EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

M 044
(JI
C)
DOE WASTE SITE SELECTION PROCESS
0644
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 1 4 1986
WMDIVISION
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN DECISION PROCESS SHOWN BY
FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE ANISOTROPY OF HANFORD EARTH MATERIALS
Persistent failure i the ticSSlon e making pran..... of the
DOE regartll ng nuclear waste is dan .... to o during at least the
past ten years. The fulurc t
is the iuntlamental
properties of earth materi al= evident from accidents
and
iii lea sn dispomal per;or at H nfartl and from absence of
2.3. 1x12 al ter nets l nu clear waste siteaselection investigations.
2 .
The DOE has not r ..1.I..d the fundamental ...d to select
rite sites in earth materials with the most uniform
la 1 properties di basal and lowest permeability to water flow. Non uniform
properties of Basalt, and sediments at Hanfortl have been ignored
and compared to none of the available alternate options. The
appears to hen an inability, unwillingness or failure at the
ticn e making level to incorporate into the decision making
process the geological expertise for cognize the physical
properties of the v availableearth materials and their
effects upon the h pr4.romance of the waste tlisposal to the land
and water quality-
. CA"L DUMPING AND SPI LL ING OF NUCLEAR WASTE
The result, as described in appendix V of the Draft Et6 and
in data presented by the Washington State Nurlear Waste board,
leaking tanks and contaminated soils and sedimentary ground water
aquifers at Hanford as fell ... i
.Oyer 52 million gall... of Solid tank wants
and over 27 million gallons of liquid
with ar 474 million curies
in 141bear
ain'l. well tanks (about '403 l eaking) and 20
double all tanks.
3 million cu. yd. It billion gal.) of
contaminatetl "over
Sail
With over 339,000 curies and 437 pounds of plutonium
In 36 ditches and ponds; 294 cribs, trench es , french
drains and 'unplanned releases' and 10 -reverse walla•
Which were used to pump plutaniuw^9-240,
straintilm-90 and cesium-1S! into the ground water.
. Th e 216-Z-9 trench raguired treatment due to concern
about 'criticality"! p. V 17-19
EXISTING DEFENSE WASTE EXCEEDS COMMERCIAL WASTE VOLUME
Over 622 of all high-level del .... ... te in the
country is dumped at Hanford In the above conditions.
Hanford 'dafen... ...is in tank. would fill about 4
repositories (at 70,000 yards each, with . co meralal
waste storage) not including contaminated sail and
water malert al a.
0644
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 1 4 1986
WM DIVISION
Existing --defense-- -sate at Hanford overehadoes the
need for a commercial repository because of the
w 2.3.1.3
great volume and fluid ch....car of the waste lcomparetle
• to the commercial lo- volume metal-clad solid waste.) e
The g i g' material unli., Hanford 1. Cat b" k
Basalt ­11 -- d b and flood corike.ts. The
of
highly variable water flow properties 2.1.1
the basal_ and ...client
make it n n-h....one... and u uitable for a tll sposal or
repositor y ssite.
Just me flow of water through swiss Cheese would be
difficult to predict, a- the Columbia 111.1 Basalt and
the Overlying river channel sediments have many
Channels and v cations in their structure and flow
properties. Rock units with the properties a
diaper are more appropriate to waste disposal. with
the ability toprovic. absorption no containment-
Many preferable geological snits .1 at with homogeneous
rocks properties, law grountl water flow rates and law value for
farming or other lantl. use Granite, shale, volcanic tuff and
salt p a ys been r cognizetl candidate matials, er ..salt zed
stream sediment, o e cent at Hanfortl, have not been proposed as a
Suitable rock material for hunt... waste disposal. Why,
therefore, is the DOE_ continuin g to propose Hanford as a
disposal Flt.?
3.3.1.1
The DEIS proposed disposal of tank waste in repository
appears to be impassible due to the vo3 ume of tlefense wastes.
The it ern at¢ n place" tlisposal, by c co the tanks
contaminated and
soils with 5 feet of fine Sail SO the only barrier
to water infiltration, Is unlikel y to stay in place as
functional barrier due to into and range ftres on the site and 3.5.1.100
probable climate change. The c.mparaii ve costs pr .... too in the
DEIS or. only for immediate transport and disposal casts "in no
3.2.6.7
consideration of long term risks or land use 1055¢5. No
ustification or alternate Options are given, for assuming
°tle dices ti on" of • the Han Portl ell. far r aft time.
23.2 .S t.
Because of theseriousness of the existing "defense" waste
problems at Hartford and the certainly of a level or
radioactive and chemical contamination of the water supply of
the Columbia River valley (If•
the law of gravity persists), the 3.3.2. 1
People of Oregon can not support the proposed 5 fact fine-soil
reap. It 15 too much to impose the m.,.rity of all nuclear
rite in the country lot. the fresh water aquifers Of the
worth west without clean up. Almost any state .4 the art
hazardous waste tlisposal requirements would far exceed the plans
presented in this DEIS for these most serious of M1azartlous risk
materials.
'