place at the Hanford Site.Implementation of the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative would require additionaloffsite activities not analyzed here (e.g., wastetransportation). Such activities would result incumulative impacts that are not described.

There would be no long-term disposal of INEELwaste at Hanford as the result of the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative and, therefore,there would be no cumulative long-term disposalimpacts to the Hanford Site. Because the INEELwaste would be processed following completionof planned retrieval and treatment of the HanfordSite tank waste, many of the resource areaimpacts would not be cumulative.

Actions at the Hanford Site that could result incumulative impacts with the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative include the Hanford Sitewaste management and environmental restora-tion programs, operation of the EnvironmentalRestoration and Disposal Facility, the manage-ment of spent nuclear fuel, and activities at theU.S. Ecology Site. The level of activity associ-ated with many of the Hanford Site cleanupfunctions would be declining by the time treat-ment of the INEEL waste would begin. Amongthe cumulative impacts that would occur areimpacts to land use and biological resources,human health, transportation, and socioeco-nomics.

Actions at Other DOE Sites orFacilities and Programmatic Actionsthat Could Potentially Impact theHanford Site

Programs or actions at other DOE sites and DOEprogrammatic evaluations that could impact theHanford Site are discussed in the TWRS EIS.Potential cumulative impacts would be similar tothose identified for the TWRS waste treatmentalternatives and include impacts on land use,

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-44

Appendix C.8

habitat, health, air quality, transportation, andsocioeconomic issues.

Actions Adjacent to the Hanford Site

In addition to DOE waste management activi-ties, there are other nuclear facilities at, or near,the Hanford Site that could contribute to radioac-tive releases. These facilities include a commer-cial radioactive waste burial site, a commercialnuclear power plant, a nuclear fuel productionplant, and a commercial low-level radioactiveand low-level mixed waste treatment facility.These ongoing operations, combined with theproposed Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, would cumulatively impact socioe-conomics, air emissions, health, transportation,and land use.

Currently Planned or ReasonablyForeseeable DOE Actions at theHanford Site

This section describes the currently planned andreasonably foreseeable actions at the HanfordSite having potential cumulative impacts. Theactivities are grouped into actions on the CentralPlateau and actions in other Hanford Site areas.A number of proposed actions at the HanfordSite may contribute to the cumulative impactsfrom proposed actions under the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative. Because themajority of the activity associated with the pro-posed action would occur approximately 30years in the future, a quantitative analysis ofcumulative impacts from all potential projects isnot possible. A complete description of cur-rently planned or reasonably foreseeable DOEactions at the Hanford Site is provided in theTWRS EIS.

The facilities and operations associated with theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative wouldoccur on the Central Plateau. Currently plannedor reasonably foreseeable actions that wouldoccur on the Central Plateau include:

• Closure of the single-shell tanks and dou-ble-shell tanks. Current planning includesclosure of the Hanford Site Tank Farmsfollowing completion of waste retrieval

actions. The end state for the Tank Farmsis not currently defined. There is a poten-tial for cumulative impacts on land use andhabitat resources, air emissions, andsocioeconomics.

• Waste Receiving and Processing Facility.The Waste Receiving and ProcessingFacility would be used to process alpha-contaminated waste for onsite disposal ortransuranic waste for eventual shipment tothe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. No poten-tially cumulative impacts have been identi-fied for this action.

• Effluent Treatment Facility and LiquidEffluent Retention Facility. These facili-ties would provide for collection, retention,treatment, and disposal of liquid waste,including liquid effluents from the TWRStreatment facilities. No potentially cumu-lative impacts have been identified for thisaction.

• U.S. Ecology Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Disposal Facility. The U.S. EcologyLow-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalFacility occupies 100 acres of land leasedby DOE to Washington state. The facilityis located just southwest of the 200-EastArea and receives low-level waste fromcommercial organizations. U.S. Ecology isassumed to continue to receive andemplace commercial low-level wasteonsite through the year 2063. There is apotential for cumulative impacts on landuse and transportation.

Other currently planned or reasonably foresee-able DOE actions at other Hanford Site areas aredocumented in the TWRS EIS. To the extentthat some of these activities would take placeduring the same time as the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative, they have the potential toresult in cumulative impacts on land use, habitat,traffic, and socioeconomics.

Summary of Cumulative Impacts

Although many of the activities described previ-ously would occur at the same general time asthe Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative,

few quantifiable cumulative impacts would beexpected because of differences in the nature ofthe activities and their physical separation.

From a broader environmental perspective,cumulative impacts can be expected in suchareas as land use and habitat resources. Forexample, multiple projects each impacting asmall amount of sensitive shrub-steppe habitateventually could have a more substantial impactby fragmenting the habitat and reducing the totalamount of shrub-steppe habitat remaining on theHanford Site. The cumulative population dosewould increase slightly as a result of additionalwaste treatment operations. Other resourceareas such as air quality, socioeconomics, andtransportation would have less potential forcumulative impacts due to the schedule for thevarious activities. Retrieval and treatment ofHanford Site tank waste would be completedprior to initiating INEEL waste processing, sothere would be no cumulative air quality impactsfrom waste processing. Finally, the baselineemployment levels at the Hanford Site are pro-jected to be approximately one-half of the cur-rent level by 2029 when treatment of the INEELwaste would take place.

The proposed activities would be carried outagainst the baseline of overall Hanford Site oper-ations. Assuming the Hanford Site's environ-mental restoration and waste managementmission does not change, it is likely that thefuture range of operational impacts would not begreater than the current impacts associated withHanford Site waste and operations.

C.8.4.14 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

This section summarizes the potential unavoid-able adverse impacts at the Hanford Site associ-ated with the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative. Identified herein are those unavoid-able adverse impacts that would remain afterincorporating all mitigation measures that werepart of the development of the TWRS EIS alter-natives. Potentially adverse impacts for theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative aredescribed in Sections C.8.4.1 through C.8.4.12.Additional practicable mitigation measures areidentified in Section C.8.4.20 that could furtherreduce the impacts described in this section.

C.8-45 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-46

Appendix C.8

Geology and Soils

Total soil disturbance would be 52 acres for theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative(Section C.8.4.1). Large volumes of borrowmaterial would be excavated at the Pit 30 poten-tial borrow site. Borrow material excavationwould leave shallow terrain depressions at theexcavation site.

Air Quality

Although no applicable air quality standardswould be exceeded, substantial air emissionswould occur, even with applicable implementa-tion of additional practicable mitigation mea-sures (Section C.8.4.3). Construction andoperation activities would result in increasedlevels of air emissions. Construction activitieswould produce fugitive dust (particulates) andcombustion emissions from the use of heavyequipment and motor vehicles. Operation activ-ities would produce radionuclide emissions,combustion emissions, and hazardous air pollu-tants. Radionuclide emissions would includestrontium-90, technetium-99, americium-241,plutonium isotopes, and cesium-137.

