EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

F
f..
WC 053
3 .3.5.3
RECEIVED DOE-RL
- g - JUL I d 1986 a d
WM DIVISION
Option 2. Immobilization of the waste burial grounds by filling with
a cement-like mixture. The area Is to be covered with a
raInflow barrier as previously described.
Option 3. There is not enough Information to choose now. We need a
better understanding of the trade-offs and more confidence
In the options before we decide.
Oregon's Position
Oregon recommends Option 3. The wastes should be removed and treated
if reasonably achievable. These wastes pose the same hazard as
past-1970 contaminated waste and should be treated the same. If this
goal cannot be achieved, more confidence in stabilizing the waste and
confirmation of barrier protection must be accomplished. Again, this
should be completed within five years.
These wastes have been buried for many years Spending more time to
research proper retrieval and disposal methods will not Increase the
the hazard In the short-term.
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 14 1986
WM DIVISION
Congressional Initiatives to direct US DOE to comply with current federal O
and state requirements on waste handling and disposal. A schedule of L 2 . 2
compliance should be drawn up and enforced. Congress must provide
- funding to achieve clean-up of these wastes as well. This funding should
be provided before any of these actions are required by Congress '.
2 . 2 . 9
Forty years of defense materials p roduction has resulted in an enormous
eminent of radioactive wastes at Hanford. So much waste poses difficult
and tomplex retrieval, processing. and dis p osal p roblems. Funding has
been ample for the production of the defense materials but not for waste
disposal. Oregon believes. that funding policy is not acceptable.
Congress requires the commercial nuclear industry to concurrently set
aside funds for the disposal of radioactive wastes as they are
generated. USOOE also should be subject. to this requirement. Plutonium
production. should not be allowed without concurrently providing funding
to dispose of generated wastes.
Governor Atiyeh will be workingwith Oregon's Congressional delegation to
see that these actions are carried out.
V
W
Strontium and Cesium wastes. are double encapsulated in stainless steel
cylinders. These wastes are stored in water basins.
Option 1. The capsules could continue to be stored in water basins
until 1995. Capsules could then be packaged and shipped to
a future geologic repository.
Option 2. Capsules could continue to be stored In water basins until
2010. Beginning in 2010, the capsules could be placed in a
dry storage vault. A protective barrier as described
earlier could be constructed over the site In the years
2013 to 2015.
Oregon's Position
NOTE: This paper will be the. executive summary for the State of Oregon's
technical and public comments on the Draft EIS. These formal comments
will be submitted to US WE on or before August 9. 1986.
3.3.5.3
Oregon recommends Option 1. Many of the capsules have been leased to
Industry for sterilization facilities and process control. The
'remainder's stored in water pools and Is under constant attention.
There is no Immediate hazard from short-term storage of this waste.
But, these capsules are highly radloactivite and will remain so for
thousands of years. Eventual geologic disposal will provide safe
long-tern disposal.
2 .3.1.13
3.1.6.1
Other Concerns
Oregon also has serious concerns about chemical waste and low level
radioactive wastes from defense activities. USDOE's proposal does not
deal effectivel y with these tSlm.S. But, they are potentially serious
risks to public health and safety and the environment. Oregon Supports
LFIX B:mi
293% (OI1F2)