Appendix D

LAND-USE ANALYSIS SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS

Chapter 6 presents the land-use sensitivity analysis for the five highest-cost sites: Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and Savannah River Site. The tables in Chapter 6 depict results that are summaries of the individual site results. The lower-level site results that support those summarized results are presented here for interested readers.

• Site Maps, Acreage, and Findings Summaries - Included in this appendix are two versions of each site's Base Case map showing end-state conditions. One map employs land-use standards to depict how clean sites will be (Maximum Allowable Use) and a contrasting version shows the site's assumed uses (Likely Use). Tables provide acreage by land-use standard and cost totals for the alternative scenarios and the Base Case. In addition, significant findings are included for each site.
• Site-Specific Constraints - Following the maps and summary information is a discussion of constraints at sites which limit the Department's consideration of future uses. A summary of contraints at sites is also included.

The methodology to conduct this analysis is detailed in Appendix C. Discussions of complex-wide implications are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.

FRAMING THE RESULTS

The land-use analysis was undertaken to produce information for national-level policy discussions. Most sites have conducted extensive studies of land-use alternatives for their individual sites, which have involved site stakeholders and regulators. This policy-level analysis cannot substitute for the community-level analysis needed to make decisions. The factors that affect land-use decisions have been summarized, and the relative prioritization of those factors, developed by site communities, has been captured here.

The site-specific results are presented only as background information to the analysis in Chapter 6. Although care was taken to capture site-specific conditions correctly, some inaccuracies may have resulted from summarizing and generalizing the data necessary for the national analysis.

Those seeking information concerning individual site land-use alternatives and analyses should consult the future-use points of contact at the individual sites. A listing of those representatives and source documents relating to site future use are provided at the end of this appendix. Appendix H is a listing of site reading rooms that provide access to such reports and documents.

Hanford

LAND-USE SUMMARY

The majority of land on the Hanford Site currently meets Residential use standards and, of the remaining land, the Department actively uses only 3,300 hectares (8,150 acres) for industrial and storage/disposal activities. The storage of plutonium onsite is a major determinant of future land use because of buffer area and emergency planning requirements. In addition, the disposal and waste management activities in the 200 Area require an appropriate buffer area. As a result, the anticipated land use at the site is different from the maximum allowable use.

The site's Base Case cleanup strategies are aggressive in the 100 Area, assuming the complete dismantlement of the six reactors, removal of the reactor cores, and extensive excavation of contaminated soils. In contrast, the 200 Area remains Controlled Access for storage/disposal and waste management activities in all alternative cases. These two factors limit the range of variability in alternative land- use scenarios and their cleanup costs.

*Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE GREEN FIELDS

In this most aggressive cleanup scenario, almost 101,000 hectares (250,000 acres) could meet Residential use standards. However, since the disposal activities remain in the 200 Area, the associated buffer requirements continue to apply. Therefore, despite a significant increase in land meeting residential standards, the anticipated uses in this case do not vary significantly from the Base Case. In addition, the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case results in the loss of industrial infrastructure in the 300 and 400 areas.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

LAND-USE SUMMARY

The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is the largest and most remote of the five sites included in the analysis. Under the Base Case, 99 percent of the land area meets the land-use standard for Residential use, as only small areas of the site were used for production or storage/disposal activities. The contaminated areas and facilities present only limited opportunities for alternative land uses. In addition, the site's Base Case decommissioning assumptions are aggressive, assuming "clean closure" and removal of all contaminated material. As a result, the Base Case costs approximate the Modified and Maximum Feasible Green Fields costs. The only major change in land use occurs in the Iron Fence Case, in which a large area of approximately 77,600 hectares (192,000 acres) containing unexploded ordnance is not fully remediated.

* Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation.

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE GREEN FIELDS

This most aggressive case for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory results in only a small increase in cost from the Base Case. Some of the highest cost projects at the site (Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Tanks, Radioactive Waste Management Complex) have no other reasonable end state, and their costs remain constant across the alternative cases. Under this scenario, only an additional 160 hectares (400 acres) of land are added to the Residential use category.

While the site is essentially clean, its remote location and environmental setting limit any interest in reuse or redevelopment. In addition, State laws prohibiting new wells in the Snake River Plain Aquifer preclude any possibility of Residential or Agricultural use.

Oak Ridge Reservation

LAND-USE SUMMARY

The Oak Ridge Reservation is the smaller of the two sites located in environmental settings with high water tables. While the majority of the site is uncontaminated, the compact nature of the site and the three major production areas limit use of that land to Open Space. In addition, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 Plant have established continuing missions that limit their variability in all cases except Maximum Feasible Green Fields. A significant portion of cost at the site is allocated to monitoring and addressing the migration of contamination from numerous areas of buried waste. These costs remain constant for all cases except for Maximum Feasible Green Fields.

* Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation.

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE GREEN FIELDS

The Oak Ridge Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario is the most aggressive cleanup proposed in the analysis. While the additional acreage meeting Residential land-use standards is not large, the task of excavating, treating and disposing large areas of buried waste at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-12 Plant, and K-25 Plant, and large volumes of contaminated sediment from White Oak Lake result in a 520 percent increase in life-cycle cost. The majority of this cost increase is from treatment and disposal of previously buried waste. As in the other Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenarios, the existing industrial infrastructure is removed, and potentially sensitive habitat is disturbed.

Under this scenario, the entire site is clean enough for Residential use and there is local interest in residential development of the site, especially along the banks of the Clinch River. Private sector interest in industrial development on the site may be limited by the removal of existing infrastructure.

Rocky Flats

LAND-USE SUMMARY

The Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site represents the smallest 2,500 hectares (6,216 acres) of the five sites discussed in this analysis. The majority of land is uncontaminated and meets Residential land-use standards, but is currently limited to use as a buffer area for the plutonium stored at the site. This buffer area contains large areas of sensitive tall grass prairie habitat as well as Preble's jumping field mouse habitat. The core area of the site is the focus of cleanup efforts and measures only 155 hectares (384 acres). Under all cases, except for Maximum Feasible Green Fields, this core area attains Industrial land-use standards to allow for potential environmental technology development activities.

* Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation.

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE GREEN FIELDS

The Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario for this site envisions the complete removal of all contaminated soil, building materials, and previously buried waste. Under this scenario, the entire site meets Residential use standards. The excavation of buried waste and the disposal of all remediation waste at an offsite location results in a significant (50 percent) increase in life-cycle cost. In addition, cleanup activities remove all existing industrial infrastructure and disturb/damage tall grass prairie and jumping mouse habitat.

While land at the site would be clean enough to support Residential uses, the extensive private ownership of mineral rights may preclude full residential development. Some of the land might eventually be dedicated to residences, wildlife management areas, and mining activities.

Savannah River Site

LAND-USE SUMMARY

The Savannah River Site is the larger of the two sites (the other being Oak Ridge Reservation) located in humid environmental settings. The majority of the surface area at the site is uncontaminated. However, contaminated surface waters and sediment (streams south of production areas, L Lake, Par Pond) limit most of the remainder of the site to Open Space use. The area of the site north of the production areas is not affected by surface or ground-water contamination and therefore meets the land-use standard for Agricultural use.

The Base Case remediation strategy assumptions at this site are quite aggressive and, as a result, the Base Case costs at Savannah River Site approach those for the Recreational scenario. In addition, the end state of the five reactors and two chemical processing buildings is held constant, thereby limiting the variability of costs associated with alternative land-use cases.

* Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation.

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE GREEN FIELDS

The Maximum Feasible Green Fields Case for the Savannah River Site is limited by the possible end state for the five reactors, the chemical processing buildings and the Storage/Disposal Areas in the E, F, and H Areas. All these areas remain Controlled Access for storage and disposal because more aggressive remediation or decommissioning strategies pose the possibility of spreading more contamination to ground and surface water. Excavation, treatment, and removal of contaminated sediments in streambeds and Carolina Bay wetlands brings the majority of the site to Residential standards, with the corresponding disturbance of those sensitive habitats. Industrial infrastructure is removed and the potential for private sector reuse is reduced. The interest for residential development is limited, and given the environmental setting, it is likely that most of land would be used for resource or wildlife management areas.

SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS ON FUTURE LAND USE

The site-specific summaries presented above discussed land use primarily in terms of "maximum allowable use" (i.e., the standards that exist currently or could be achieved). While such uses can be achieved in theory, other factors such as legal commitments and ongoing mission needs may affect whether such uses are likely to be achieved. To illustrate how site-specific constraints may affect future use, the following table compares, for the Base Case, maximum allowable future land use with the most likely future land use at the five highest-cost sites.

This comparison indicates that nearly 400,000 hectares (1 million acres) (85 percent of the total land area) at these sites currently meet or could be remediated to meet Residential or Agricultural use standards. However, none of these acres are likely to be used for agriculture or residences, given site-specific constraints. Instead, these areas are likely to be used for Open Space, Recreational, or Industrial purposes. At the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, for example, all of the land with maximum allowable use designated as Residential is most likely to be used for Open Space or Industrial purposes.

The following paragraphs provide examples of how several key types of site-specfic constraints may affect future land use.

