REPORT ON THE WASTE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL OPERATION AT
THE 100 AND 300 AREAS,
HANFORD PROJECT
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
United States Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon
November 1969
-------
REPORT ON THE WASTE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL OPERATION AT
THE 100 AND 300 AREAS,
HANFORD PROJECT
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
United States Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon
November 1969
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction . 1
A. Purpose of examination . 1
B. National Policy relating to pollution caused by the
operationofFederalfacilities 3
II. Recommendations 4
A. 300 Area 4
B. 100 Area . . 4
C. General. . ..... ..... ........ 4
III. 300 Area Observations 5
A. General 5
B. Retentionanddisposal 7
C. Contaminated waste system 8
D. Highieveiwastesystem .8
IV. lOOArea0bservations 10
A. General 10
B. N—Reactor area 10
C. K—Reactor area 11
V. Reduction in Effluent Radioactivity 13
VI. Conclusions 17
VII. References 21
VIII. Appendix 22
-------
REPORT ON THE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
OPERATIONS AT THE 100 AND 300-AREAS
HANFORD PROJECT, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
I. INTRODUCTION
The Hanford Project is a major facility of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) in south-central Washington extending over a 640-
square mile area adjacent to the Columbia River. The primary func-
tion of the Hanford Project is the production of plutonium from fission-
able uranium. After production in the reactor, the plutonium is
separated from the uranium and fission products in chemical sep-
aration plants. At Hanford, the reactor area is designated the 100
Area, the chemical separation area the 200 Area, and the uranium
fuel fabrication and laboratory area the 300 Area.
Purpose of Examination -
Executive Order 11288 states that the departments, agencies
and establishments of the Executive Branch of the Government shall
provide leadership in the nationwide effort to improve water quality
through preventions, control and abatement of water pollution from
Federal Government facilities and activities. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration has been directed to provide
technical assistance and advice to the heads of other departments,
agencies and establishments in connection with their duties and
responsibilities under this Order.
In May 1969, a four-man team from the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration met with officials of the AEC and their
-------
Page 2
contractors at Richiand, Washington to review chemical, radioactive,
and thermal waste treatment and disposal operations. Officials
from the Washington State Pollution Control Commission and the
Washington State Health Department also attended this meeting.
At the request of the AEC, discussions and tours were restricted
to operations of the laboratories, fuel fabrication facility
and reactor areas. The review and examination did not extend
to the chemical processing plants in the 200 Area where the
major part of the radioactive and chemical wastes from Hanford
are generated. A list of those in attendance and the agenda for
the May 13 and 14 meeting are given in Appendix A.
This was the second review and examination conducted at Hanford
subsequent to the signing of Executive Order 11288 on July 2, 1966.
The first examination, which was also restricted to the 100 and 300
Areas was conducted in November 1966.
One of the objectives of the 1969 examination was to evaluate
the AEC responses to recommendations made following the November
1966 examination.
-------
Page 3
NATIONAL POLICY RELATING TO
POLLUTION CAUSED BY THE OPERATION
OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
The purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is to
enhance the quality and value of our water resources and to estab-
lish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement
of water pollution. The policy for all Federal departments, agencies,
and establishments of the Executive Branch of Government was spelled
out in Exectuve Order 11288 “Prevention, control and abatement of
water pollution by Federal activities”. This policy states that
Federal establishments shall provide leadership in a nationwide
effort to improve water quality through prevention control and
abatement of water pollution.
In order to enhance or improve water quality, it is the
responsibility of each Federal activity to establish programs
for the improvement of each waste treatment operation that
contributes waste to the Nations water resources. These programs
should provide for the best possible treatment methods available
so as to enhance and improve water quality. In no event should
the operation of Federal Activities cause the further degradation
of any of our water resources.
-------
Page 4
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations of the FWPCA participants for the prevention
and control of water pollution at the 100 and 300 Areas are summarized
below. Supporting statements are given in the text of this report.
300-Area-Laboratory and Fuel Fabrication Area
1. The feasibility of constructing one or more shallow pro-
duction wells in the 300 area where high level radioactive wastes
are handled and processed should be considered as a safeguard for
the retrieval of any radioactive waste that is accidentally spilled
or leaked to the ground.
2. The piping for the 300-Area waste systems should be periodi-
cally pressure tested for early detection of leakage.