Water Resources

The vadose zone and groundwater aquiferbeneath portions of the Hanford Site, includingthe 200 Areas, currently are contaminated at lev-els that exceed drinking water standards.Controls on the use of Hanford Site groundwatercurrently are in place and are expected to con-tinue well into the future.

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould not involve release of waste into the cur-rently contaminated vadose zone beneath the200 Areas, and eventually into the underlyinggroundwater aquifer. Therefore, this alternativewould not result in levels that exceed water qual-ity requirements (Section C.8.4.2)

Land Use

Permanent land-use commitments would be 3.9acres for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative; however, the potential exists that

permanent commitment of land in the 200 Areasto waste disposal uses could occur at theHanford Site. While the TWRS EIS alternativeland use would be compatible with current landuse and current plans for future land use of the200 Areas, the committed areas would be inac-cessible for alternative land use. The amount ofland involved would be small compared to thetotal Central Plateau waste management area ofthe Hanford Site (Section C.8.4.7).

Transportation

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould involve additional motor vehicle traffic,mostly from employees commuting to and fromTWRS sites. There would be an increased traf-fic congestion during daytime peak hours onStevens Road north of Richland and on Route 4west of the Wye Barricade. This congestionwould especially occur during the period of peakemployment (2028 to 2030), which is largelyassociated with operational activities. Potentialtransportation accidents, both onsite and offsite,could cause injuries, illness, and a small risk fora fatality (Section C.8.4.10).

Noise

Because the TWRS sites would be located in theinterior of the Hanford Site and would be a longdistance from populated offsite areas, the onlyunavoidable adverse noise impact would be tem-porary wildlife disturbances near constructionsites from heavy equipment use (SectionC.8.4.9).

Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Constructing facilities and performing borrowsite excavation activities would affect the visualenvironment, particularly from elevated loca-tions onsite (e.g., Gable Mountain, Gable Butte,and Rattlesnake Mountain that are used byNative Americans for religious purposes).Facilities developed in the 200-East Area wouldbe visible in the distant background from StateRoute 240 and from offsite elevated locations.Section C.8.4.8 provides more detail onunavoidable adverse impacts.

Biological and Ecological Resources

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould affect shrub-steppe habitat in the 200Areas and at least one of the three potential bor-row sites (Section C.8.4.4). In the affectedshrub-steppe habitat areas, there would be a lossof plants; loss or displacement of wildlifespecies (e.g., birds, small mammals); and aresulting loss of food supplies for birds of preyand predatory mammals.

A small percentage (less than one-half of 1 per-cent) of the Hanford Site's total shrub-steppearea would be affected, and only individualspecies members potentially would be impacted,rather than the species as a whole. However, anumber of plant and wildlife species of concern(species that are classified as candidates for list-ing as threatened or endangered, or by the stateas monitor or sensitive species) potentiallywould be affected.

Given that the sites proposed for HLW manage-ment facilities under the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative all lie within the bound-aries of 200 East Area, habitat fragmentation isnot a concern. All of the proposed sites are in anarea dedicated to industrial use since the 1940sthat already contains a number of establishedfacilities and is encircled by perimeter roads.Although some shrub-steppe habitat is present inundeveloped portions of 200 East Area, its valueas wildlife habitat is diminished by the fact thatit is effectively isolated from large, unbrokenexpanses of shrub-steppe to the north and south.One of the proposed facilities would be placedoutside of 200 East Area, thus no unbroken tractsof shrub-steppe habitat (or any other habitat)would be affected.

Cultural Resources

Prehistoric and historical materials and sites inthe 200 Areas are scarce, and the TWRS sitescurrently are heavily disturbed (the 18 TankFarms) or partly disturbed (the proposed wastetreatment facility sites) (Section C.8.4.5).

Socioeconomics

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould involve short-term socioeconomicimpacts that would stem largely from rapid fluc-tuations in employment during construction andoperations (Section C.8.4.6). However, theseimpacts would not affect the on-going PhasedImplementation Alternative and would not pro-duce impacts on housing prices stemming fromrapid increases in local population. Theincreases in local population also would notrequire hiring additional local police and firedepartment personnel. The increase in localpopulation would lead to increased enrollment inschools but not to an adverse effect.

Health Effects

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould pose some risks of adverse health effects.The risk of adverse health effects would be lim-ited mainly to workers (Section C.8.4.11).

Accidents

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould involve potential accidents. This wouldinclude occupational, radiological, and chemicalaccidents that could cause injuries, illness, andlatent cancer fatalities. Occupational injuries,illnesses, and fatalities would be directly depen-dent on the number of person-years of laborrequired to complete the activity. Thus, the moreperson-years of labor the more injuries, illnesses,and fatalities (Section C.8.4.12 for accidents).

Committed Resources

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould consume water, concrete, and electricity;would use borrow materials; and would consumeprocess chemicals. Although all of theseresource consumption impacts would be withinexisting capacity, the resources would beunavailable for alternative uses.

C.8-47 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-48

Appendix C.8

C.8.4.15 Relationship BetweenShort-Term Uses of theEnvironment andMaintenance andEnhancement ofLong-Term Productivity

For the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, the short-term period was consid-ered to be the construction, operation, anddecontamination and decommissioning phases(scheduled to be completed by 2032). Mostshort-term environmental impacts would occurduring the construction and operations phases.Over the short-term there would be increased airemissions and noise, solid and liquid waste gen-eration, and increased risk of accidents and ill-ness, primarily to workers involved withimplementing the alternative compared to notperforming remedial action. Implementing thealternative would consume both natural andhuman-made resources (e.g., fuels, concrete,steel, and chemicals) but would not be expectedto cause shortages or price increases as a resultof their resource consumption. Over the shortterm, land areas would be committed that wouldaffect biological resources.

Compared with performing no Hanford Site tankwaste remedial action, the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative would increase expendi-ture of Federal funds in the Tri-Cities. Thesewould result in increased employment and eco-nomic activity associated with these expendi-tures. The Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would have short-term impacts onthe human environment through short-term fluc-tuations in employment and population and theassociated impacts on public services.

The long-term impacts on the natural environ-ment of the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would be due in large part to howmuch waste would remain on the Hanford Siteafter the alternative was fully implemented, andhow much of the remaining waste would beimmobilized or left untreated. Since all thewaste is shipped to the Hanford Site fromINEEL and then returned to INEEL, no long-term impacts associated with disposal or storagewould occur.