Legal Commitments - At some sites, future land-use and technology strategy has been determined through the regulatory process (e.g., a signed Record of Decision). A host of other legal commitments exist. Local laws can place restrictions on access to ground water (e.g., the Snake River Plain Aquifer in Idaho). All these legal mechanisms limit land uses considered for federally controlled sites or place land-use decisionmaking in the hands of other parties. Legal commitments limit future-use options for approximately 292,000 hectares (720,000 acres) (77 percent) of the uncontaminated land at the five highest-cost Environmental Management sites.

Technical Constraints - Some contamination problems (e.g., ground water contaminated with tritium) have no viable removal strategies compatible with Agricultural or Residential land uses. Containment technologies and restrictions on ground-water use are the only means to manage such problems. Other contamination problems present unacceptably high risks to workers using conventional construction-type removal technologies and must be remediated by use of remote or robotic technologies. Technical constraints restrict future-use options for approximately 38,300 hectares (95,000 acres) (10 percent) of the uncontaminated land and 17,400 hectares (43,000 acres) (20 percent) of the contaminated land at the five highest-cost Environmental Management sites.

Safeguarding of Natural, Historical and Cultural Resources - The buffer areas at several Environmental Management sites support endangered species (e.g., red-cockaded woodpeckers at the Savannah River Site) or ecologically unique habitats (e.g., the tall grass prairie at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site). Certain buildings are part of the nation's historical heritage due to their role in developing nuclear weapons and energy and have been designated National Historic Landmarks. These resources limit future use for approximately 56,500 hectares (140,000 acres) of uncontaminated land and some contaminated land at the five highest-cost sites.

Site Safety Considerations - Site safety considerations require that activities be limited to land for ongoing missions including research and storage/disposal of waste. In addition to land for housing these activities, in the past large areas of land have been set aside to provide buffer zones for those activities involving dangerous materials and weapons production. Future site missions, including long-term storage of nuclear weapons material, will determine whether those buffer zones can be contracted or must be maintained. Current projected land uses include only minimal buffers around disposal areas and do not include buffers for future research or storage missions. Approximately 2,600 hectares (6,500 acres) (3 percent) of contaminated land are restricted for storage, disposal and buffer purposes at the five highest-cost Environmental Management sites.

Practical Constraints - Given that permanent disposal of waste and continued research missions are planned for portions of four of the five sites analyzed, there are practical limitations to the future use of land adjacent to storage/disposal or research facilities. Spatial relationships are also significant. Parcels of clean land effectively surrounded by industrial or waste storage/disposal areas cannot be effectively used for many activities. Spatial and other practical constraints limit future-use options for approximately 20,000 hectares (50,000 acres) (5 percent) of uncontaminated land at the five sites analyzed.

Although a comprehensive listing would be too extensive here, a summary of the key factors constraining land use at the five highest-cost sites is included in the following table to provide a greater understanding of individual site constraints.

Key Constraints at Five Highest-Cost Sites

Future Use Points of Contact and Reference List

Argonne National Laboratory - East

Tim Crawford (708) 252-2436

Argonne National Laboratory - East, Laboratory Integrated Facilities Plan, FY 94.

Document No. JOSTD-106-G-T006

FY 1993 - Site Development Plan.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Joseph Eng (516) 334-7982

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Future Land Use Plan. August 31, 1995

The Impact of Brookhaven National Laboratory on the Long Island Economy. June 1995.

1992 Site Development Plan, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

John Kasprowicz (708) 252-2691

FY 1993 Site Development Plan, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

Fernald Environmental Management Project

Sue Peterman (513) 648-3179

Gary Stegner (513) 648-3153

Fernald Citizens Task Force, Recommendations on Remediation Levels, Waste Disposition, Priorities and Future Use. July 1995

Fernald Citizens Task Force Tool Box. October 1994.

Hanford Site

Paul Krupin (509) 372-1112

The Future for Hanford: Uses and Cleanup, the Final Report of the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group. December 1992.

Comprehensive Land Use Plan For the Hanford Site, DRAFT. (to be released June 1996)

Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement, DRAFT. (To be released June 1996)

Hanford Site Development Plan. May 1993. DOE/RL-93-19

The Hanford Strategic Plan, DRAFT, 1996.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Dan Shirley (208) 526-9905

Long-Term Land Use Future Scenarios for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. August 1995.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Site Development Plan, 1994. DOE/ID-10390.

DRAFT, 1995, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan.

Kansas City Plant

Phil Keary (816) 997-7288

FY 1994, Kansas City Plant, Site Development Plan.

Kansas City Area Operations Plan. January 1996.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Rick D'Arienzo (510) 422-9247

Shaun Kesterson (510) 637-1702

FY 1995 Site Development Plan. UCRL-LR-110253-95.

