EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

a
234 234
4.2.55
3.5.6.7
11. On Me X•90, "12,320 m 3" should be I2,320 m3/sec.
== oar
12. On pages R.90 - X92, Hooding is analyzed only for the Columbia River and changes
N no level No mention is made of flooding on Me Yakima River or on Cold
Creek The potential far flesh . flooding an Cold Creek has bean identified as a
potential area for additional study in no repository siting program by the HIM.
This is due to the potential for flooding of the southeastern corner of the 200 West
area by the Cold Creek PMF.
COMMENTS ON APPENDIX U
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Of TIM FUTURE GROUNDWATER
TRANSPORT OF CHEMICAL RELEASED
The make-up of the chemical wastes which were disposed In the orms, trenches, ponds.
French draMS and Make is not well understood. As pointed out in Nis appendix,
substantial quantities of nitrate compounds and various salts we within the waste. In
3.1.6.1
4.2.55
3.5.6.5
13. On page R.91, a bible or figure is needed to , Show the peak flows for all of the
floods discussed in the report.
14. On page X.93, the cumulative impacts of lava flow or mudffow Ocher). damming of
the Columbia River Gorge and subsequent flooding of the Hanford was are not
eval.ted These types of dems have occurred drirg Me late Pleistocene
addition, metals such as chromium and mercury and organic compounds are available for
.lute transport from the wrote. le the EIS, these compounds, we considered secondary
to the radiological wastes disposed at Me site. For the long-term, these pollutants may
be just . important because these do not decay with time. It he important that the
news of these chemical waste be fully understood mid that Me sources, we
characterized in detail
according to work by Crandall end Vallonce of the USGS..
The fohow!,g comments refer to Appendb, th
Ol
N
F-s
3.5.6.32
15. en page R.94 - R.96, the sabuncity models consider only "hbtwhot observations
and instrument recordings" and "over a 100-year period from the year 2009." There
Is no citation of any work on Me largest earthquake in Me region In Me last 35,000
years (maximum credible event) or, even the last 10,000 years. There Is also no
estimate of the largest earthquake to be expected 10,00 years Into the future.
1. Maps would be helpful Illustrating the sources of Me chemical contaminants.
2. Mgrs should be drawn showing Me predicted diatribuU. of Me various chemical
eontaminan s with time after final burial
16. On page R.95, "criticality" is mentioned, but It is not discussed in way detail. IT
is of sufficient concern to be mentioned in Me DEM, it is of sufficient concern to
3. IDustratlons would be useful in defining terms such a what happens when Rd
(distribution c.f.) = 0 an opposed to Ed." 1093
3.4.3.8
4.2.55
the reader to be Moraugbly disclosed end not summarily dismissed TTis is
partieulary true since Me AEC was concerned anough about criticality to Mike
emargenV measures in prevent a plutonium waste bronco at Hanford from
becoming critical no credibility of DOE is Me only Ming that suffers from such
statements am criticality having "na credible bail,"
14. On page N.9 7, the reference for Stone, Thorp, Gifford, and H IMI, has an dale.
4. M Nis appendix, all analytical projimtiarm were based Onconame.tive selimattocs
which were considered "worst case" transport times for various chemical
parameters. A "conservative ion" is an Ion Met moves seasonally at the snore
velocity of Me groundwater. Be... of the unknowns (asp: the paste make-ti and
volume . available for transport) at Me site, no statement Met Me chemical salutes
will travel In the groundwater w1M little or Ro reardfltion may Or may not be true,
but W state this is Me most conservative approach is wrong. Time is a relative
parameter, Me Wager A chemical species remelra-Ill the groundwater Vote, the
.more potential for heron. It is important M know If any ealmduian of Atli , chemical
species occurs M the groundwater system and bow long it will take. to flush the
system: Prior to sassing Me Impact of various disposal systems, It is important M
understand the .If,eleardn, capacity of the aquifer.
2?
28