C.8.4.16 Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitment of Resources

Just-in-Time Shipping Scenario

Under this scenario, additional irreversible andirretrievable commitment of resources would berequired to support the construction, operation,and decontamination and decommissioning ofthe Calcine Dissolution Facility and operationsat the separations and vitrification facilities(Table C.8-21). Resource requirements for theCalcine Dissolution Facility and the separationsand vitrification facilities are provided inSections C.8.5.2 and C.8.5.3, respectively.Incremental impacts for most resource commit-ments would range from 1 to 32 percent butwould be generally very small (less than 5 per-cent). The largest incremental impact (32 per-cent) would be for fossil fuel, which would resultprimarily from operations at the separations andvitrification facilities. This scenario would notsubstantially change the understanding of irre-versible and irretrievable commitment ofresources presented in the TWRS EIS for thePhased Implementation Alternative.

Interim Storage Shipping Scenario

This scenario would result in slightly greaterirreversible and irretrievable commitments ofresources than the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario because of the additional resourcerequirements for construction, operation, anddecontamination and decommissioning of threenew Canister Storage Buildings (Table C.8-21).Resource requirements for the Canister StorageBuildings, the Calcine Dissolution Facility, andthe separations and vitrification facilities areprovided in Sections C.8.5.1, C.8.5.2, andC.8.5.3, respectively. Incremental impactswould be slightly larger than for the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario but would still be small (gen-erally less than 10 percent). The largest incre-mental impact (34 percent) would again be forfossil fuel, due primarily to operations at the sep-arations and vitrification facilities. Although theincremental impacts for this scenario would beslightly greater, this scenario still would not sub-stantially change the understanding of irre-

C.8-49 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-21. Revised irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources –Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

Tank Waste Alternative Component CommitmentLand permanently committed (acres) 120Sand/gravel/silt/rip rap (cubic meters) 4.1×106

Steel (metric tons) 3.4×105

Concrete (cubic meters) 1.1×106

Total water usage (cubic meters) 1.9×107

Electric power (GWh) 1.1×104

Fossil fuel (cubic meters) 1.9×105

Process chemicals (metric tons) 9.8×105

Phased Implementation Alternativea

Cost (billions of dollarsb) 30 to 38Land permanently committed (acres) 3.9Sand/gravel/silt/rip rap (cubic meters) 3.4×104

Steel (metric tons) 3.2×103

Concrete (cubic meters) 2.6×104

Total water usage (cubic meters) 1.6×105

Electric power (GWh) 930Fossil fuel (cubic meters) 5.9×104

Process chemicals (metric tons) 1.0×105

Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative

Just-in-Time ShippingScenario

Cost (millions of dollars) 360Land permanently committed (acres) 3.9Sand/gravel/silt/rip rap (cubic meters) 2.9×105

Steel (metric tons) 1.6×104

Concrete (cubic meters) 7.0×104

Total water usage (cubic meters) 1.7×105

Electric power (GWh) 940Fossil fuel (cubic meters) 6.4Process chemicals (metric tons) 1.0×105

Interim Storage ShippingScenario

Cost (millions of dollars) 820Land permanently committed (acres) 120Sand/gravel/silt/rip rap (cubic meters) 4.1×106

Steel (metric tons) 3.4×105

Concrete (cubic meters) 1.1×106

Total water usage (cubic meters) 1.9×107

Electric power (GWh) 1.2×104

Fossil fuel (cubic meters) 2.5×105

Process chemicals (metric tons) 1.1×105

Just-in-Time ShippingScenario

Cost (billions of dollarsb) 30 to 39Land permanently committed (acres) 120Sand/gravel/silt/rip rap (cubic meters) 4.4×106

Steel (metric tons) 3.6×105

Concrete (cubic meters) 1.2×106

Total water usage (cubic meters) 1.9×107

Electric power (GWh) 1.2×104

Fossil fuel (cubic meters) 2.5×105

Process chemicals (metric tons) 1.1×106

Total impactsc

Interim Storage ShippingScenario

Cost (billions of dollarsb) 31 to 39a. Estimates include remediation and closure as landfill (Phase 1 and 2).b. Total estimated cost range including repository fee.c. Total impact estimates include the total Phased Implementation Alternative (Phase 1 and 2) plus the Minimum INEEL Processing

Alternative.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-50

Appendix C.8

versible and irretrievable commitment ofresources presented in the TWRS EIS for thePhased Implementation Alternative.

C.8.4.17 Conflict Between theProposed Action and theObjectives of Federal,Regional, State, Local, andTribal Land-Use Plans, Policiesor Controls

All activities proposed for the Hanford Site,under both the Just-in-Time Shipping Scenarioand the Interim Storage Shipping Scenario of theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative, wouldoccur with the 200 Areas. Thus there would beno conflicts between land use plans associatedwith construction andoperations of waste storageand treatment facilities under this alternative andFederal, state, or local plans and policies.However, the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative would present similar conflicts withland use plans and policies of Tribal Nations aspresented in the TWRS EIS for the PhasedImplementation Alternative. These conflicts aresummarized in Sections C.8.4.5 and C.8.4.19.

C.8.4.18 Pollution Prevention

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternativewould be required to incorporate pollution pre-vention into their planning and implementationactivities as would be required by the PhasedImplementation Alternative. This includesreducing the quantity and toxicity of hazardous,radioactive, mixed, and sanitary waste generatedat the Hanford Site; incorporating waste recycleand reuse into program planning and implemen-tation; and conserving resources and energy.

C.8.4.19 Environmental Justice

For each area of technical analysis presented inthe TWRS EIS, a review of impacts to thehuman and natural environment was conductedto determine whether any potentially dispropor-tionately high and adverse impacts on minoritypopulations or low-income populations wouldoccur. The review included potential impacts onland use; socioeconomics (e.g., employment,

housing prices, public facilities, and services);water quality; air quality; health effects; acci-dents; and biological and cultural resources. Foreach of the areas of analysis, impacts werereviewed to determine whether there would beany potential high and adverse impacts to thepopulation as a whole due to construction, rou-tine operations, or accident conditions. If anadverse impact was identified, a determinationwas made as to whether minority populations orlow-income populations would be dispropor-tionately affected.

For the purposes of that assessment, dispropor-tionate impacts were defined as impacts thatwould affect minority and Native American pop-ulations or low-income populations at levelsappreciably greater than their effects on non-minority populations or non-low-income popu-lations. Adverse impacts were defined asnegative changes to the existing conditions in thenatural environment (e.g., land, air, water,wildlife, vegetation) or in the human environ-ment (e.g., employment, health, land use).

During consultation with affected tribal nationson the TWRS EIS, representatives of theYakama Indian Nation and the ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservationexpressed the view that impacts associated withthe alternatives could adversely impact the cul-tural values of affected tribal nations to theextent that they involve disturbance or destruc-tion of ecological and biological resources, alterland forms, or pose a noise or visual impact tosacred sites. The level of impact to cultural val-ues associated with natural resources would beproportional to the amount of land disturbedunder each alternative.