FY 1995 Technical Site Information. AR-1183655-94

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Pete Crowley (505) 665-8764

Juan Griego (505) 665-6439

Bill Pelzer (505) 667-7756

Site Development Plan, Annual Update 1993, Los Alamos National Laboratory. LALP-93-27.

Mound Plant

Tim Sullivan (513) 865-3220

Mound Plant, Site Development Plan, FY 1996.

Nevada Test Site

Tim Killen (702) 295-1288

Nevada Site Development Plan, September 21, 1994.

Nevada Test Site, DRAFT, Environmental Impact Statement. January 1996.

Oak Ridge Reservation

Gary Bodenstein (423) 576-9429

Dave Kendal (423) 576-9359

Future Land Use Process for Oak Ridge Operations, A Report to the U.S. Department of Energy on the Recommended Future Use of the Oak Ridge Reservation, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. December 1995.

Oak Ridge Reservation, Site Development Plan. June 1994. ES/EN/SFP-22.

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Carlos Alvarado (502) 441-6804

John Morgan (502) 441-5069

Future Land Use Process for Oak Ridge Operations, A Report to the U.S. Department of Energy on the Recommended Future Uses of the Oak Ridge Reservation, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. December 1995.

DRAFT, Site Management Plan (to be released mid-1996)

Pantex Plant

Gordon Gabert (806) 477-3163

Sharon Buell (806) 477-4041

Pantex Plant, FY 1994, Site Development Plan, PLN14.

Pantex Plant Future Use Recommendations. December 1995.

FY 1997 Pantex Plant Capital Asset Management Process (CAMP) Report.

Pinellas Plant

David Ingle (813) 514-8943

FY 1996 Community Transition Plan, Pinellas Plant Community Reuse Organization. October 1995.

FY 1994, Pinellas Plant Construction Plan and Site Development Plan. March 1994. MMSC-FAC-94110,UC-700

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Bob Barnett (616) 897-2700

Sandy Childers (614) 897-2336

John Sheppard (614) 897-5510

Future Land Use Process for Oak Ridge Operations, A Report to the U.S. Department of Energy on the Recommended Future Uses of the Oak Ridge Reservation, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. December 1995.

Site Development Plan - Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment Plant. July 1992.

POEF-3001.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Laura Johnston (303) 966-4755

Frazer Lockhart (303) 966-7846

Future Site Use Recommendations, Future Site Use Working Group. July 1995.

Site Development Plan, FY 1993, Rocky Flats Plant.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Accelerated Site Action Plan, DRAFT, 1995.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site "Vision," DRAFT. November 1995.

Sandia National Laboratories - Albuquerque

Deborah Garcia (505) 845-5460

Karen Talbot-Rohde (505) 881-7180

Handbook: Baseline For Future Use Options. June 1995.

Sandia National Laboratory Site Development Plan FY 1995, Sites Planning Department, 1995.

1993 Environmental Report. SAND94-1293 UC-630. 1994.

Workbook: Future Use Management Area 1, Sector P, The Withdrawn Area. October 1995.

Workbook: Future Use Management Area 2, Sectors 2E and 2G, Areas 1 - V. September 1995.

Workbook: Future Use Management Area 3,4,5, and 6, Sector 3B Ross Aviation, Inc.; Sector 4C, Allied Signal Federal Management and Technology, New Mexico; Sector 5M, Mazano Administrative Storage Area; Sector 6A Tijeras Arroyo and Arroyo Del Coyote. January 1996.

Workbook: Future Use Management Area 7, Sector D Igloo Area and Test Sites; Sector F DOE Buffer Zone; Sector H Training Areas; Sector I

Test Sites; Sector K Thunder Range; Sector L Pendulum Site Area; Sector N Coyote Test Area; Sector Q Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute. March 1996.

Sandia National Laboratories - California

Deborah Garcia (505) 845-5460

FY 1995 Site Development Plan.

Savannah River Site

Virginia Gardner (803) 725-5752

Gail Jernigan (803) 725-4535

Cris Van Horn (803) 725-5313

Stakeholder-Preferred Options for SRS Land and Facilities. January 1996.

Land-Use Baseline Report, Savannah River Site. June 1995. WSRC-TR-95-0276.

Savannah River Site, 1993, Predecisional Draft, Site Development Plan. WSRC-RP-93-477.

DRAFT - FY95 Site Development Plan for the Savannah River Site.

Chapter -1- / -2- / -3- / -4- / -5- / -6- / -7- / -8-

Appendix -A2- / -B- / -C- / -D- / -E1- / -E2- / -F- / -G- / -H- / Glossary