Background
Purpose
and Need
Proposed
Action and Alternative
Environmental
Consequences
Stakeholder
Involvement
Background
The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental
Research (OBER), within the Office of Science (SC), proposes to add
a Field Research Center (FRC) component to the existing Natural and
Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) Program. The NABIR Program
is a ten-year fundamental research program designed to increase the
understanding of fundamental biogeochemical processes that would allow
the use of bioremediation approaches for cleaning up DOE’s contaminated
legacy waste sites. An FRC would be integrated with the existing and
future laboratory and field research and would provide a means of
examining the fundamental biogeochemical processes that influence
bioremediation under controlled small-scale field conditions. The
NABIR Program would continue to perform fundamental research that
might lead to promising bioremediation technologies that could be
demonstrated by other means in the future.
For over
50 years, DOE and its predecessor agencies have been responsible for
the research, design, and production of nuclear weapons, as well as
other energy-related research and development efforts. DOE’s
weapons production and research activities generated hazardous, mixed,
and radioactive waste products. Past disposal practices have led to
the contamination of soils, sediments, and groundwater with complex
and exotic mixtures of compounds. This contamination and its associated
costs and risks represents a major concern to DOE and the public.
The high
costs, long duration, and technical challenges associated with remediating
the subsurface contamination at DOE sites present a significant need
for fundamental research in the biological, chemical, and physical
sciences that will contribute to new and cost-effective solutions.
One possible low-cost approach for remediating the subsurface contamination
of DOE sites is through the use of a technology known as bioremediation.
Bioremediation has been defined as the use of microorganisms to biodegrade
or biotransform hazardous organic contaminants to environmentally
safe levels in soils, subsurface materials, water, sludges, and residues.
While bioremediation technology is promising, DOE managers and non-DOE
scientists have recognized that the fundamental scientific information
needed to develop effective bioremediation technologies for cleanup
of the legacy waste sites is lacking in many cases. DOE believes that
field-based research is needed to realize the full potential of bioremediation.
Purpose and Need
The Department
of Energy faces a unique set of challenges associated with cleaning
up waste at its former weapons production and research sites. These
sites contain complex mixtures of contaminants in the subsurface,
including radioactive compounds. In many cases, the fundamental field-based
scientific information needed to develop safe and effective remediation
and cleanup technologies is lacking. DOE needs fundamental research
on the use of microorganisms and their products to assist DOE in the
decontamination and cleanup of its legacy waste sites.
The existing
NABIR program to-date has focused on fundamental scientific research
in the laboratory. Because subsurface hydrologic and geologic conditions
at contaminated DOE sites cannot easily be duplicated in a laboratory,
however, the DOE needs a field component to permit existing and future
laboratory research results to be field-tested on a small scale in
a controlled outdoor setting. Such field-testing needs to be conducted
under actual legacy waste field conditions representative of those
that DOE is most in need of remediating. Ideally, these field conditions
should be as representative as practicable of the types of subsurface
contamination conditions that resulted from legacy wastes from the
nuclear weapons program activities. They should also be representative
of the types of hydrologic and geologic conditions that exist across
the DOE complex.
Back
to the top
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Proposed
Action. The proposed action is to select and operate a field
research component of the NABIR Program through the use of an FRC.
The proposed FRC would consist of contaminated and uncontaminated,
i.e., background areas on DOE lands. Within these areas would be small
test plots (less than one acre), along with supporting field site
trailers and existing laboratory facilities. The areas would serve
as the primary field site for small-scale basic bioremediation research
activities. The types of activities that could occur at the proposed
FRC can be categorized into passive and active site characterization,
obtaining research-quality samples, and in situ research. Because
the activities at the proposed FRC would be undertaken in an area
limited to less than an acre and a depth of 75 feet, the scale of
research activities would be considered small (for a description of
the proposed action at the FRC see Section 2.0 and Appendix A).
Passive
subsurface characterization activities are described as non-intrusive
(e.g., ground penetrating radar, electromagnetics, and resistivity)
and intrusive (e.g., seismic tomography, radar, direct push penetrometer,
creation and use of injection/extraction wells). Active characterization
can be defined as the addition of some substance (e.g., air, non-toxic
chemical tracers such as bromide, or a gas tracer such as helium or
neon) to the subsurface under controlled conditions. The FRC would
be a primary source for groundwater and sediment samples for NABIR
investigators. Obtaining research-quality samples would be critical
to the research conducted under the NABIR program at the FRC. Groundwater
would be sampled by pumping water from existing wells or by installing
new wells.
