EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

¢ {k
6 0
Adi 2
24N
-19- -30-
3.1.8.9
For instance, a ¢ F ill of --ml Cbounded gallons n£ highly —di ... I've
This may explain why the WE is so reluctant to remove the `single-
sludge each slurry the all well floor of a vitrification plant could Mve
ebe11` tank waatee at ...lend. But this ch..Fe not he cons leered an envi[on-
a mgni£icant impact be ¢ubaequent operation and—let enanre of the plant.
pally acceptable rationale for their permanent in-place disposal.
One impact of this and other. spills 18 to make the processing areas very
QA
V
radioactive. This would make entry into the process aremuch more dangerous.
sequentially, all maintenance, repair and replacement requiring entry
by personnel would involve higher exposures and work under more hazardous
conditions. This could seriously impair the maintainability and bent. she
operability of the plant.
There is another class of events that could seriously affect operation
of a vitrification plant that EOE/E15 -0013 has not taken into account. This
relates to the Ability to produce consistently the kind of feed solution.
and slurries that will . r woad far vitrification, without ¢.. 2.mly
imoairinc the integrity of the 'Tank Farm' operation.
For instance, water and but chemicals will be Added to the sludge and
the mixture is then agitated to produce a slurry-Feed for the glass matter.
As noted, each a process has been suspected at S.p to cause failures of
meveral task cooling coils o As laa.t one mcceaion. Failure of a large
numbee of booting coil. in the new tanks weld seriously impair their
ability to held high-level wastes. The alder tank. already have oany
leaking coil¢, rendering them unfit for holding hot sludge. Most of the
older task¢ also have leaks in the primary c t vock.l. which are
currently plugged with salt which has crystellizad on the cracks. Thus
the transfer of wn9se free older tanks to Never ones and the preparation
of feedstock for the vitrification. plant could lead to serious problems,
including leaks of—dicactivit, and impairment of the `Tank Fars" o{rerations
Grouting
In order for WE to implement its long-term defense waste management
plan of presently disposing of was ¢ groiomly Oaeignamd as `high-level•
in ahellow Initialpits, it Aad Co adopt a Mw, waste management standard,
diet w ¢ tailored to set this particular policy decision. Thus, .
promulgated W. Order 5830 which m,numdee the previous standard. 1.
..unl Ehapter 05111 at in 1973. Although this standard he. ben justified
as being Named oa the 'beet .—liable bi gg er,- it he.. not been subject to
independent evaluation. Nor has the underlying scientific rationale base
..jest to an span peer re i.w. Moreover. this raw. standard is certainly
not based on scientific data derived free operating experience of DOE nuclear
wait. programs. Nor am they established to beet. the 35 millirem/year
radiation dose standard set for commercial Nuclear power plants, but rather
M the 500 millirem/year limit.
Without question, WE Order 5830 will allow for aig.ifi ..t increases
in the radiological and ..In burden of soil. at WE site.. Grouting of
nuclear and toxic wastes for .oil disposal will he A major contributor. In
ibis regard, ApFendix 0 0£ the —at IS i. seriously a.fisi.st in presenting
data shows volso.s, a .bone of radioactive and non-radioactive waste.
vn the grout and leach rates. on page D.S, con£1i11no figures are given
an to the grouted waste volumes.
3.1.8.1
RECEIVED DOE-RL
SEP 16 1986 62•
WM DIVISION
On the average to la he bout five grout
ampaign. per year, each lasting ato m1 mono. RECEIVED DDE-'° '
xhnut 1,800 m3 of waste feed -old be mixed with
SEP 1 610 pulz
WM DIVISION