3. The source and extent of the ground-water pollution in the
300 Area should be investigated.
100-Area-Reactor Area
1. The AEC should initiate immediate plans for the design and
construction of adequate cooling facilities for the waste streams
from the KE, KW, and N reactors. An acceptable alternative would be
to initiate an immediate program for waste heat utilization.
2. Settled sludge and filter backwash from the K-reactor
water treatment plants should be discharged to a trench.
General
1. As part of the monitoring program, the source of the
antimony-122 in the Columbia River at Hanford should be investigated.
-------
Page 5
III. 300 AREA OBSERVATIONS
General
The 300-Area is the laboratory and fuel fabrication area located
adjacent to the Columbia River approximately 5 miles north of
Richiand. This area also contains the Plutonium Recycle Test Re-
actor (PRTR). The facilities and laboratories have been constructed
on a broad gravel plain that lies some 50 feet above the adjacent
Columbia River.
The AEC and their contractors provided the following flow
chart that depicts the water use and disposal in the 300-Area. This
does not include the water requirements for the PRTR.
IOk iv’a te ( elJs ie, 300At’ec&’)
A ou 2) OO O ?c pd
Re e 11 i on
L+_Io,000 SP :I
Conto r inatec3
Wo ste Sjs e’v
d
-------
Page 6
The PRTR has a separate water system that utilizes Columbia
River water for cooling: A schematic diagram of the water and wa tç
Contairinal ed
system is as follows.
T peo.4w eu
f to it
500 f I n
¶ iv ‘r
AEC reports which were obt%ined subsequent to the May 1969,
meeting on the status of ground water at Hanford (BNWL 984, 1047)
contain the following statement relating to ground-water quality in
the 300-Area: “If the Public Health Service drinking water limits
are used as a base for comparison with the concentrations of non-
radioactive contaminants, much of the ground water beneath the 300-
Area is above the recommended limits, especially for nitrate ion.”
No mention of ground-water pollution in the 300-Area was made
during the May 1969, meetings. From the location of the 300-Area
disposal ponds and influent quality data, these ponds are not the
likely source of the ground-water pollution. Additional information
-------
Page 7
should be obtained as to the extent and source of the water pollu-.
tion in the 300-Area.
Radioactive Waste Retention System and Disposal System
The retention system for radioactive wastes consists of four
50,000 gallon concrete basins. “Suspect” wastes are held in these
tanks for monitoring. If the waste radioactivity is greater than
5 x 10 5 c/ml, it is transferred to the 200-Area for disposal.
The percolation ponds for disposal of low level wastes are
located at the north end of the 300 Area immediately adjacent to the
Columbia River. They consist of two ponds, each having a capacity
of about 25,000,000 gallons. These ponds are used alternately with
operating periods of the order of 8 or 9 months for each pond. While
dry, the pond bottom is scarified to increase percolation rates.
Water from these ponds moves through the coarse alluvium to the
Columbia River. Influent flow to the pond is on the order of l½mgd
and it receives an average of approximately 15 to 20 days retention
prior to percolation to the river. The 1968 average chemical concentra-
tions of monthly samples collected at the percolation pond inlet and
the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards are as follows:
Chemical Concentrations (mg/i )
1962 Drinking Pond Influent
Water Standards Average
Chloride (Cl) 250 2.04
Copper (Cu) 1.0 0.024
Iron (Fe) 0.3 0.025
Nitrate (NO 3 ) 45 136
Sulfate (SO 4 ) 250 30
Hexavalent Chromium .05 0.047
-------
Page 8
Contaminated Waste System
Intermediate level radioactive waste is routed to the Contamin-
ated Waste System. This waste is coUected in a 15,000 gal. stain-
less steel tank and is subsequently transferred to six 8,000 gal.
stainless steel storage tanks. The stored waste is chemically
neutralized to reduce acidity and is transferred to the 200-Area
in 20,000 gallon capacity railroad tank cars. The waste is ultimately
processed in an evaporator. Long time storage is provided for the
evaporator concentrate and the condensate is discharged to the surface
pond.
Wastes going to the Contaminated Waste System originate from
nine buildings in the 300—Area and are transferred in an underground
pipe system to the various tanks and ultimately to the railroad
car loading facility. It was reported that the piping system is
not periodically pressure-checked for leakage and that if some leaks
were to develop, contaminated waste could leak to the ground without
being detected. Since dissolved materials can percolate to the
underlying water table, the AEC should develop and adopt a system
for periodically pressure checking the contaminated waste piping
system for leakage.