In
situ research (i.e., research occurring in soils and groundwater
at the FRC) would include biostimulation and bioaugmentation studies
within the test plots. Biostimulation would involve introducing substances
(e.g., electron donors and acceptors) into the subsurface to stimulate
naturally occurring microorganisms to bioaccumulate or transform a
heavy metal or radionuclide. Bioaugmentation would involve the injection
of additional microorganisms into the subsurface to either bioaccumulate
heavy metals or radionuclides, or transform them such that they become
less toxic or less mobile in the subsurface. In situ research
would only use non-toxic chemicals. There would be no use of genetically
engineered microorganisms, no injections of radioactive materials,
and no use of human pathogens. With the exception of the proposed
placement of temporary work/sample preparation trailers at the test
plots, there would be no new construction involved with the operation
of the proposed FRC. Existing utilities would be used, and there would
be no impacts to these utilities because of the small-scale research
being proposed. Heavy equipment (e.g., drill rigs, brush hogs, augers)
would be used when necessary for site clearing prior to conducting
research at the background or contaminated sites. The equipment would
be used for short periods of time. Best management practices and all
applicable rules and regulations would be followed during the use
of equipment.
Alternatives.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes two alternative sites:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)/Y-12 Site, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)/DOE Hanford 100-H
Area, Richland, Washington; and No Action. OBER used a systematic
three-phased process to identify suitable alternative sites for the
location of a proposed FRC. In Phase I, the requirements for an FRC
were developed (e.g., the FRC must be located at a DOE site and must
have legacy waste produced during research, design and production
of nuclear weapons). DOE sites that met the requirements were identified.
Eight sites expressed an interest in competing for FRC status: 1)
PNNL/Hanford Site, WA; 2) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, ID; 3) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA; 4)
Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; 5) Nevada Test Site, NV; 6) ORNL,
TN; 7) Sandia National Laboratory, NM; and 8) Savannah River Site,
SC. In Phase II, preferred characteristics for the FRC were identified
and provided to the DOE sites along with a request for formal proposals.
Of the eight candidate sites, only two indicated that they had field
locations that met the preferred characteristics. Those two sites
submitted proposals that contained scientific/technical, management
and cost information. The two FRC candidate sites that met the criteria
and had the preferred characteristics for an FRC, and therefore represent
the array of reasonable alternative sites for the proposed FRC are:
- Oak
Ridge National Laboratory/Y-12 Site, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
- Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory/DOE Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.
Due to
budget constraints, Phase III of the alternative site identification
process involved a peer review of the two DOE sites that submitted
scientific/technical proposals to be considered for the first FRC.
Based on results of peer review of the scientific/technical proposals,
on-site visits, and on the assessment of environmental impacts provided
in this EA, DOE’s preferred alternative is the ORNL/Y-12 Site.
Pending additional funding for the NABIR Program, the PNNL/Hanford
Site might be funded as an FRC at some point in the future.
The ORNL/Y-12
Site FRC would include a previously disturbed 243-acre (98-hectares)
contaminated area and a 404-acre (163-hectares) uncontaminated background
area on the Y-12 Site. Within these areas would be small (less than
one acre) test plots where field research would take place. The contaminated
area at the PNNL/Hanford 100-H Area would be approximately 2,950 feet
long (900 meters) by 2,300 feet wide (700 meters) and consist of about
160 acres of land. There are two proposed uncontaminated background
areas at the PNNL/Hanford Site that are smaller in size than the contaminated
area. Test plots of approximately one acre would be located within
the contaminated area.
The No
Action Alternative consists of not implementing a field-based component
to NABIR by not selecting or operating an FRC. This would result in
continuing the NABIR Program’s laboratory-based fundamental research
approach as it is currently conducted by OBER, but without the benefit
of focused and integrated field testing under actual legacy waste
cleanup situations. Specifically, fundamental bioremediation research
supported by OBER would not integrate laboratory-based research with
field-based research from the FRC site. Laboratory findings would
not be field-tested. The No Action Alternative would not satisfy the
purpose and need.
General
Considerations. This EA analyzes the potential impacts to
the environment at the proposed FRC at Oak Ridge, the alternative
site at Hanford, and the No Action alternative. This EA bounds the
type of work expected to occur at the FRC based on similar work that
has occurred in other research programs on DOE and non-DOE sites.
Resource areas analyzed include: earth resources; climate and air
quality; water resources; ecological resources; archaeological, cultural
and historical resources; land use, recreation and visual/aesthetic
resources; socioeconomic conditions; human health; transportation;
waste control; and environmental justice. Overall, because of the
small-scale nature of the proposed field research; the limited potential
for impacts to the environment; the OBER environment, safety and health
and scientific review processes; and the regulatory and permitting
compliance that would be required, no adverse environmental impacts
would be anticipated.
