[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hanford cleanup strategy
Radsafers,
As a Rad-con person at the the Hanford site I believe that your basis
for argument may in fact be somewhat flawed although I can agree with
some of your points.
The work in environmental remediation taking place should be of
concern to the public. Based upon the data I have seen while working
a the various "dig sites" I feel it behooves us to remove as much of
the contaminated material as is fiscally and technically feasible.
With the close proximity to the Columbia river of the various cribs
and trenches the potential for spread into the river is high. As
someone person put it this place is a giant sand and rock garden s o
migration through the "soil" is "rapid". To say that it is a waste of
time, money, and exposure to attemp to bring the contamination levels
down to comply with EPA and Washington state Dept. of Ecology
standards is incorrect.
The last plan that I heard actually was to use the large PU extraction
facilities to store waste and entomb them in place, but what do you
do with the 9 production reactors that are deteriorating as we speak?
The work that is progressing now not only provides a cost effective
plan, but also allows them to be placed in a storage mode the
alleviates the potential for a major release of radionuclides now
contained in the reactor buildings. To say that this is all a waste
of time shows a lack of foresight and a somewhat narrow point of view.
Of course one could say that my opinion is biased by the fact that I
am currently employed by a Hanford contractor, but as a resident of
this area (by choice not force) the "clean-up" of this site concerns
me and my family. To walk away is as big a "crime" as the way that
business was conducted here in the past.
Jim Rodgers
RCT
Hanford site
Note: The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.