High Level Waste System
Approximately 3,000 gallons of very high level radioactive
liquid waste are transported to the 300-Area from the 200-Area each
month. This material which is used in isotope separation and research
in several of the laboratories, is transported by truck in 20 and 30
-------
Page 9
ton casks. After processing, the remaining high level waste is
returned to the 200-Area for long-time storage. The transportation,
handling and processing of this highly radioactive material in
proximity to the Columbia River requires special safeguards to
insure that none of this material can ever escape to the river.
The travel time for ground water moving from the 300-Area to
the River through the underlying gravel is a matter of days rather
than years as it is from the 200-Area. Should any of this highly
radioactive material escape to the ground in the 300-Area, it
may be physically impossible to construct the necessary retrievel
wells in time to prevent its movement to the river.
One safeguard that would prevent contaminated ground-water
movement to the river in case of an accidental leak or spill would be
the construction of a large capacity well or wells in the area where
the high level radioactive material is processed. The pumping of
such a well or wells would create a cone of depression which would
serve as a large funnel beneath the area for retrieving any waste
lost to the ground. The periodic testing of such safety wells
would also provide water samples that would be representative of a
large part of the ground-water body underlying the 300-Area. Testing
of these samples would provide an early warning system to changes
in ground-water quality and would indicate the occurrence of leaks.
-------
Page 10
IV. 100-AREA OBSERVATIONS
General
The 100-Area is located along the Columbia River some 30
miles northwest of Richiand, Washington. Three reactors are currently
in operation, KE, KW, and the dual-purpose N-Reactor.
Cooling water for all 3 reactors is pumped from the Columbia
River. The relatively old, single-purpose K-reactors utilize a
single, once-through cooling system. The cooling water makes one
pass through the reactors and is returned to the river following
a 20 minute retention period.
The N-reactor utilizes a recirculating, primary coolant system.
Cooling water from the reactor passes through heat exchangers where
steam is generated for transmission to the adjacent Washington
Public Power Supply System power plant. Spent steam and excess
steam is condensed in secondary heat exchangers and returned to the
reactor. The heated secondary cooling water is returned to the
Columbia River.
N-Reactor Area
Heated shield coolant and cooling water treatment wastes at
the N-Reactor are discharged directly to the Columbia River. Ad-
jacent to the reactor is a large crib that is used for the disposal
of “primary coolant bleed-off”, primary coolant spills, and other
low level radioactive wastes. The crib is a large excavated dis-
posal well, about ½ acre in area that has been partially filled
-------
Page 11
with boulders. The boulders tend to reduce the evaporation of the
waste discharged to the crib. For pe 13ods of high flow, there is
an overflow from the crib to a long open ditch. This ditch, like
the crib, discharges waste to the surficial gravel deposits that
are common to the area. It was reported that there are observation
wells in the vicinity of the crib and trench but information on the
degree of pollution of the ground water underlying the 100-Area was
not available at the time of the visit.
There are two outfall systems for heated secondary cooling
water, one from the excess steam “dump condensers” at the N-reactor
and one from the WPPSS power plant spent steam condensers. Neither
system provides for “waste heat treatment”.
K-Reactor Area
The two K reactors are designated KW for the West reactor and
KE for the East reactor. These are almost identical reactors
located immediately adjacent to each other. Each has its own water
intake, water treatment plant and river outfall but share a trench
ground disposal system for contaminated wastes.
Reactor cooling water and minor waste streams flow through a
circular detention basin prior to discharge to the river. There
are three such basins; one for each reactor and one standby. The
standby basin is kept empty to receive waste from either of the
other two tanks in case of a fuel element rupture that leaks radio-
active material to the cooling water. Detention time in these
-------
Page 12
basins is about 20 minutes. There is no other apparent use for
these basins and it would appear desirable to maintain all three
basins empty and on standby to receive contaminated waste. Such
an operating system would provide about 1 hour’s retention time in
case of fuel element rupture.
Under current operating practices, contaminated waste detected
in the first basin is diverted to the second basin and the overflow
is discharged to a mile-long ditch excavated in the permeable gravels
that border the river. The discharge of the contaminated waste to
this trench provides a time delay for radioactive decay and some
sorption of the waste prior to its inflow to the Columbia River.