With
the exception of the proposed placement of temporary work/sample preparation
trailers at the test plots, there would be no new construction involved
with the operation of the proposed FRC. FRC research activities would
not include actions that would change the landscape (e.g., large-area
bulldozing, large-scale clearing, or excavation). Activities to support
site characterization, to obtain research-quality samples, and to
conduct in situ research would not impact the environment of
the proposed FRC because of the small-scale nature (less than one
acre and to a depth of less than 75 feet) of the proposed activities.
Drilling to obtain groundwater and other sampling actions would not
produce significant amounts of fugitive dust. It is expected that
these activities would generate much less dust than normal farming
practices in the surrounding areas. Operation of the FRC would use
standard, construction best management practices to control erosion,
(e.g., silt fences, berms) and water for dust suppression and to control
fugitive emissions during drilling and other activities. It is anticipated
that these and other construction/drilling management practices would
adequately control fugitive emissions of radionuclides and any other
air pollutants. Heavy equipment (e.g., drill rigs, brush hogs, and
augers) would be used for supporting research at the FRC through maintenance
and by preparing the test plots for well and for core samples. The
equipment would be used for short periods of time and would not adversely
impact the surrounding environments (e.g., habitats and sensitive
receptors). Any shipment of hazardous materials to or from an FRC
would follow U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials
Regulations. Collection and transportation of samples within the FRC
would follow existing DOE procedures and meet all environmental, safety,
and health requirements. Existing utilities would be used, and there
would be no impacts to the environment or to the availability of these
utilities because of the small-scale of research activities proposed.
ORNL/Y-12
Site. Potential impacts of concern from siting and operating
the proposed FRC at the ORNL/Y-12 Site include contamination of groundwater
and surface water (Bear Creek), impacts to sensitive species and habitats,
and exposure of FRC workers from radiological sources at the contaminated
FRC areas.
FRC activities
to support site characterizations, obtain research-quality samples,
and perform in situ research would occur away from all surface
waters including Bear Creek. Research would take place approximately
100 feet (30 meters) from Bear Creek. Research activities would be
temporary and small in scale. Any potential runoff occurring as a
result of ground-disturbing activities, coupled with rain events,
would be controlled by implementing best management practices such
as silt fencing at site-specific research areas within the FRC.
The potential
exists that groundwater additives injected as part of in situ
research at either the background or contaminated areas might pass
through groundwater channels to the surface waters of Bear Creek.
Small quantities of nontoxic tracers, nutrients, electron donors or
acceptors, microorganisms, or other substances might be injected either
in the background or contaminated areas of the FRC in accordance with
best management practices and close monitoring of environmental conditions.
Procedures for minimizing migration of contaminants during drilling
and abandonment of boreholes and wells would be developed and described
in the FRC management documents. These procedures may include sealing
the upper few feet of shallow boreholes with low permeability bentonite
or grout and installing conductor casing across the unconsolidated
zone and sealing with grout or bentonite prior to drilling to deeper
bedrock zones.
Previous
studies in the Bear Creek Valley have used dye tracers to study groundwater
flow. At downstream points in Bear Creek where the dye emerged, no
adverse effects on aquatic life were detected. Bromide tracers injected
less than 100 feet from the creek were not detected above background
levels in seeps or in Bear Creek. Based on these studies, tracers
injected in the contaminated area appear to be greatly diluted, and
in at least one case were not detectable in Bear Creek. This dilution,
plus the fact that tracers used by the NABIR Program would be nontoxic,
would result in no impact to either groundwater or to the surface
waters of Bear Creek.
Previous
studies also suggest that when nutrients were "added" to
the subsurface, the native microbial community structure was changed
in the immediate vicinity of the addition, but the changes lasted
only as long as the additional nutrients were present. Native microorganisms
that would be used most likely would be strains that would be isolated
from the contaminated area and then reinjected. Reinjection of native
microorganisms would not be expected to be of concern either at the
background or contaminated area. Non-native microorganisms might be
obtained from some other field site and then injected at both the
contaminated and background areas. Previous studies suggest that non-native
microorganisms that would be used at the contaminated area would not
move any great distance from the point of injection. The concentrations
of microorganisms that would be used and the amounts potentially injected
would be very small and would not be expected to create impacts to
the environment. Non-native microorganisms on a test plot would not
be expected to persist in the environment and would not be expected
to reach Bear Creek. Genetically engineered microorganisms would not
be injected either into the background or contaminated areas.