A similar concern to Native American popula-tions may be raised by the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative. This concern wouldinvolve continued restrictions on access to por-tions of the 200 Areas that could restrict accessto the 200 Areas by all individuals, including theConfederated Tribes and Bands of the YakamaIndian Nation and the Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation. The Tribes haveexpressed an interest in access to and unre-stricted use of the Hanford Site. Land userestrictions under the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative would last until 2032.

The Department has concluded that theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative wouldnot result in high and adverse impacts on thepopulation as a whole, but recognizes that NativeAmerican tribes in the Hanford region considerthe continuation of restrictions on access to landsat Hanford to have an adverse impact on all ele-ments of the natural and physical environmentand to their way of living within that environ-ment.

C.8.4.20 Mitigation Measures

In the TWRS EIS, measures were addressed tomitigate potential impacts of the PhasedImplementation Alternative, including (1) mea-sures to prevent or mitigate environmentalimpacts and (2) additional measures that couldfurther reduce or mitigate potential environmen-tal impacts described previously in other por-tions of the TWRS EIS, if deemed necessary.The TWRS EIS focused on measures to mitigatepotential impacts during remediation and indi-cated that future NEPA documentation wouldspecifically address in detail impacts and mitiga-tion of post-remediation tank closure where, forexample, most of the borrow site activityimpacts would occur.

The type of impacts resulting from the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative would be similarto those evaluated in the TWRS EIS for thePhased Implementation Alternative. Therefore,the same type of mitigation measures would beincluded for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.

C.8.5 CALCINE PROCESSINGPROJECT DATA

C.8.5.1 Canister Storage Buildings

Overview

This project describes the costs and impacts ofthe Canister Storage Buildings (Canister StorageBuildings) necessary to store INEEL calcinedwaste under the Interim Storage ShippingScenario. Under this scenario, the INEEL cal-cine would be shipped to the Hanford Site forstorage in a Canister Storage Building beginning

in 2012. Each year, approximately 260 canisters(308 cubic meters) of calcine would be shippedfrom INEEL to the Hanford Site. AdditionalCanister Storage Buildings would be constructedas needed. A total of three Canister StorageBuildings would be required to store the INEELcalcine. Shipments to the Hanford Site would becompleted in 2025, and the INEEL waste wouldremain in storage pending the availability of theCalcine Dissolution Facility (Section C.8.5.2)and TWRS separations/vitrification facilities(Section C.8.5.3).

General Project Objectives

The project described in this Project Summary ispart of the Interim Storage Shipping Scenariounder the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative of this Idaho HLW & FD EIS. TheInterim Storage Shipping Scenario involvesshipments of calcine from INEEL to the HanfordSite for storage in Canister Storage Buildingsprior to the availability of the TWRS treatmentfacilities. The project addresses the costs andprovides data to support the impacts analysis forthe Canister Storage Buildings.

Process Description

The Canister Storage Buildings receive solid cal-cine from the INEEL. Calcine would be pack-aged in Hanford Site HLW canisters, each with acapacity of approximately 1.17 cubic meters.The calcine canisters would be stored until thecalcine dissolution processes begin in 2028(timed to coincide with the availability of dou-ble-shell tank storage space in the AP TankFarm).

Facility Description

The Canister Storage Building presented isbased upon a three-bay facility currently underconstruction at the Hanford Site to store spentnuclear fuel canisters. Over the last 10 years,several design packages have been developed forCanister Storage Buildings at both the HanfordSite and the Savannah River Site. The followingthree design documents were reviewed as part ofthis analysis:

C.8-51 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-52

Appendix C.8

• Project W-379 Spent Nuclear Fuel CanisterStorage Building Detail Design ReportAugust 1996

• Project W-464 Conceptual Design Reportfor Immobilized High-Level Waste InterimStorage Facility (Phase 1) HNF-2298,Revision 1

• DWPF Sludge Plant CAC Cost Estimate,dated December 14, 1983

Each Canister Storage Building would beapproximately 3,700 cubic meters in plan areaand would consist of a large subsurface vaultwith three individual bays. Each bay could hold440 Hanford HLW canisters [the Hanford canis-ters are 0.61 meter (2 feet) in diameter by 4.5meter (14 feet and 9 inches) long], for a total ofapproximately 1,320 Hanford HLW canisters perCanister Storage Building.

The Canister Storage Buildings consist of belowgrade concrete vaults accessed through a gradelevel operating deck. The operating deck isenclosed by a prefabricated metal structure. Theoperating deck is designed to support a 160,000pound shielded canister transporter. The canisterload-in/load-out area, operating deck, and sup-port building are equipped with a HVAC systemwith high-efficiency particulate air filters. TheCanister Storage Building vault areas are cooledby a natural convection cooling system that uti-lizes once-through unfiltered air, which exitsthrough a common stack. The Canister StorageBuilding has a material service/design life of 75years.

The cost data for this project are based upon cur-rent Hanford conceptual design information pre-sented in Hanford Project W-464 for a three-bayCanister Storage Building constructed in the200-East Area of the Hanford Site. The cost ofthe shielded canister transporter and other canis-ter handling equipment was not included in thecost estimate for this project. It is assumed thatall HLW canister handling equipment wouldhave been purchased previously by the HanfordTWRS program and can be utilized for theINEEL waste. Construction and operations pro-ject data appear in Table C.8-22; decontamina-tion and decommissioning data appear in TableC.8-23.

C.8.5.2 Calcine Dissolution Facility

Overview

This project describes the costs and impacts ofthe Calcine Dissolution Facility. The CalcineDissolution Facility receives solid calcine fromthe Canister Storage Buildings (under theInterim Storage Shipping Scenario) or directlyfrom INEEL (under the Just-in-Time ShippingScenario). The calcine is received in HanfordSite HLW canisters, which are emptied and thesolids dissolved using nitric acid. Undissolvedsolids (gamma-emitting alumina and zirconia)are removed and the resultant solution is neutral-ized using sodium hydroxide to a pH of 7. Thedissolved calcine product is stored in existingdouble-shell tanks (specifically the AP TankFarm which is well within its 50-year designlife). The solution is then transferred to theexisting TWRS separations/vitrification facili-ties (see Section C.8.5.3) for final treatment.

General Project Objectives

The project described in this Project Summary ispart of the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative of this Idaho HLW & FD EIS.INEEL waste would be received at the HanfordSite in a solid (calcine) form and would be dis-solved at the Calcine Dissolution Facility to pro-duce a material compatible with the existingdouble-shell tanks and TWRS separations/vitri-fication processes. This project addresses thecosts and provides data to support the impactsanalysis for the Calcine Dissolution Facility.