Primary cooling water for the K-reactors is extensively treated
before use. This is accomplished in large water treatment plants
at each reactor. Additives include alum, sulfuric acid, polyacry-
limide, and sodium chromate. The water is floculated and suspended
materials are removed in a filter system. The filters are frequently
backwashed at discharge rates up to 6,000 gpm. The backwashing
waste and other waste from the water treatment plants are discharged
to the river. It would appear desirable for the AEC to take advantage
of their water treatment plants to enhance the quality of their
effluent. This could be easily accomplished by discharging the
treatment plant waste to a sump or trench in the gravels where all
the solids would be removed prior to its subsurface discharge to the
river.
-------
Page 13
V. REDUCTION IN EFFLUENT RADIOACTIVITY
The November 1966, examination resulted in three recommendations
to reduce the amount of radioactivity, being discharged to the
Columbia River. These recommendations included (1), the immediate
modification of the reactor cooling water treatment process to in-
clude the addition of sodium silicate on all single-pass reactors,
(2) a concentrated effort directed toward the refinement of a pro-
cess modificaiton which will reduce the effluent concentration of
zinc-65, (3) a full scale program to evaluate trench disposal as a
means of reducing the quantities of radioactivity and thermal energy
discharged to the Columbia River.
The purpose of this section is to discuss the AEC response
to these recommendations and efforts towards reduction of radioactive
and thermal wastes.
Since the 1966 examination of the Hanford Atomic Works, no
significant changes have been made in the operation of the single-
pass production reactors that would have reduced effluent radio-
activity. Similarly, disposal procedures to partially dissipate
the thermal energy of the cooling water discharges prior to mixing
in the Columbia River have not been instituted. Thus, on the basis
of effluent quality, the situation has remained “status quo”. How-
ever, the total quantities of radionuclides and thermal energy dis..
charged to the Columbia River have decreased as the result of reactor
shutdowns. At the close of 1966, five single-pass production reactors
-------
Page 14
(B, C, D, KE, and KW), the closed-cycle N reactor, and the plutonium
recycle test reactor (PRTR) were in operation. Since that time three
of the single-pass reactors have been taken out of operation: 0 reactor
in June 1967, B reactor in February 1968, and the C reactor early
in 1969. Sufficient time has not yet elapsed to define the total
impact of these shutdowns on environmental levels of radioactivity.
The Atomic Energy Commission has been responsive to the
recomendations that followed the 1966 meeting, but not in a decidedly
positive manner. As summarized below the recommendations have not
been implemented “per se’ although a 50% reduction in zinc-65 re-
leases has probably been accomplished through the reduction in
plutonium production.
(1) The use of sodium silicate treatment additive has not
been put into practice because of increased rear-face radiation at
the reactor. The increased dose-rate would require a longer down
time before reactor maintenance operations could commence. Apparently,
the increased down time would unduly hamper plant activities.
(2) No concentrated effort has been undertaken towards
reduction of effluent zinc-65 concentrations through process modi-
fication. Tables I and II show the downward trend in zinc-65 trans-
port rates and concentrations in the Columbia River due, to reductions
in plutonium production.
-------
Page 15
Table I
MAXIMUM TRANSPORT RATE OF ZINC-65 IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER
AT RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
Columbia River
Maximum Transport Peak Flow at
Rate Priest Rapids Dam
Year ( curies/day) Month Observed ( 103 cfs )
1965 150 May 330 (June)
1966 300 May 320 (June)
1967 600 June 470 (June)
1968 50 June 320 (June)
Table II
MAXIMUM ZINC-65 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER
ATRICHLAND, WASHINGTON, AND IN RICHLAND DRINKING WATER
Maximum Zinc-65 Concentration (pc/i)
Year Columbia River Drinking Water
1965 300 (March) 650 (June)
1966 200 (February) 700 (May)
1967 200 (March) 1000 (May)
1968 80 (March) Not reported
Note : The values were read from graphs and are to be taken as
approximate values.
-------
Page 16
(3) Trench disposal was tested in the D Area in 1967 and in
the C Area in 1967 and the first half of 1968. The D Area test
involved the application of 25,000 gpm (55 cfs) to a trench located
approximately 1,200 feet from the Columbia River with the following
results:
a. Ground water levels were increased with the one foot con-
tour (incremental increase) positioned at a radial distance of about
1.5 miles from the reactor and trench area.
b. Springs were opened along the river bank. Radiochemical
analyses of seepage samples indicated concentration reduction factors
of 100X for iodine-131, and the complete removal of zinc-65.
