skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Ecological Data in Support of the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2: Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys

Abstract

This review provides an evaluation of potential impacts of actions that have been proposed under various alternatives to support the closure of the high level waste tanks on the Hanford Site. This review provides a summary of data collected in the field during the spring of 2007 at all of the proposed project sites within 200 East and 200 West Areas, and at sites not previously surveyed. The primary purpose of this review is to provide biological data that can be incorporated into or used to support the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1097342
Report Number(s):
PNNL-16620
830403000
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
Endangered Species; Sagebrush Steppe; Environmental Impacts

Citation Formats

Sackschewsky, Michael R., and Downs, Janelle L.. Ecological Data in Support of the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2: Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.2172/1097342.
Sackschewsky, Michael R., & Downs, Janelle L.. Ecological Data in Support of the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2: Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys. United States. doi:10.2172/1097342.
Sackschewsky, Michael R., and Downs, Janelle L.. Thu . "Ecological Data in Support of the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2: Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys". United States. doi:10.2172/1097342. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1097342.
@article{osti_1097342,
title = {Ecological Data in Support of the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2: Results of Spring 2007 Field Surveys},
author = {Sackschewsky, Michael R. and Downs, Janelle L.},
abstractNote = {This review provides an evaluation of potential impacts of actions that have been proposed under various alternatives to support the closure of the high level waste tanks on the Hanford Site. This review provides a summary of data collected in the field during the spring of 2007 at all of the proposed project sites within 200 East and 200 West Areas, and at sites not previously surveyed. The primary purpose of this review is to provide biological data that can be incorporated into or used to support the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement.},
doi = {10.2172/1097342},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu May 31 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Thu May 31 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The post-closure performance of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and Area 5 RWMS are evaluated for the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement using current performance assessment and composite analysis methods and models. Two alternatives with different future waste volumes and inventories are evaluated. The No Action Alternative evaluates the inventory disposed through fiscal year (FY) 2010 plus an additional 4.5E5 cubic meters (m3) (1.59E7 cubic feet [ft3]) of waste disposed at the Area 5 RWMS. The Expanded Operations Alternative evaluates the FY 2010 inventory plus an additional 1.42E6 m3 (5.03E7 ft3) of waste disposed at the Area 5more » RWMS and 4.93E4 m3 (1.74E6 ft3) disposed at the Area 3 RWMS. Both the No Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives have a reasonable expectation of meeting all performance objectives of U.S. Department of Energy Order DOE O 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” No significant difference between the two alternatives was found because the waste concentrations are similar. The performance assessment model assesses radiological risk for residents at the RWMS boundary where risk is more closely related to waste concentration than total waste inventory. Results for the composite analysis also indicate that the dose constraint and dose limit can be met for both alternatives.« less
  • This paper is a report on work in progress in support of the US Department of Energy Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has been providing technical support in the areas of waste characterization; waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility descriptions (developed jointly with EG&G, Idaho); analysis of potential accidents at TSD facilities; and waste transportation risk assessment. Support efforts encompass the following six waste types: high-level waste; transuranic waste; low-level waste; greater-than Class-C low-level waste; low-level mixed waste; and hazardous waste. Treatment, storage, and disposal facility descriptions cover themore » following parameters: resource requirements, cost, staffing, capacity, by-products, and effluents. The variations in these parameters effected by the proposed alternatives are estimated. Selection of proposed initiating events, characterization of source terms, and descriptions of scenarios are covered in the accident analysis portion of the ANL work. The transportation risk assessment portion includes both off-site and on-site transportation of both radioactive and hazardous wastes for all waste management alternatives under consideration in the EM PEIS.« less
  • This document analyzes at a programmatic level the potential environmental consequences over the next 40 years of alternatives related to the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel under the responsibility of the US Department of Energy. It also analyzes the site-specific consequences of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory sitewide actions anticipated over the next 10 years for waste and spent nuclear fuel management and environmental restoration. For programmatic spent nuclear fuel management this document analyzes alternatives of no action, decentralization, regionalization, centralization and the use of the plans that existed in 1992/1993 for the management of thesemore » materials. For the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, this document analyzes alternatives of no action, ten-year plan, minimum and maximum and maximum treatment, storage, and disposal of US Department of Energy wastes.« less
  • Two types of projects in the spent nuclear fuel and environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) are described. These are: foreseeable proposed projects where some funding for preliminary planning and/or conceptual design may already be authorized, but detailed design or planning will not begin until the Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act process for the project have been completed; planned or ongoing projects not yet completed but whose National Environmental Policy Act documentation is already completed or is expected to be completed before themore » Record of Decision for this Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) is issued. The section on project summaries describe the projects (both foreseeable proposed and ongoing).They provide specific information necessary to analyze the environmental impacts of these projects. Chapter 3 describes which alternative(s) each project supports. Summaries are included for (a) spent nuclear fuel projects, (b) environmental remediation projects, (c) the decontamination and decommissioning of surplus INEL facilities, (d) the construction, upgrade, or replacement of existing waste management facilities, (e) infrastructure projects supporting waste management activities, and (f) research and development projects supporting waste management activities.« less
  • The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) predecessor agency, established the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina, in the early 1950s. The primary mission of SRS was to produce nuclear materials for national defense. With the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the size of the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons, the SRS mission has changed. While national defense is still an important facet of the mission, SRS no longer produces nuclear materials and the mission is focused on material stabilization, environmental restoration, waste management, and decontamination and decommissioning ofmore » facilities that are no longer needed. As a result of its nuclear materials production mission, SRS generated large quantities of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The HLW resulted from dissolving spent reactor fuel and nuclear targets to recover the valuable radioactive isotopes. DOE had stored the HLW in 51 large underground storage tanks located in the F- and H-Area Tank Farms at SRS. DOE has emptied and closed two of those tanks. DOE is treating the HLW, using a process called vitrification. The highly radioactive portion of the waste is mixed with a glass like material and stored in stainless steel canisters at SRS, pending shipment to a geologic repository for disposal. This process is currently underway at SRS in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The HLW tanks at SRS are of four different types, which provide varying degrees of protection to the environment due to different degrees of containment. The tanks are operated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) and DOE Orders issued under the AEA. The tanks are permitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) under South Carolina wastewater regulations, which require permitted facilities to be closed after they are removed from service. DOE has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and SCDHEC to close the HLW tanks after they have been removed from service. Closure of the HLW tanks would comply with DOE's responsibilities under the AEA and the South Carolina closure requirements and be carried out under a schedule agreed to by DOE, EPA, and SCDHEC. There are several ways to close the HLW tanks. DOE has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to ensure that the public and DOE's decision makers have a thorough understanding of the potential environmental impacts of alternative means of closing the tanks. This Summary: (1) describes the HLW tanks and the closure process, (2) describes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that DOE is using to aid in decision making, (3) summarizes the alternatives for closing the HLW tanks and identifies DOE.s preferred alternative, and (4) identifies the major conclusions regarding environmental impacts, areas of controversy, and issues that remain to be resolved as DOE proceeds with the HLW tank closure process.« less