Process Description

Canisters containing calcine would be trans-ported from a Canister Storage Building to theCalcine Dissolution Facility in a shielded canis-ter transporter (under the Interim StorageShipping Scenario), or unloaded from rail carsshipped from the INEEL (under the Just-in-TimeShipping Scenario). The Calcine DissolutionFacility would process the calcine over 27months, starting in February 2028 and ending inApril 2030. It is assumed that the calcine wouldbe processed as a mixed alumina/zirconium cal-cine at average concentrations. At 80-percent

C.8-53 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-22. Construction and operat ion project data for Canister Storage Building(HCSB-1).

Generic InformationDescription/function and EIS Project number: Interim storage of INEEL CalcineEIS alternatives/options: Min. INEEL Proc. AlternativeProject type or waste stream: CalcineAction type: NewStructure type: Concrete and steel buildings

Size: (m2) 11,710Other features: (pits, ponds, power/water/sewer lines) None

Location:Inside/outside of fence: Hanford 200 AreaInside/outside of building:

Construction InformationSchedule start/end:

Preconstruction:CSB #1: January 2009-January 2010CSB #2: January 2014-January 2015CSB #3: January 2019-January 2020

Construction:CSB #1: January 2010-January 2012CSB #2: January 2015-January 2017CSB #3: January 2020-January 2022

Number of workers: (new/existing) 79/0 each yrNonradiation 79Number of radiation workers NoneAverage annual worker radiation dose ( rem/yr) None

Transportation mileageTruck: (km/yr) 200,000Rail: 0Employees: (km/yr) 2,130,074

Heavy Equipment:Equipment used Excavator, grader, crane, delivery trucksHours of operation: (hr/ yr) 15,600

Acres disturbed (per CSB)New (acres) 15Previous (acres) NoneRevegetated (acres) None

Air Emissions:Construction total: (tons/ yr) 1,022Dust: (tons/yr) 216Major gas (CO 2) from diesel exhaust: (tons/ yr) 764Contaminants a from diesel exhaust: (tons/ yr) 42

Effluents:Sanitary wastewater: (L/ yr) 1,943,598

Solid wastes:Construction trash: (m 3/yr) 936

Hazardous/toxic chemicals and wastesGeneration (used lube oil): (m 3/yr) 3Storage/inventory: (m 3/yr) 0.2

Pits/ponds created: (m /yr) 465 (per CSB)2

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-54

Appendix C.8

operating efficiency, the facility has the capacityto handle six Hanford (1.17-cubic meters) canis-ters per day. This is also the feed rate necessaryto meet the TWRS vitrification plant operatingcapacities.

The Calcine Dissolution Facility processingzones are Unloading/Loading, Air Lock/Decon,and Hot Cell with Inter Zone Transfer.

Unloading/Loading. Calcine is delivered intothe unloading/loading bay by a shielded canister

transporter, which contains the canister enclosedwithin a shielded cask. This cask is centeredover a receiving plug within the unloading/load-ing building. The transporter removes the plugand lowers the canister into the transfer cagelocated below ground level which moves thecanister through the rest of the process. Thetransporter then replaces the plug and returns toretrieve another canister.

Air Lock/Decon. Calcine canisters are movedinto the air lock in preparation for hot cell entry.

Table C.8-22. Construction and operation project data for Canister Storage Building(HCSB-1) (continued).

Construction Information (continued)Water Usage:

Dust control: (L/yr) 151,400Domestic water: (L/yr) 1,943,598

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWH/yr) 2,850Fossil fuel: (L/yr) 354,276

Operational InformationSchedule start/end:

CSB #1 January 2012-April 2030CSB #2 January 2017-April 2030CSB #3 January 2022-April 2030

Number of workers each year of operation (new/existing)Total: 9/0Radiation workers: 9/0Average annual worker radiation dose:(person-rem/yr) 1.8

Transportation mileageTruck: 0Rail: 0Employees: (km/yr) 242,667

Heavy equipment: Canister transporter, occasional delivery trucksHours of operation: (hrs/yr) 5,840

Air emissions:Fossil fuel emissions: (tons/yr) 302

Effluents:Sanitary wastewater: (L/yr) 221,423

Solid wastes:Sanitary/industrial trash: (m3/yr) 50

Radioactive wastes: NoneHazardous/toxic chemicals and wastes

Generation: (m3/yr) 1.11Pits/ponds used: (m2) NoneWater usage

Process water: (L/yr) 0Domestic water: (L/yr) 221,423

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWH/yr) 44Fossil fuel: (L/yr) 132,626

a. CO, NOx, SO2, hydrocarbons, particulates.

This area is also used for decontamination dur-ing normal operation and also for maintenanceoperations on cranes and equipment within thehot cell. Normal decontamination occurs withinthis area on empty canisters and cages. Emptycalcine canisters are decontaminated for reuse inthe HLW vitrification process.

Hot Cell. Canisters are delivered through the airlock into the hot cell. The first operation is to cutopen the canister. The cutting operation alsobevels the edge to allow for rewelding and reuseof the canisters. This operation is required to beunder a negative pressure relative to the sur-roundings and provide positive dust control andtotal spark control. Cutting waste is directed toa grinder to granularize the cutting waste forsubsequent processing.

After opening, the canister contents are removedusing a vacuum-assisted auger design whichtransfers the calcine to one of two bins. The can-ister is then pre-cleaned to remove or stabilizethe remainder of the powder. The entire opera-tion of cutting, vacuuming, and pre-cleaning thecanister is within a constant dust controlled pro-cess, sealed to prevent dust migration.

The calcine is delivered by vacuum to a cycloneseparator which discharges into one of two feedbins. The feed bins are equipped with 0.03micron sintered metal filters. Exhaust from thefeed bin filters is routed through dual high-effi-ciency particulate air filters prior to dischargingto the atmosphere.

C.8-55 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-23. Decontamination and decommissioning project data for Canister StorageBuilding (HCSB-1).

Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) InformationSchedule start/end: June 2030-June 2031Number of workers each year of D&D (new/existing): 84/0 per yearNumber of radiation workers (D&D): NoneAvg. annual worker radiation dose: 0 (person-rem/yr)Transportation mileage

Truck: (km/yr) 390,000Rail: 0Employee: (km/yr) 2,264,889

Heavy equipmentEquipment used: Mobile cranes, roll-off trucks, dozers, loadersHours of operation: (hrs) 49,920

Acres disturbedNew: (acres) NonePrevious: (acres) NoneRevegetation: (acres) 45

Air emissions: (None/Reference)Dust: (tons/yr) 0Gases (CO2): (tons/yr) 2,445Contaminantsa: (tons/yr) 134

EffluentsNon-radioactive sanitary wastewater: (L) 2,066,610

Solid wastesNon-radioactive (industrial): (m3/yr) 996

Hazardous/toxic chemicals & wastesGeneration (used lube oil): (m3/yr) 9.45Storage/inventory: (m3/yr) 0.73

Pits/Ponds created: NoneWater usage

Process water: (L) 151,400Domestic water: (L) 2,066,610

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWh/yr) 1,500Fossil fuel: (L) 1,133,683

a. CO, NOx, SO2, hydrocarbons.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-56

Appendix C.8

Calcine is delivered from the feed bins to the dis-solving tanks using rotary feeders. The dissolv-ing tanks are operated using 6 molar nitric acidand are heated by steam for 2 hours prior to dis-charge. The dissolving tanks are agitated usinga bottom rake and propeller design with a thor-ough mixing level of agitation. The concentra-tion of the nitric acid is monitored during thecooking stage to keep above a 1-molar concen-tration. This should dissolve the majority(approximately 97 weight percent) of the calcinesolids. Once the cooking stage is completed, anyundissolved solids are separated and the solutionis transferred to pH adjustment tanks where thepH is adjusted to basic conditions (above a pH of7) with sodium hydroxide. This solution is thenpumped into the double-shell tanks of the APTank Farm for lag storage pending further pro-cessing in the TWRS separations/vitrificationfacility. Assuming the calcine can be placed insolution using 10 liters (2.6 gallons) of nitricacid per kilogram of calcine, dissolution andneutralization of the INEEL HLW calcine wouldresult in approximately 19.8 million gallons ofcalcine solution over a 17-month period of oper-ations. Although the volume of the dissolvedcalcine is relatively large, the total radioactivityof this material is small in comparison to theHanford tank wastes. The undissolved solids aretransferred to the TWRS vitrification facility forprocessing into HLW glass.

Inter Zone Transfer. The transfer cage ismounted on wheels and is transported by gravityon an inclined track. Stops are installed at eachkey point to hold the cage in place while under-going different handling steps. After the calcineis unloaded, the canister is returned through acontinuous track to the unloading/loading build-ing. The empty canister is removed by a trans-porter vehicle in a similar manner as theunloading operation and the cage is returned toits original position for processing another canis-ter. Up to five canisters would be in process atany one time.

Double-Shell Tanks Lag Storage

The eight 1-million gallon double-shell tanks inthe AP Tank Farm would be used for lag storageof the dissolved calcine solution prior to separa-tions and vitrification. This would require thatthe Calcine Dissolution Facility be located close

to the double-shell tanks. The solution from theCalcine Dissolution Facility pH control tankswould be pumped into the tanks for lag storage.While in storage, the slurry would be continu-ously mixed to prevent sludge settling. Oncesufficient waste had accumulated in the tanks tosupport operations of the TWRS separations/vit-rification facilities, the waste would be slurriedusing a mixer pump and pumped to the separa-tions facility through the waste transfer lines.

Facility Description. This project addresses thecosts and impacts of the Calcine DissolutionFacility. The Calcine Dissolution Facilityincludes three operating levels with floor spaceof 16,256 square feet on the Main Floor, 9,640square feet on the Lower Floor, and 14,567square feet on the Upper Floor. The CalcineDissolution Facility is designed to house theequipment and systems for receiving the INEELcalcine canisters, dissolving the calcine, transfer-ring the neutralized calcine solution to the dou-ble-shell tanks, and collecting any undissolvedsolids for processing in the HLW vitrificationfacility.

The Calcine Dissolution Facility building con-sists of four potentially contaminated zones anda clean zone for normal office and control oper-ations. Zone 1, Hot Cell and the CraneMaintenance area, is kept at -0.75 inch W.C.;Zone 2 is at -0.25 inch W.C.; Zone 3 is a -0.1inch W.C.; and Zone 4 is at -0.05 inch W.C. Theclean zone is at 0.1 inch W.C.

Zone 1 is supplied with high-efficiency particu-late air filtered air from an incoming air handleras well as air from Zone 3 which is not requiredfor Zone 2. Negative pressure is maintained andthe exhaust air is filtered through two high-effi-ciency particulate air filters prior to exhaustingto outside air environment.

Zone 2, which is made up of the Air Lock/Deconarea and the transport trenches, receives air fromZone 3 and pressure is maintained negative toZone 3. Exhaust air is filtered by two high-effi-ciency particulate air filters prior to exhaustingto the outside air environment.

Zone 3 contains the Direct Operations, MotorGallery, and Mechanical Room. Zone 3 suppliesair to Zone 1 and Zone 2 is kept negative to out-side air and to Zone 4. Because this is air is

completely used by other zones it is also filteredby two high-efficiency particulate air filters priorto exhausting to the outside air environment.

Zone 4 is the canister incoming and outgoingarea. It has its own air supply and provides anair lock between the building and outside air forincoming and outgoing materials. It is main-tained negative to outside air, and the exhaust airis filtered by two high-efficiency particulate airfilters prior to exhausting to the outside air envi-ronment.

The clean zone is maintained positive to outsideair and contains offices, change rooms, controlroom and storage. This space is separatelyheated and air conditioned from the rest of thespace.

The construction and operations project data forthe Calcine Dissolution Facility appear in TableC.8-24; the decontamination and decommission-ing data appear in Table C.8-25.

C.8.5.3 Calcine Separations andVitrification

Overview

This project describes the costs and providesdata to support the impacts analysis associatedwith the processing of dissolved calcine from theCalcine Dissolution Facility in the TWRS sepa-rations/vitrification facilities. Theseparations/vitrification facilities are existingTWRS facilities as described in the TWRS EISunder the Phased Implementation Alternative.The separations/vitrification facilities wouldprocess INEEL calcine waste for 17 months.This project provides covers operational impactsonly; construction and decontamination anddecommissioning of the TWRS separations/vit-rification facilities are covered in the TWRSEIS.

General Project Objectives

The project described in this Project Summary ispart of the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative of this Idaho HLW & FD EIS. Thisproject addresses the costs and impacts of oper-

ating the TWRS separations/vitrification facili-ties to process the INEEL waste.

Process Description

Separations and vitrification of the INEEL wastewould require operation of the existing TWRSequipment, transfer line(s) from the double-shelltanks to the separations/vitrification facilities,and continuous mixing of the double-shell tanks.

The separations process would involve the fol-lowing steps:

• Solids washing and solid-liquid separa-tions

• Separations processing to remove cesium,technetium, strontium, and transuranicsfrom the liquid stream

• Vitrification of the solid fraction and anyundissolved solids from calcine dissolutionin the Calcine Dissolution Facility in theTWRS HLW vitrification facility

• Vitrification of the liquid fraction in theTWRS low activity waste vitrificationfacility

After washing and separations processing, thewaste would be stored in tanks within the vitrifi-cation facilities where it would be characterizedand evaporated to remove excess water. Theconcentrated liquid or slurry waste would thenenter the melter feed section of the vitrificationfacility.