There does not appear to be any future plans for testing
trench disposal and/or using it for at least a fraction of the
effluent flows in the 100-K Area.
According to Dr. R. 6. Geler, Douglas-United Nuclear, research
activities intended to reduce effluent radioactivity will be continued
in the 100-K Area insofar as budget constraints allow. The probable
direction of this program in the immediate future and possible areas
of interest and investigation were not discussed.
Recent monitoring by the AEC has detected the presence of
antimony-122 in the Columbia River at Hanford. The source of this
radioactive isotope is unknown at this time.
-------
Page 17
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the information obtained
during the meeting at Hanford, May 13 and 14, wfth consideration
given to previous meetings and published documents.
1. Considering the probable radiation dose received by
residents of the Tn—City area, the estimated levels of exposure -
now and in the past - are well below the recommended radiation pro-
tection guides of the Federal Radiation Council. The FWPCA has never
taken issue with the conclusion that exposure levels were below ac-
ceptable levels. However, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration has urged the implementation of a positive action
program to reduce the levels of radioactivity in the separate effluents
from the single-pass production reactors. In other words, irrespective
of doses to which population groups are exposed, the liquid waste
management program should be geared to the best possible treatment
methods and techniques consistent with technological feasibility
and economic reason.
Although it is recognized that the ultimate goal in any situa-
tion involving the discharge of radioactive materials is the pro-
tection of the resident population from unnecessary or excessive
radiation exposure, estimates of “dose to people” should not be the
sole criterion for evaluating the adequacy and suitability of waste
treatment and disposal procedures. Evaluation on the basis of dose
is not entirely compatible with a policy calling for minimization,
-------
Page 18
particularly in those situations involving receiving waters which
offer large dilution capacity or are not used for drinking water.
To base treatment needs and discharge requirements on only main-
taining the levels of human exposure below acceptable or tolerable
limits would imply a policy of maximum use of the environment.
2. The practice of discharging untreated thermal wastes to
the Columbia River at Hanford has caused a great deal of intense
controversy over the severity and extent of adverse effects on the
anadromous fishery. Also, the thermal discharges have violated at
times, the temperature criteria of the Washington Interstate Water
Qualtiy Standards. And, finally, the discharge of untreated thermal
waste by the AEC contractors is in direct conflict with Sec. 11 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section 1(6) of Executive
Order 11288.
3. Since 1966, plutonium production activities at Hanford
Atomic Works have been significantly curtailed with resultant
decreases in the annual quantities of radioactive materials dis-
charged into the Columbia River. Quite possibly, the reductions in
radioactivity releases that were sought in the recommendations of
the 1966 meeting have occurred; albeit in an unexpected manner.
We would encourage Douglas-United Nuclear to continue their
research program for developing process modifications and/or new
methods to reduce the effluent activity of the single-pass reactors
which are still in operation. This program should concentrate on
changes which appear to have reasonable cost data from the outset.
-------
Page 19
4. Tritium and ruthenium-106 originating from the ground
disposal of liquid wastes from the 200 Area are probably entering
the Columbia River north of the 300 Area. However, the concentra-
tions and ground-water flow are apparently such that there is no
detectable change in Columbia River water quality attributable to
this source. Dr. R. F. Foster stated that the average annual dose
to a Richiand resident would be increased by a factor of two (pre-
sumably for only one year) if the total activity discharged to the
ground over the years was to enter the river as a concentrated
“slug” injection. Apparently, little information is available on
the disposal of chemical wastes in the 200 Area or the extent of
chemical pollution of the underlying ground water.
5. As part of the routine monitoring program, effort should
be made to determine whether the source of antimony-122 in the
Columbia River is wastes from the 100 or 300 Areas or the ground-
water regimen tributary to the river. Uncertainty as to the
origin of any radionuclide is objectionable when there is the pos-
sibility that the ground-water route is involved. Radioactive
materials contributed to a stream by ground-water effluent represents
a pollution source that is no longer under man’s control.
