Reducing the Risks of High-Level Radioactive Wastes at Hanford

82 Alvarez
National Laboratory, PNNL-13901, May 2002, Interim closure involves “placing tanks
that no longer contain any retrievable waste and are considered to be into a safe, stable,
and minimum maintenance condition until final closure could occur. This state of prefinal
closure (otherwise known as interim closure, operational closure, etc.) was termed
tank lay-up.”
120. DOE/ORP-2002-03, p. 10.18) “Notably, borehole logging in SX Tank Farm revealed
137Cs at depths of 40 meters (130 ft), significantly deeper than predicted by current
models. Further investigations, including the drilling of two additional wells, confirmed
the presence of migrated cesium in the formation. The report issued by the RPP Vadose
Zone Expert Panel concluded that cesium migration was poorly understood and that
insufficient data were available to validate migration models ... Furthermore, the vadose
zone cleanup schedule for the 200 Areas could be delayed if the mobility status of
deeply distributed contaminants is unknown or inadequately characterized well in advance.
For example, if it is eventually determined that retrieval of TRU-contaminated
soil down to 40 m or more beneath Plutonium Finishing Plant cribs is required, the
cleanup schedule could be greatly impacted by excavation and handling costs that could
approach 1 billion dollars or more. Similar excavation requirements for leaking SSTs
could drive the costs of cleanup higher by several orders of magnitude. The sooner this
issue is resolved, the sooner more accurate technical, financial, and schedule forecasts
can be made”
121. DOE/ORP-2002-03, pp. 10.4, 10.6).
122. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, P.L. 93-438, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, (U.S.C.
Title 42, Sec. 5801 et seq.).
123. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, P.L. 97-425, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2201 (Title 42,
Sec. 10101 et seq.).
124. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, P.L. 100-203, title V, subtitle
A, Sec. 5001-5065, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330-227 to 1330-255. According to NRC
(NUREG-1747, p. 215.). “Under the present system, unless the NRC determines that
this LAW/incidental waste is not HLW, the waste must be disposed of as HLW in a
federal repository.”
125. NRC 1997 Approval Letter.
126. NUREG/CR-5751, p. 1–18, “The daughters of Sr-90 and Cs-137 –Y-90 and Ba-137m
respectively – are at or near a state of transient equilibrium (i.e. equal radioactivity)
with their parents and should be included in the inventory.”
127. WHC-SD-WM-TI-699 Rev. 2 1996) pp. ES vi, vii.
128. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter to: Mr. Jackson Kinzer, Office of Tank
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, From:
Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, June 9,
1997. (Hereafter known as NRC 1997 Approval Letter.)
129. WHC-SD-WM-TI-699.
130. Ibid.
131. IMAP.
132. IMAP, Tank wastes scheduled for onsite disposal using “supplemental technologies”
are found in IMAP (Accelerated Retrieval and Interim Closure Schedule Table 4.3,
and Potentially Low Curie Low-Activity Waste Tanks Table 4.6). This estimate excludes
wastes in tanks C-104,106,107,S-105,106, and 112 scheduled to go to the Waste Treatment
Plant, and, wastes in tanks identified as potential transuranic wastes and, thus
is based on disposition of wastes in 62 SSTs.