The only
FRC activities expected to occur within floodplain areas would be
well-drilling and monitoring (e.g., installation of piezometers).
Procedures for preventing migration of contaminants down well boreholes
would be developed and described in the FRC management documents.
These procedures may include sealing the upper few feet of shallow
boreholes with low permeability bentonite or grout and installing
conductor casing across the unconsolidated zone and sealing with grout
or bentonite prior to drilling to deeper bedrock zones. No structures
or facilities would be situated in the floodplain. Movement of heavy
equipment through the floodplain would be a temporary occurrence and
would not impact the capacity of the floodplain to store or carry
water. The negative effects to floodplains from the movement of heavy
equipment alone is expected to be negligible. Because FRC research
would take place on small test plots (less than one acre), it is anticipated
that any wetlands found in potential research areas would be avoided.
In addition, the limited ground-disturbing activities associated with
FRC research would preclude damage to adjacent wetlands that might
be in proximity to selected research areas. A Floodplain Assessment
and Statement of Findings for the Y-12 Site Area of Responsibility
has been completed, and actions undertaken by investigators would
be covered by this assessment (see Appendix D).
Human
health effects could potentially result from FRC worker exposure to
contaminated soil and groundwater, from occupational hazards associated
with site work such as well drilling and core sampling, and from hazards
associated with accidental releases of liquid chemicals. Radiological
doses to workers were bounded by evaluating a "bounding analysis"
scenario, in the absence of any existing data on worker doses for
this kind of work in the field. Workers were assumed to spill small
amounts of soil (5 grams per year) and groundwater (5 milliliters
per year) on themselves during the course of retrieving and processing
the core samples. To maximize the potential dose, it was further assumed
that the workers did not wash off the contamination, but actually
ingested it. For the soil ingestion pathway, the total dose (for all
radionuclides) is estimated to be less than 0.01 mrem/year, which
is ten thousand times less than the limit of 100 mrem/year allowed
for members of the public under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 835, Section 208. The groundwater ingestion pathway is three
times smaller, with a total dose of approximately 0.003 mrem/year.
To estimate the total potential risk to workers from this "bounding
analysis" exposure scenario, it is further assumed that the workers
were exposed during the entire life of the project, which is ten years.
The combined annual dose from both the soil and groundwater ingestion
pathways is 1.26E-02 mrem per year (9.47E-03 + 3.09E-03). Over the
ten-year lifetime of the project, the total dose is ten times that
amount, or 1.26E-01 mrem, which yields a lifetime risk of 6.28E-08,
or roughly six in one hundred million. There are no expected radiological
health risks to workers expected from work on the FRC.
Occupational
hazards and industrial accidents, such as those associated with well-drilling/sampling
and striking a subsurface structure during drilling, have been very
few during previous and similar work in the Bear Creek Valley. Existing
wells would be used to the maximum extent possible during NABIR field
work on the FRC, thus the amount of new well-drilling work would be
minimal. The potential for health effects from accidents on the FRC
is expected to be minimal. The expected low radiological doses and
the absence of serious accidents during previous field work in the
Bear Creek Valley provides a reasonable yardstick for the expectation
of minimal impacts to people and the environment during future NABIR
studies.
The small
scale of the action and its expected minimal level of environmental
consequences for the proposed FRC, should not result in any socioeconomic
or environmental justice impacts.
PNNL/Hanford
100-H Site. Potential impacts of concern from siting and operating
the proposed FRC at the PNNL/Hanford 100-H Site include contamination
of groundwater and surface water (Columbia River) and exposure of
FRC workers from radiological sources at the contaminated FRC areas.
FRC activities
to support site characterizations, obtain research-quality samples,
and perform in situ research would occur away from all surface
waters including the Columbia River. Research would not occur closer
than 200 feet (60 meters) from all surface waters, including the Columbia
River. The closest point where injection of materials might occur
would be in the contaminated area 200 feet from the Columbia River.
Tracer injections at the two proposed background areas would be more
than 1,500 feet from the Columbia River and concentrations would be
expected to be unmeasurable by the time the tracer had traveled only
half that distance. PNNL has proposed to install a series of groundwater
extraction wells within each test plot to capture any substances injected
into upstream injection wells. These extraction wells would be positioned
to intercept groundwater flow moving toward the Columbia River. In
addition, PNNL could make use of a secondary containment system of
existing extraction wells located within 150 feet of the Columbia
River to ensure that substances injected as part of in situ
research by NABIR investigators do not reach the Columbia River. The
existing extraction wells are part of an on-going Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Interim Remedial
Action that involves pumping and treating for chromium-contaminated
groundwater. Filters to extract tracers, electron donors and acceptors,
nutrients, microorganisms and other substances would be added to the
existing well filtration system, as needed. The pump and treat extraction
wells have been operating constantly and will continue to do so. The
use of nontoxic and non-persistent tracers coupled with the proposed
and existing extraction well systems would ensure that tracers would
not reach the Columbia River.