6. In those areas where the possibility of a spill of
either intermediate or high level liquid radwastes exists, caution
should be exercised to avoid the complete exhaustion of the ion-
exchange capacity of the earth materials beneath such areas by the
routine discharge of wastes directly to trenches and other earth-
-------
Page 20
surface structures. The ion-exchange capacity of the earth mater-
ials beneath these areas should be at least partially reserved as
insurance to retard radionuclides from an accidental spill or re-
tain them long enough for ultimate recovery to prevent disposal
to the environment from becoming a reality.
-------
Page 21.
REFERENCES
Essig, 1. H. & Steele, F. B. Hanford Wells BNWL-928 Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richiand, Washington, October 1968.
Essig, 1. H. Radiological Status of ground water beneath the
Hanford Project, July-December 1967 BNWL-835 Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richiand, Washington, June 1968.
Essig, 1. H. Radiological status of ground water beneath the Han-
ford Project, January-June, 1968 BNWL-984 Pacific North-
west Laboratory Richiand, Washington, January 1969.
Denham, D. H. Radiological Status of the ground water beneath the
Hanford Project, July-December 1968 BNWL-1047 Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richlarid, Washington, May 1969.
Foster, R. F., Junkins R. L. And Linderoth C. E. Waste Control at
the Hanford Plutonium production plant , Journ. Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, Vol. 33 No. 5, May 1961.
-------
APPENDIX A
ATTENDANCE AT THE
MAY 13 AND 14 MEETING
ON WATER POLLUTION,
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
-------
Page 23
ATTENDANCE MAY 13 & 14 MEETING-RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
Name Agency or Com _ pany Location
Art Brunstad AEC Richiand
E.F. Greenleaf AEC Washington, D. C.
P.G. Rhoades AEC Richiand
A.A. Schoeri AEC Washington, D. C.
R.B. St. John AEC Richland
M.W. Tiernan AEC Richland
J.P. Corley BNW Richiand
R.F. Foster BNW Richiand
R.B. Hall BNW Richiand
R.T. Jaske BNW Richland
E.E. Voiland BNW Richiand
J.W. Ballowe DUN Richiand
C.D. Corbit DUN Richiand
R.G. Geier DUN Richiand
Larry Reilly DUN Richland
Emil C. Jensen Wash. St. Health Olympia, Washington
Gene Asselstine WWPCC Olympia, Washington
George H. Hanson WWPCC Olympia, Washington
Roland E. Pine WWPCC Olympia, Washington
Milton W. Lammering FWPCA Cincinnati, Ohio
Jack E. Sceva FWPCA Portland, Oregon
Robert C. Scott FWPCA Cincinnati, Ohio
Robert W. Zeller FWPCA Portland, Oregon
1) AEC Atomic Energy Commission; BNW, Battelle Northwest; DUN,
Douglas United Nuclear; WWPCC, Washington Water Pollution
Control Commission; FWPCA, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
-------
APPENDIX B
MEETING OF
AGENDA-MAY 13 AND 14, 1969
-------
Page 25
AGENDA
MEETING WITH FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION,
WASHINGTON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION AND WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
May 13, 1969
8:15-8:30 Welcome and Introductions R.B. St. John
8:30-9:15 300 Area Laboratory Liquid Waste E.E. Voiland
Handling
9:15-10:00 300 Area Fuel Fabrication Liquid C.D. Corbit
Waste Handling
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-11:30 Reactor Effluent and Liquid Waste Dr. R.G. Geier
Handling
11:30-12:00 Environmental Program Dr. R.F. Foster
12:00-1:15 Lunch
1:15-2:00 Dose Estimates for 1968 and Trends J.P. Corley
2:00-2:45 Thermal Discharges J.W. Ballowe
2:45-3:00 Break
3:00-4:30 Impact of Heat on the River and Long R.T. Jaske
Range Predictions
May 14, 1969
7:40 Depart Bali Hi Motel for Area Tour
8:00 Arrive 300 Area
Tour PRTR Tour Guide-Voiland
340 Waste Handling
313 Building Tour Guide-Corbit
9:15 Depart 300 Area
9:45 Arrive 100-N Tour Guide-Geier
Tour Waste Handling Facilities
-------
Page 26
10:15 Depart 100-N
10:30 Arrive 100-K
Tour Reactor, Water Treatment Tour Guide-Geier
Facilities and Effluent Facilities
11:15 Depart 100-K
12:00 Arrive Federal Building
12:00—1:15 Lunch
1:15-4:30 Open Discussion Moderator-
M.W. Tiernan
------- |