The low-activity waste stream would be com-bined with glass formers. In order to produce aglass product with acceptable properties, thelow-activity waste glass formulation is limited to15 weight percent sodium oxide in the glass.Glass formers would be added to the melter feedto maintain the required sodium oxide loading.Following vitrification, the molten low-activitywaste glass would be poured into 1.8 meters longby 1.2 meters wide by 1.2 meters high (2.6 cubicmeters) steel boxes. A total of 14,400 cubicmeters or 5,550 containers of vitrified low-activ-ity waste would be produced.

C.8-57 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-58

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-24. Construction and operation project data for the Calcine DissolutionFacility (CALDIS-001).

Generic InformationDescription/function and EIS project number: Facility to unload INEEL calcine containing canisters and separate

waste into HAW and LAWEIS alternatives/options: Minimum INEEL Processing AlternativeProject type or waste stream: INEEL Aluminum and Zirconium Calcine and SBW

Ion Exchange ResinAction type: NewStructure type: Concrete and steel buildingSize: (m2) 3,761Other features: (pits, ponds, power/water/sewer lines) Extension to existing underground utilitiesLocation: Hanford 200 AreaConstruction InformationSchedule start/end:

Construction: Dec. 2023 - Dec. 2027Number of workers: (new/existing)

Nonradiation 286/0 each yrNumber of radiation workers NoneAverage annual worker radiation dose (rem/yr) None

Transportation mileageTruck: (km/yr) 67,500Rail: 0Employees: (km/yr) 7,711,407

Heavy Equipment:Equipment used Excavators, graders, cranes, concrete trucks, material delivery

trucks, and water trucksHours of operation: (hr/yr) 2,080

Acres disturbed and duration: August 2010 – December 2037New (acres) 6.80Previous (acres) NoneRevegetated (acres) None

Air Emissions:Construction total: (tons/yr) 83Dust: (tons/yr) 56Major gas (CO2) from diesel exhaust: (tons/yr) 25Contaminantsa from diesel exhaust: (tons/yr) 1.4

Effluents:Sanitary wastewater: (L/yr) 7,035,679

Solid wastes:Construction trash: (m3/yr) 3,384

Hazardous/toxic chemicals and wastesGeneration (used lube oil): (m3/yr) 0.39Storage/inventory: (m3/yr) 0.36

Pits/ponds created: m2 465Water Usage:

Dust control: (L/yr) 151,400Domestic water: (L/yr) 7,035,679

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWH/yr) 208Fossil fuel: (L/yr) 47,237

C.8-59 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-24. Construction and operation project data for the Calcine DissolutionFacility (CALDIS-001) (continued).

Operational InformationSchedule start/end: February 2028-April 2030Number of workers each year of operation(new/existing)

Operations 15/0Maintenance 6/0Support 2/0Total: 23/0Radiation workers: 23 (included in above total)Average annual worker radiation dose:(person-rem/yr) 4.6 (200 millirem/worker)

Transportation mileageTruck: 662,990Rail: 0Employees: (km/yr) 620,148

Heavy equipment:Hours of operation: (hrs/yr) 3,650

Air emissions:CO2 from diesel exhaust (tons/yr) 3,431Contaminantsa: (tons/yr) 187

Process radioactive air emissions: (Ci/yr) 1.99×10-4

Other oxide air emissions: (kg/yr)B2O3 6.52×10-7

BaO 2.44×10-8

CaO 1.12×10-6

CdO 2.40×10-7

Cr2O3 9.41×10-8

Fe2O3 1.50×10-7

MgCO3 6.79×10-7

MnO 3.48×10-9

Effluents:Sanitary wastewater: (L/yr) 565,858

Solid wastes:Sanitary/industrial trash: (m3/yr) 127

Process outputDissolved calcine to TWRS treatment system: (L/yr) 33,288,889

Radioactive wastes:HEPA filters: (m3/yr) 8Misc. radioactive wastes: (m3/yr) 34Total: (m3/yr) 42

Hazardous/toxic chemicals and wastesGeneration (hazardous wastes): (m3/yr) 1

The HLW stream would also be combined withglass formers. The limiting constituent in theHLW stream is zirconium. In order to produce aglass product with properties acceptable for dis-posal in the proposed geologic repository, theHLW glass formulation is limited to 13 weightpercent zirconium oxide in the glass. Glass for-mers would be added to the melter feed to main-tain the required zirconium oxide loading.Following vitrification, the molten HLW glasswould be poured into 1.17 cubic meters canis-ters. A total of 3,500 cubic meters or 3,000 can-isters of vitrified HLW would be produced.

The vitrification processes would generate largeoff-gas streams that would be treated to mini-mize air emissions. The off-gas treatment sys-tems would capture and partially recyclecontaminants in the off-gas streams back to themelter feed streams.

Liquid effluents from both the HLW and low-activity waste vitrification facilities would betreated at the existing Effluent TreatmentFacility. The liquid effluent from processing the

INEEL waste would be similar to Hanford's 242-A Evaporator condensate stream, which meetsthe current waste acceptance criteria for theEffluent Treatment Facility.

Facility Description

This project addresses the cost and impacts ofthe operation of the TWRS separations/vitrifica-tion facilities to process the INEEL calcinewaste. The separations/vitrification facilitiesand support facilities would be constructed asdescribed for the Phased ImplementationAlternative in the TWRS EIS. The HLW vitrifi-cation facility would be designed to produce 20metric tons of HLW glass per day. The low-activity waste facility would be designed to pro-duce 185 metric tons per day of low-activitywaste glass. Vitrified low-activity waste andHLW would be placed on pads in the 200-EastArea or returned to Canister Storage Buildingsuntil it can be transported back to INEEL.Construction and operations project data appearin Table C.8-26.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-60

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-24. Construction and operation project data for the Calcine DissolutionFacility (CALDIS-001) (continued).

Operational Information (continued)Process chemicals (nitric acid, sodium hydroxide):(m3/yr) 31,371Pits/ponds used: (m2) NoneWater usage

Process water: (L/yr) 26,750,511Domestic water: (L/yr) 565,858

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWH/yr) 13,615Equivalent fuel oil to generate required steam: (L/yr) 670,197Equipment/vehicle fuel: (L/yr) 82,892Total fossil fuel: (L/yr) 753,089

a. CO, NOx, SO2, hydrocarbons.

C.8-61 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-25. Decontamination and decommissioning project data for the CalcineDissolution Facility (CALDIS-001).

Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) InformationSchedule start/end: April 2030-April 2032Number of workers each year of D&D (new/existing): 312/0 each yrNumber of radiation workers (D&D): 312Avg. annual worker radiation dose: 62 (200 mrem/worker)Transportation mileage

Truck: (km/yr) 42,500Rail: 0Employee: (km/yr) 8,405,631

Heavy equipment

Equipment used:Dozers, dump trucks, loaders, cranes,

concrete trucksHours of operation: (hrs) 2,080

Acres disturbedNew: (acres) NonePrevious: (acres) NoneRevegetation: (acres) 6.80

Air emissionsNon-radioactive:

Gases (CO2): (tons/yr) 51Contaminantsa: (tons/yr) 2.78

RadioactiveHEPA filtered offgas: (Ci/yr) 0.80

Effluents 295,264Radioactive 132,860

Spent decontamination solution: (L/yr)Non-radioactive

Sanitary wastewater: (L) 7,669, 763Radioactive wastes 3,679

Radioactive waste quantityb: (m3/yr) (Ci/yr) 37Solid wastes

Industrial trash: (m3/yr) 3,689Hazardous/toxic chemicals & wastes

Generation (used lube oil): (m3/yr) 394Storage/inventory: (m3/yr) 0.02

Pits/Ponds created: NoneWater usage

Dust control water: (L/yr) 151,400Process water: (L/yr) 295,264Domestic water: (L/yr) 7,669,763Total water: (L/yr) 8,116,427Source of water: Columbia River

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWh/yr) 156Fossil fuel: (L) 47,237

a. CO, particulates, NOx, SO2, hydrocarbons.b. All tanks, pipes, vessels, pumps, filters and other equipment in immediate contact with process stream.

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-62

Appendix C.8

Table C.8-26. Project data for Calcine Separations/Vitrification (CALVIT-001).Generic InformationDescription/function and EIS Project number: Separation and Vitrification of HAW and LAW component at

Hanford Treatment FacilitiesEIS alternatives/options: Min. INEEL Proc. Alternative

Project type or waste stream:INEEL Aluminum and Zirconium

Calcine and SBWAction type: Ion Exchange ResinStructure type: Existing facilitySize: (plain view)Other features: (pits, ponds, power/water/sewer lines) NoneLocation: Hanford 200 Area

Inside/outside of fence: InsideInside/outside of building: Inside

Operational InformationSchedule start/end:

Construction: January 2029-April 2030Number of workers: (new/existing) 708/0 each yr

Nonradiation 657/0 each yrNumber of radiation workers 131Average annual worker radiation dose (rem/yr) (200 millirem/worker)

Heavy equipmentHours of operation 0

Transportation mileageTruck: (km/yr) 250,000Rail: 283,000Employees: (km/yr) 19,089,778

Air emissions from vitrificationHAW componentRadionuclides (Ci/yr)

Cs-137 2.36×10-5

Sr-90 2.57×10-5

Y-90 2.57×10-5

Tc-99 8.99×10-10

Am-241 2.02×10-8

Pu-238 1.73×10-7

Pu-239 and 240 6.125×10-9

Pu-241 8.40×10-8

LAW ComponentChemicals (g/sec)SO2 4.98×10-1

NO2 5.63×10-1

CdO 3.80×10-12

Cr2O3 1.21×10-12

Cl2 8.02×10-4

B2O3 2.90×10-11

CaO 7.52×10-10

Fe2O3 2.99×10-12

UO2 7.04×10-15

BaO 3.94×10-13

C.8-63 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Table C.8-26. Project data for Calcine Separations/Vitrification (CALVIT-001) (continued).Operational Information (continued)LAW Component (continued)

Radionuclides (Ci/yr)Cs-137 1.79×10-7

Sr-90 4.62×10-7

Y-90 4.62×10-7

Tc-99 3.98×10-9

Am-241 1.84×10-8

Pu-238 1.14×10-8

Pu-239 and 240 4.16×10-10

Pu-241 1.69×10-9

Effluents:Sanitary wastewater: (L/yr) 17,418,570

Solid wastes:Construction trash: (m3/yr) 3,925

Radioactive wastes:Vitrified waste output:

LAW volume (m3/yr) 10,417LAW boxes (2.6 m3/box) per year 4,019HAW volume (m3/yr) 530HAW glass canisters (1.17 m3/canister) per year 453HEPA filters: (m3/yr) 8(Ci/yr) 23Misc. radioactive wastes: (m3/yr) 966(Ci/yr) 966

Hazardous/toxic chemicals and wastesGeneration (hazardous wastes) (m3/yr) 0

Pits/ponds used: NoneWater usage

Process (HAW and LAW processing): (L/yr) 1,826,200,000Domestic (HAW and LAW processing): (L/yr) 17,418,570

Energy requirementsElectrical: (MWH/yr) 642,857Fossil fuel: (L/yr) 4,140,000

DOE/EIS-0287 C.8-64

Appendix C.8

Appendix C.8 References

Cushing, C. E., 1994, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNL-6415, Rev. 6, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, August.

Cushing, C. E., 1995, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNL-6415, Rev. 7, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, Septe mber.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1993, Recommendations for the Preparation of EnvironmentalAssessments and Environmental Impact Statements, DOE, Office of NEPA Oversight, WashingtonD.C., May.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996a, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, RichlandWashington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0189, U.S. Department of Energy andWashington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington, August.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996b, Draft Site Biological Resources Management Plan, DOE/RL96-32, Revision 0, U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington,September 1996.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Supplement Analysis for the Proposed Upgrades to the TankFarm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and Electrical Systems under Project W-314 in Support of TankFarm Restoration and Safe Operations, DOE/EIS-0189-SA1, U.S. Department of Energy RichlandOperations Office, Richland, Washington, June.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1998, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System,DOE/EIS-0189-SA2, U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington,May.

Harper 1995, Performing Conventional Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk-Based Land UsePlanning Methods and Concepts to Incorporate Tribal Cultural Interests and Treaty-Reserved Right,Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

HCRL (Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory), 1998, Cultural Resources Review of the TWRSMitigation Planning Support - Phase One Project, Project Number 98-0200-022, Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, Richland, Washington, May 22.

Jacobs (Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.), 1998, Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative Hanford SiteEnvironmental Impact Assessment Report, Rev. 1, November 6.

Neitzel, D. A., 1996, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNL-6415, Rev. 8, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, May.

Neitzel, D. A., 1997, Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, PNL-6415, Rev. 9, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, August.

PNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), 1995, Hanford Site Environmental Report for CalendarYear 1994, PNL-10574, Richland, Washington, June.

PNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), 1996, Hanford Site Environmental Report for CalendarYear 1995, Richland, Washington, June.