Research
activities on the FRC that might disturb the land would be temporary
and small in scale; e.g., injecting a small quantity of native microorganisms
into the background and contaminated areas of the proposed FRC. Native
microorganisms would most likely be strains that would be isolated
from the contaminated area and reinjected. Reinjection of native microorganisms
would not be expected to be of concern either at the background or
contaminated area. Non-native microorganisms would not be injected
either at the background or contaminated areas. Similarly, genetically
engineered microorganisms would not be used either at the background
or contaminated areas. Any potential runoff occurring as a result
of ground-disturbing activities, coupled with rain events, would be
reduced by implementing best management practices such as silt fencing
at site-specific research areas within the FRC.
No structures
or facilities would be constructed in the floodplain. Movement of
heavy equipment through the floodplain would be a temporary occurrence
and would not impact the capacity of the floodplain to store or carry
water. The negative effects to floodplain from the movement of heavy
equipment alone is expected to be negligible. To the extent practicable,
staging areas and access roads would be temporary, construction would
be limited to periods of low precipitation, and stabilization and
restoration of the affected areas would be initiated promptly. Wetlands
in association with the Columbia River occur on the banks of the Columbia
in proximity to the proposed contaminated area and background area.
These wetlands are small in scale and are generally associated with
the immediate bank of the Columbia River. Proposed FRC research would
not occur in proximity to the wetlands and would not impact them.
Human
health effects could potentially result from FRC worker exposure to
contaminated soil and groundwater, from occupational hazards associated
with site work such as well drilling and core sampling, and from hazards
associated with accidental releases of liquid chemicals. Radiological
doses to workers were bounded by evaluating a "bounding analysis"
scenario, in the absence of any existing data on worker doses for
this kind of work in the field. Workers were assumed to spill small
amounts of soil (5 grams per year) and groundwater (5 milliliters
per year) on themselves during the course of retrieving and processing
the core samples. To maximize the potential dose, it was further assumed
that the workers did not wash off the contamination, but actually
ingested it. For the soil ingestion pathway, the total dose (for all
radionuclides) is estimated to be less than 0.01 mrem/year, which
is ten thousand times less than the limit of 100 mrem/year allowed
for members of the public under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 835, Section 208. The groundwater ingestion pathway is three
times smaller, with a total dose of approximately 0.003 mrem/year.
To estimate the total potential risk to workers from this "bounding
analysis" exposure scenario, it is further assumed that the workers
were exposed during the entire life of the project, which is ten years.
The combined annual dose from both the soil and groundwater ingestion
pathways is 1.26E-02 mrem per year (9.47E-03 + 3.09E-03). Over the
ten-year lifetime of the project, the total dose is ten times that
amount, or 1.26E-01 mrem, which yields a lifetime risk of 6.28E-08,
or roughly six in one hundred million. There are no expected radiological
health risks to workers expected from work on the FRC.
Occupational
hazards and industrial accidents, such as those associated with well-drilling/sampling
and striking a subsurface structure during drilling, have been very
few during previous and similar work the at the Hanford Site. Existing
wells would be used to the maximum extent possible during NABIR field
work on the FRC, thus the amount of new well-drilling work would be
minimal. The potential for health effects from accidents on the FRC
is expected to be minimal. The expected low radiological doses and
the limited number of accidents during previous field work at the
Hanford Site provide a reasonable yardstick for the expectation of
minimal impacts to people and the environment during future NABIR
studies.
No
Action. Under the No Action alternative, there would be no
FRC at the Oak Ridge or Hanford sites. As a result, DOE would not
be able to conduct integrated field-based research and no intrusive
actions would be taken by the NABIR Program, resulting in no impacts
to the affected environment at Oak Ridge and Hanford.
Stakeholder Involvement
In January
2000, DOE provided the Federal, State, and local government agencies,
the local communities, and Tribes with the draft EA for a 30-day review.
There were no comments from the Tribes or community members and the
comments received from the Federal and State and local government
agencies were addressed in this final EA. Appendix B provides a list
of commentors, their comments, and the location within the EA where
each comment is addressed.